Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Oct 1996

Vol. 149 No. 1

Control of Horses Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill gives effect to a commitment in the Government of Renewal programme to introduce legislation to control wandering horses in urban areas. The commitment arises from an undesirable and mainly urban phenomenon which has been apparent for some time. The problem has now reached such a stage that it can no longer be ignored and must be the subject of resolute action without further delay. This Bill is the first necessary step in that regard.

Members are aware that straying horses are creating problems in many towns and cities, causing damage to property, traffic accidents and injury to persons, particularly children. Indeed, roads add to the topicality of the issue — with the construction of a major motorway on the perimeter of Dublin city in an area where there is a high concentration of uncontrolled horses, there is potential for horrendous carnage as a result of collisions between unattended horses and vehicles travelling at speed.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that horses are not a source of danger to life and limb. My concern is to secure a responsible, welfare-friendly maintenance and ownership of horses. I accept that horse ownership is part of the traditional fabric of city life and that it has the support and participation of a broad crosssection of people in urban communities. Horses have long been and remain a fact of economic life for many urban dwellers, including jarveys and carters. The Bill is a balanced approach to responsible horse ownership in an urban environment.

The issues involved in the proposed legislation transcend the traditional functions of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Hence, when I was assigned special responsibility for progressing the legislation, I decided to set up a consultative committee consisting of representatives from my Department and from the Departments of Justice and the Environment, South Dublin County Council, Dublin Corporation and the Garda Síochána. I also embarked on a more general process of consultation and, as a result, I met a wide variety of bodies and individuals concerned about the topic of straying horses.

Representations and observations were received from a wide variety of interested parties, including other Departments, local authorities, public representatives, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, MEAS, representatives of the travelling community, the Automobile Association, the Irish Farmers Association, the Dublin Horse Owners' Association, the Joint Animal Aid Committee and concerned individuals on the general issue of horse control.

A central point established by the consultative committee in regard to the problem of wandering horses was that, while the Animals Act, 1985, contained powers for local authorities and the Garda Síochána to impound any animal found wandering in a public place, these powers needed to be strengthened and supplemented by new legislation to deal with the current problem. This basic stance of the committee and the results of its general deliberations combined with the observations from the other interested parties resulted in this Bill. In addition, I had formal discussions on this issue with the Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy in April 1996. A number of useful suggestions were made during the meeting and I was glad to include them in the Bill.

In drafting the Bill I also took account of the Control of Horses Bill, which was introduced in 1990 by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, during Private Members' Business and also a Private Members' Bill introduced in March 1996 by Deputy Brendan Kenneally. The Bills were a most valuable source of ideas to me and my officials in drafting this legislation.

This is a reflection of the degree of consensus on the need for legislation to curtail the escalating problem of wandering horses in urban areas. It should be stated that nothing in this Bill should create obstacles to local authorities or others who might wish to make or support local arrangements or projects involving the enjoyment of horses by young people. I would argue that this legislation will in many respects provide a more stable and supportive environment in which such projects can be organised and responsible ownership of horses encouraged.

Central to the Bill is the identification of horses and their owners. In advance of the enactment of the Bill, I have set up a committee to advise on a preferred system of identification of horses. There are various forms of identification, such as freeze branding, hoof and lip tattooing and microchip implanting, which need to be examined to ensure that the identification regulations to be made under section 28 incorporate the optimum form of marking for the horses to be controlled. The identification system will operate in conjunction with the licensing requirement under section 18 to facilitate trace-back from horse to owner. With this preparatory work advanced before enactment of the Bill, I envisage minimum delays in introducing the necessary regulations.

I wish to refer to the monthly horse fair in Smithfield market. Calls have been made for its abolition and I have given full consideration to the matter. I have concluded that the issue is far too complex for treatment in a Bill of this type, which concentrates on effective control rather than sweeping legislative change. The general topic of markets in this country needs to receive the comprehensive attention of a body such as the Law Reform Commission before a decision is taken on the question of abolition.

My Department operates market legislation going back to the last century which is virtually defunct and, on the face of it, should be repealed. However, the point is that piecemeal abolition of such legislation or Smithfield market itself is not the way forward. At this juncture the priority is to run Smithfield on a fully regulated and supervised basis. That position, in conjunction with the ban on the sale of horses to minors under section 41, will largely deal with the adverse aspects of Smithfield. To assist local authorities with their management of marts and fairs, section 44 has been inserted to allow local authorities introduce by-laws for improved control and management of these events.

Judging by representations received and the Private Members' Bills, there is an expectation that the Bill should deal comprehensively with a range of detail in relation to the welfare of horses. I took the view that this is unnecessary and I decided that the penalty provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, should undergo major recasting to include penalties for conviction on indictment. Hence, section 46 of the Bill provides that the maximum penalties under section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, will be, on summary conviction, a fine of £1,500 and/or six months imprisonment, and on conviction on indictment, a fine of £10,000 and/or two years imprisonment.

This provision seeks to address a limitation of the existing section 1(1) in that it contains only minor penalties on summary conviction. The table accompanying section 46 shows subsection (1) following insertion of the new penalties. I consider that the new provision is sufficient to deal with cases of cruelty to all animals, including horses. In proposing this new deterrence against acts of cruelty and in restating by table the relevant provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, I am putting horse owners and others on notice that any acts of cruelty against horses or indeed any animal will bring them face to face with the full rigours of a strengthened law of protection.

In response to the many representations received advocating disposal by the local authority of a horse where it has been seized repeatedly, I introduced section 39 of the Bill on Report Stage in the other House. This section provides for the disposal of a horse which has been detained on three or more occasions within a 12 month period where the horse is not under adequate control or is not identifiable. I believe this provision will encourage greater responsibility among horse owners and will deter ownership of a horse by negligent owners who are indifferent to the safety and wellbeing of the general public, motorists and indeed their own animals.

On Report Stage in the other House I also tabled an amendment inserting section 44 (2) (c) 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 I accordingly requested the parliamentary draftsman to provide the legal formulation for what I had in mind. This will enable local authorities to specify how people should keep their horses so as not to cause a nuisance. It is a necessary amendment which will strengthen the effectiveness of the legislation.

The Bill includes provisions which will result in charges on the horse owning communities, mainly in urban areas. Section 22, for example, provides for the making of regulations by the Minister prescribing the fee payable for a horse licence. Section 11 makes provision for the fees to be paid for inspection of registers to be kept by the local authorities, and section 38 makes provision for by-laws laying down the fees to be paid to the local authorities by the owners or keepers of horses in respect of horses detained. Because of such fees, I considered it desirable to have the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Business and Services notified about the Bill as the committee would be understandably anxious to ensure that the legislation in its implementation did not adversely affect small business.

The Bill proposes that the costs to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in the administration of the legislation shall be met, to the extent sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, out of money provided by the Oireachtas. While there are a number of financial provisions in the Bill, such as licence fees and fees for inspection of registers, whereby revenue will accrue to local authorities, this revenue may not be adequate to cover the costs of local authorities in employing additional staff and fully discharging their responsibilities under the legislation. For this reason the Bill provides that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make grants towards the expenses of a local authority incurred under the legislation. The precise staffing and other resources required will be finalised between the Departments of Finance and Agriculture, Food and Forestry in the context of Estimate and budget discussions.

The central provision in the Bill for the control of wandering horses in mainly urban areas is the declaration, by means of local authority by-laws, of control areas where a horse may not be kept without a licence. These areas will be declared by by-laws made by the local authorities under section 17, which empowers a local authority to declare any area within its functional area to be a control area where horses must be controlled by licence in order to prevent them from causing annoyance, damage, injury or nuisance.

A particular advantage of control areas declared by by-law is that, where there is an intrusion of an urban horse problem into the nearby rural hinterland, the by-laws may extend the control provisions to the rural area. Another advantage is that the control provisions of the Bill may be introduced on a staged or a pilot basis whereby there can be a concentration of resources on local authorities where the horse problem is acute and whereby local authorities with a minimal horse problem may defer implementation. Provision is also included under section 17 for ministerial intervention if a local authority with a horse problem is not being assisted by an adjacent local authority where the problem straddles the functional areas of both local authorities.

Other key provisions are the issuing of licences to horse owners in control areas subject to compliance with conditions to be set out in by-laws, disqualification from keeping a horse or from obtaining a licence, a ban on the sale of horses to minors under the age of 16 years, the seizure, detention and disposal of stray, unlicensed or unidentifiable horses or horses causing a nuisance or posing a danger, criminal liability for injury or damage caused by horses, powers of enforcement for authorised persons and members of the Garda Síochána and powers of arrest and the issue of search warrants. Penalties on conviction of offences under the Bill are also provided.

I would now like to deal section by section with the other main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 contains definitions. The definition of disposal of a horse includes selling, giving away or destruction. A stray horse is defined as a horse apparently wandering at large, lost or unaccompanied, whether tethered or untethered, by any person apparently in charge of it in a public place or on any premises without the owner's or occupier's consent. Section 3 provides for the appointment of persons and specific organisations as authorised persons by the local authorities to exercise the functions conferred on them by the Act.

Section 4 empowers a member of the Garda Síochána to arrest without warrant persons suspected of having committed certain offences under the Act. These offences include failure to remove an unlicensed horse from a public place or a control area, failure to give name and address to an authorised person of the local authority or the Garda Síochána where the commission of an offence under the Act is suspected, failure to desist from dangerous use of a horse, from infringing by-laws relating to horse control and welfare, or from having a horse in an area from which it is excluded, obstruction of an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána in the exercise of their duties, failure to adhere to by-laws relating to the control and welfare of horses and keeping, having or riding a horse in an exclusion area.

Section 6 provides that maximum penalties for offences under the Act, other than offences under section 43, will be a fine of £1,500 and/or six months imprisonment. For an offence under section 43 dealing with criminal liability the maximum penalties will be a fine of £1,500 and/or six months imprisonment on summary conviction and a fine of £10,000 and/or two years imprisonment on conviction on indictment. The summary fines are payable to the local authority which prosecuted the offence.

Section 7 provides that on conviction of certain offences, a person may, in addition to the penalty imposed, be disqualified from keeping a horse for such period as the court sees fit including a period equal to the life of the person concerned. Section 8 empowers the court to order the forfeiture of a horse to a local authority on conviction of an offence where the welfare of the animal so demands. The local authority may then seize and detain the horse as empowered by the court and dispose of it as it thinks fit.

Section 10 allows the imposition of an on the spot fine of £50, variable by ministerial regulation, for a range of offences under the legislation such as failure to licence a horse kept in a control area, failure to inform the local authority in relation to the disposal or change of ownership of a horse, failure to produce a horse licence for inspection by the local authority or the Garda Síochána, failure to remove an unlicensed horse from a public place or control area, failure to comply with by-laws and failure to keep a horse out of an exclusion area or to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer or member of the Garda Síochána that a horse be removed from an exclusion area.

Section 12 deals with regulations which may be made by the Minister. The Minister is empowered to make regulations prescribing the amount of the on the spot fine under section 10; persons exempt from the requirement to have a horse licence under section 19; and the means of identification of horses kept in control areas under section 28.

Section 18 provides that a horse owner who keeps a horse or has it kept for him in a control area must hold a horse licence granted by the local authority. It also provides that a nonowner cannot have control or charge of an unlicensed horse in a control area. Pound keepers and veterinary surgeons in the exercise of their services and other designated persons are exempted from the licensing requirement.

Section 12 exempts certain horses kept in control areas from the licensing requirement. Examples of such exempted horses are those kept by the local authority, the Garda Síochána or the Minister for Defence, horses being treated by a veterinary surgeon on premises other than the premises where the horses are kept, and foals kept with their dam or foster mother. It also provides for exemption, as specified in by-laws, for such occasions as equestrian sports events, agricultural shows, parades, etc.

Section 20 empowers a local authority to grant a horse licence to the owner of a horse entitling the owner to keep the horse in a control area. The licence shall be in respect of a particular horse specified in the licence. Provision is made for the amendment, revocation or suspension of the licence if the holder is in breach of the Act or the conditions of a licence or has already had a licence amended, revoked or suspended. The local authority may not grant a horse licence to certain categories including persons under 16 years of age or persons disqualified from keeping a horse under section 7. Local authorities may exchange information with one another about horse licences. A local authority may enter into arrangements with another local authority for the granting of horse licences.

Section 22 sets out the procedure for applying for a horse licence. The application shall be to the local authority and shall include the submission of a prescribed fee as specified by Ministerial regulation. An application unaccompanied by the fee shall be invalid. Section 23 sets out a procedure for appeals against a decision by a local authority to refuse to grant a horse licence or to amend, revoke or suspend a horse licence. Where the local authority notifies an applicant for a horse licence or a licence holder of such decision, the aggrieved person may make representations within 14 days of the notification. The applicant or holder may in turn appeal against such decision to the judge of the District Court. A decision of the District Court on an appeal 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.

Section 24 requires each local authority to maintain a register of horse licences granted by it. The register must contain information such as an identification reference and description of the horse; the name and address of the horse owner or, if the horse is kept by a person other than the owner, the name and address of the keeper and the place where the horse is kept. Section 25 requires that where the holder of a horse licence disposes of a horse he or she must notify the local authority about the disposal within 14 days of disposal and must surrender the licence to the authority. Where ownership of the horse has changed, the name and address of the new owner. where known, must be given to the local authority and the authority must record these particulars in the register maintained under section 24.

Section 26 provides that an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána may request a person whom they suspect is the owner of a horse kept in a control area to state whether such owner has a licence for the horse. It is also provided that the authorised person or the Garda may request the holder of a licence to produce it for inspection within ten days of the request. Section 27 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to require a person in control or charge of an unlicensed or unexempted horse in a public place or control area to remove the horse immediately from the public place or control area. Section 28 empowers the Minister to make regulations for the identification of horses kept in control areas. Section 29 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to inspect and examine any horse. It is also a requirement of this section that the person in charge or control of the horse shall give the authorised person or the garda any reasonable assistance they may request for the purposes of the inspection or examination.

Section 30 obliges any person who keeps or has charge or control of a horse, or the owner or any person in charge of a premises where a horse is found, to give, when requested, the name and address, if known, of the owner of the horse to an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána. Section 31 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to request their name and address from a person whom the authorised person or garda suspects is committing or has committed an offence. Section 32 provides that an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána may direct a person to desist from offending against the provisions of section 43 or against by-laws made under section 44 or 45, that is, to desist from dangerous use of a horse, from infringing by-laws relating to horse control and welfare, or from having a horse in an area from which it is excluded.

Section 33 provides that where an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána suspects that an offence is being committed or a horse is being ill-treated in any premises or vehicle, the authorised person or member may enter such premises or vehicle and may there or in any other place, and with the assistance of other persons or equipment, search for any horse or document and may take extracts or copies from the document. The authorised person or the garda may not enter a dwelling without a search warrant authorising such entry. Section 34 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue search warrants to a named member of the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary by force, and within one month to exercise on the premises named in the warrant any of the powers conferred on a member of the Garda Síochána under the Act.

Section 35 makes it an offence to obstruct or impede the authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána in the exercise of their functions under the Act. Section 36 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to seize and detain any horse which the authorised person or member suspects to be a stray horse, a horse not under adequate control, a horse causing a nuisance or posing a danger to persons or property, a horse being kept in a control area without a licence, a horse not capable of being identified, or a horse being kept or ridden in an exclusion area. A person who without lawful authority removes a horse from a place of detention while it is being detained shall be guilty of an offence. Section 37 empowers the local authority in whose functional area the horse was found or the superintendent of the Garda Síochána to attach an identification mark or device to a horse which has been detained under section 36.

Section 38 empowers the local authority or the superintendent to continue to detain a horse for the purposes of court proceedings or for disposal by the local authority. By-laws made under this section in relation to a horse detained under section 36 may deal inter alia with the notices to be given or displayed in connection with the detention, the fees to be paid by the owner or keeper of the horse detained, and the disposal of the horse. If the owner or keeper of the horse is known, the disposal shall take place if he or she fails to pay fees, to produce a horse licence or to remove the horse from detention. The local authority or the superintendent are empowered to enter into any arrangements with any person, including a pound keeper, in respect of the acceptance, detention, disposal and destruction of horses detained under section 36.

Section 39 empowers a local authority or a Garda superintendent to dispose of a horse which has been detained on three or more occasions, where the horse has not been under adequate control. The section also provides the owner or keeper of the horse with a process of representation to the local authority or Garda superintendent and a right of appeal to a judge of the District Court. Section 40 requires every local authority to maintain a register of horses seized and detained in its functional area which come into its possession. Every superintendent is required to maintain a register of horses seized and detained by the Garda Síochána. The registers must contain particulars such as an identification reference, a description of the horse, the date of seizure and detention, the manner in which the horse is dealt with, the place of detention, and details of the person reclaiming the horse.

Section 41 makes it an offence to sell or attempt to sell a horse to a person under the age of 16 years. Section 42 is a necessary amendment of section 24 of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965, to obviate conflict between the prohibition against the sale of animals as pets to a person under the age of 12 years and section 41 of the present Bill. The table accompanying section 42 sets out the provision in section 24 of the Act of 1965 following insertion of the amendment. Section 43 attaches criminal liability to the owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who wilfully or recklessly permits a horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to cause injury to a person or damage to property, or who wilfully or recklessly causes a horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to injure a person or damage property.

Section 44 empowers local authorities to make by-laws for the control and welfare of horses in the whole or part of its functional area. A local authority may specify the manner in which a horse is to be kept under control in a public or other place, including a market or fair, so as to prevent injury or nuisance; the manner in which a horse is to be kept in any place, including a market or fair; 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; the manner in which a horse is to be kept in any place, including a market or fair and 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.

Section 45 empowers a local authority to prohibit by by-law the driving, keeping or riding of a horse in an area where the horse is causing or is likely to cause a nuisance, injury or damage. An authorised officer of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána may require a person whom they suspect is contravening any by-law made under this section to remove the horse immediately from the area to which the prohibition applies.

These are the salient features of the Bill. I would like to avail of this opportunity to thank Members of Dáil Éireann and the organisations and individuals who contributed to its preparation. I already indicated that we engaged in a wide ranging consultation process in formulating the terms of the Bill. There is a broad consensus on what we are trying to achieve and I hope it will have the full support of the House.

Politicians from all parties made worthwhile contributions to the Bill. I listened carefully to them at all Stages and I was willing to take on board suggestions and proposals made. After Report Stage in the Dáil there was general acceptance that I was open to accepting advice on the Bill. We have put together comprehensive legislation on this technical subject. Much time has been put into this by my officials, the parliamentary draftsman and by members of the Opposition who tabled Private Members' Bills and gave advice during this process. I hope the same spirit of co-operation will be present in this House and that we will pass this Bill as soon as possible so we can implement it in the estates where there is a serious problem.

I will listen carefully to Members' contributions and will be prepared to consider favourably any constructive proposals which would improve the measures and which are appropriate to the legislation. I look forward to an open, comprehensive and constructive discussion on the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the Minister for introducing what is long overdue legislation. I welcome the structure and content of the Bill which addresses many of the problems in this area. Ireland has a fine tradition of horse breeding, horse keeping and horsemanship. The problem of horses in urban areas — this applies to rural areas too — particularly the fringes of towns, is a sad aberration of the great Irish tradition of keeping horses and needs to be tidied up.

When we talk about the control of horses in urban areas certain images spring to mind — for example, the movie "Into the West" in which beautiful horses stroll in and out of the Ballymun flats and urban cowboys chase across fields strewn with the debris of burnt out cars. In parts of Dublin a culture has grown up around the modern urban cowboy and the horse. One does not want to quench the great Irish romantic spirit in this regard but serious issues must be addressed. If we do this in an efficient rather than a heavy handed way and solve the relevant problems, we will have succeeded. Nobody wants to prevent a person owning and enjoying a horse. However, we want the keeping of horses to be at the highest standards.

The flip side of the coin is the cruelty and abuse of horses. Nobody is satisfied that the present arrangements are adequate to ensure horses are properly kept and treated. Members with constituencies where this problem arises will have seen a thirsty horse on a hot summer's day, a hungry horse in winter or a horse tied to a lamp post with two legs tied together. Nobody wants the great Irish tradition of the keeping of horses to be denigrated, so legislation is essential.

The excellent structure of this Bill has resulted from the efforts of many people. It is right we should be able to make a disqualification order against someone from keeping a horse. Members of local authorities and the Garda Síochána know that certain people have abused horses and they should not be allowed to keep horses. There should be a forfeiture clause where somebody neglecting a horse or not complying with the provisions in the Bill will forfeit the horse. It is right that local authorities should be able to make by-laws which should apply to other animals.

The making of control areas by local authorities or, where they refuse, by the Minister is an important provision. There should be a control area in the Bluebell estate in my area. There is a considerable problem with wandering and stray horses in Bluebell. At a meeting there last week a mother said she turned her back for a few minutes on her children playing in the front garden and when she turned around there was an enormous horse there which could have harmed them. The Minister should be vigilant in respect of certain areas. Primarily, it is up to a local authority to provide a control area but if it is not as quick as it should be, the Minister should be involved in assessing whether a control area is needed.

It appears that the implementation costs are to be met out of the fees which will accrue from the licensing and registration of the horses. It is quite obvious that unless a large licence fee is charged there will not be sufficient funds available. I imagine Exchequer funding will be necessary in the early stages to support local authorities in ensuring the proper control of horses. As I said at the outset, it should not be impossible for an ordinary person to own a horse but if the licence fee were prohibitively high, that would be the case.

I am very disappointed that there are no provisions relating to cruelty. Section 29 relates to the inspection of horses and section 36 states:

(1) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána may seize and detain any horse that the person or member has reason to suspect is—

(a) a stray horse, or

(b) causing a nuisance, or

(c) not under adequate control, or

(d) posing a danger to persons or property, or

(e) being kept in a control area, without a horse licence in respect of it , or

(f) not identifiable or capable of identification..., or

(g) in or being kept or ridden or driven in an area contrary to any bye-laws made under section 45.

Cruelty should be grounds for seizure and I do not see why it could not be added to that section as paragraph (h). It may be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.

The Animals Act, 1985.

I am talking about this Bill.

Section 46.

We will go into that in greater detail on Committee Stage but the cruelty aspect should be stitched a little tighter into the Bill.

I note that a horse can be disposed of, and "dispose of" is defined in the Bill in terms of selling, dealing, transferring or destroying which, I presume, means killing and subsequent burial, burning, etc. However, where it is a living creature, there should be an onus on a local authority to try to sell it or give it to someone first and it is not clear from the Bill that this is so. Disposal in terms of killing should be a last resort. It should be clearly stated in the Bill that if a horse is seized or forfeited, it should have the chance to be bought or transferred to another willing owner, animal charity or compound where possible.

Why are foals and newly born animals exempt from licences in control areas? Many people might use that as an excuse for not licensing animals. Is there not an argument for saying that every horse in a control area, including foals, should be licensed or is that too heavy handed?

From the moment of conception.

We will stay with the Bill.

We will stick with the control of horses as opposed to the control of the Labour Party although we could well justify regulations on the latter.

The Senator is becoming a wandering horse.

We will stick with the Control of Horses Bill, Senator Mulcahy.

It is no exaggeration to say that some of the people who keep horses in these areas have vivid imaginations and they have a good way with words much of the time. If they are able to argue that the horse does not need a licence because it is just a foal or has just been born, such animals could be subjected to cruelty or kept it bad conditions.

I want to address the very serious issue of criminal liability because people have been injured and property has been damaged. Under the dogs Act, the doctrine of strict liability applies in the case of a dog bite. If one was bitten by a dog under the old law before the dogs Act, before one could recover damages one had to prove that the dog was of a vicious tendency.

It depends on from what party the dog came.

Assuming it was not Mother Machree's dog.

Following that Act, a doctrine of strict liability came into being. In other words, if one's dog bit a person, one was liable to damages even if until then it was the most gorgeous puppy on earth.

I accept this is more appropriate to Committee Stage but it is quite an important point. The wording of section 43 would allow many people to escape because it puts the test in the following way:

(1) The owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who wilfully or recklessly permits the horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to cause injury to a person or damage to any property shall be guilty of an offence.

There is a strong case to be made for changing that to "negligently". In other words, to bring down the burden of proof that the State would need to secure a conviction under that section. If one must show that somebody wilfully or recklessly did something, it is more than to show that he or she was negligent and just did not care.

Our message should be that people should care about their horses. Many horses in urban areas in Dublin are kept in unacceptable conditions. In one or two housing estates in my area, which I shall not name, several horses are kept in very small garages. We do not know for how long they are there each day or how they are being treated. That is not good enough. It is cruel and raises an important point with regard to the criminal aspect of this issue.

There should be a very high burden of proof on those who allow their horses to wander or stray on to housing estates causing injuries to show that they regularly go out of their way to ensure that their animals are properly controlled. I ask that the burden of proof for criminal liability should be lessened in section 43. As the Minister of State is aware, I am very particular about these matters and most people would escape liability because the burden of proof is too great.

I welcome the Bill which is excellent legislation. It will go a great way toward dealing with a problem that must be addressed. I outlined some of the problems with the Bill and my party will table amendments on Committee Stage. However, we will be constructive at all Stages. We hope the Bill passes through the House speedily and that it becomes law before horses suffer further cruelty or more people are injured.

I propose to share time with Senator Belton.

The Senator cannot do so at this time.

One learns something new every day. Senator Mulcahy's intervention was interesting and useful. However, I must inform him that section 44 clearly specifies the conditions under which horses must be kept under the new law. He provided an example of a housing estate where horses are kept in garages, which will not be acceptable when the Bill becomes law.

Is Senator Hayes referring to section 44 or 46?

Section 44, under which local authorities may make by-laws that "specify the manner and conditions in which a horse is to be kept (including the stabling, feeding and watering of the horse)". It is apparent that the intention of the Bill in that regard is to specify clearly the conditions in which a horse may be kept.

During my short time as a Member of this House, I have discovered that legislation is sometimes remote from, and does not affect, people's daily lives. This is an aspect of law which affects everyone's daily life in my constituency. There is a major problem in urban Dublin, particularly in the west and south-west of the city, with regard to wandering and stray horses. In 1990, the present Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, introduced a Private Members' Bill in connection with this issue and Deputy Kenneally introduced a similar Bill at a later stage. Through cross-party support we have reached a point of consensus on the need for this welcome legislation.

I stated that politics are sometimes remote because when one attends meetings of residents' associations or meets constituents in the street one is often asked what can be done about this problem. We can do very little until a body of law is enacted. Therefore, it is important that we enact this legislation with care, precision and speed. For too long, people in my constituency have been afflicted by this problem. Speed is of the essence in pushing this Bill through the House.

Without exception, this legislation, when enacted, will be the most important for my constituency during the lifetime of this Parliament. The problem of wild horses roaming around our housing estates has been there too long. Under this legislation, we will finally have the power to remove thousands of horses from urban life. The legislation is overdue and it will have a dramatic effect on the lives of vast numbers of people who live in the suburbs.

I take this opportunity to formally congratulate the many groups and individuals who have brought us to our present position. Local authorities, particularly in the Dublin area, which work on the ground and have long been aware of the problems caused by wild horses. At last we have legislation which will devolve power to local authorities in order that the problem can be alleviated. I also thank the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which deserves special merit and praise for its work in this area and for its dedication to the welfare of animals in this city. Without its efforts, hundreds of horses would have perished. For many years, the ISPCA requested this legislation. Its enactment into law will be a testimony to its trojan efforts to safeguard the well being of horses in Dublin and elsewhere. I also congratulate the many community and residents' associations which have been dealing with this problem at the coalface.

Deserving of particular mention is my colleague the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, for his complete dedication to the task of placing this legislation on the Statute Book following a seven year debate. The Minister of State is perhaps better known for destroying Dublin GAA teams in the 1970s but his reputation will finally be rekindled in the city. He will be remembered as the person who introduced this legislation. The Minister of State attended a meeting in my constituency a number of months ago where he heard the concerns of the people of Tallaght. From that meeting, he drew a large measure of his dedication to ensure that the legislation will be passed as soon as possible.

To many who live outside the areas worst affected by this problem, the issue of wild horses is sometimes seen as comical. The image of modern day "Tontos" riding bareback on stallions as they roam through housing estates is often regarded as a source of amusement by people who are not subjected to the problem. Let us make no mistake; the presence of over 3,000 horses in the Dublin area has had a dramatic effect on the quality of life of many thousands of people in the city and the problem has been allowed to fester. Outside the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, various local authorities, local gardaí and very few State agencies were prepared to tackle the problem in the past. It is within this vacuum that the residents of my constituency, which contains many sections of Tallaght and Clondalkin, and other areas of the city have watched the State wash its hands of the problem.

Horses do not have a place in the urban setting. Apart from the obvious dangers connected with such large animals roaming the urban landscape, it is important to point out that the way of life in Dublin is not conducive to horses. We are frequently informed that horses are part and parcel of Dublin and that to remove them would take from the city's culture and atmosphere. We no longer live in the Dublin of the 1930s and 1940s. The number of cars using the city's streets has increased tenfold in the past 20 years and the way of life in the city is faster. The view of the horse as a working animal in the city has long passed its sell by date. I argue that the presence of horses in the capital city creates huge dangers for motorists and pedestrians.

It is important to state the severity of the problem regarding wild horses in the greater Dublin area. I have often witnessed the devastation to public property resulting from horses trampling on playing pitches and open spaces. A school principal in my constituency recently informed me that he can no longer permit children to play on two football pitches situated on the school grounds because of the damage caused by wandering horses. Not only do hoof marks destroy the surface of the playing area but there is also a real public health danger for the many children who play in the vicinity of the horses. The father of a four year old child contacted me to outline how a horse had severely scarred his child while running through a housing estate. The child is marked for life. A case could not be taken against the owner of the horse for damages because the laws were inadequate. Section 42 of the Bill addresses some of those concerns. If there is a need for amendments on Committee Stage I am sure the Minister will be open to Senators' comments.

In my constituency hundreds of cars have been damaged as a result of horses running wild. In one case a horse was crossing a major road in Tallaght and it collided with a car resulting in a father and his daughter being hospitalised and the car being damaged beyond repair. While many communities are doing their best to enhance their estates, their efforts are rubbished when horses run wild through open spaces and destroy landscaping work. These cases are examples of the devastation caused in my constituency from over 2,000 horses in the area. It is little wonder residents and community groups feel so passionate about this issue. This Bill will begin to address their concerns, which have been ignored for far too long.

The real problem is not the horses but the people who claim to own or control them. Behind much of the talk about the need for horses in Dublin and the intrinsic role they play in city life, there is an insidious, vicious and cruel group that shows no regard for the well being of horses or the quality of life of the vast majority of city dwellers. This group of people feels it has a right to dominate animals and to use them for their own selfish purposes. This has resulted in 99 horses being put down so far this year in the greater Dublin area.

Hundreds of horses are malnourished and completely unprotected. This has been graphically shown by the work of the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The director of the DSPCA, Teresa Cunningham, has shown bravery over the past few months in the face of intimidation. The DSPCA has highlighted the fact that most horses do not receive the eight to ten gallons of water per day a horse needs to remain healthy.

Little attempt is made to protect horses from injury and where horses have been injured there is little attempt made to look after them. Horses are often tethered to a pole for days on end. More sinister developments have emerged recently in cases where members of the DSPCA and the local Garda attempt to rescue sick horses. This was shown in a recent Channel 4 documentary when a group of men intimidated DSPCA officers as they tried to rescue a horse. In another despicable incident an inspector's ambulance was set alight outside his home because he had been rescuing horses. Many of those who claim to be horse lovers are no more than thugs and this is highlighted by their attempts to intimidate the DSPCA.

This Bill went through a rigorous process in the Dáil. For the first time a specific body of law is being put in place to deal with these problems and to give the local authorities real powers. These powers can only be enforced if specific financial provision is made for local authorities. Section 15 of the Bill gives the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the power to make grants to local authorities for expenses incurred in the operation and enactment of the law. I urge the Minister to seek realistic funding from the Minister for Finance so that full effect may be given to the law when it is enacted.

Whatever identification procedure is adopted, it is important that there would be uniformity between local authorities. It may require that the four local authorities in Dublin act in a coordinated way to adopt an identification procedure in the four local authority areas. The enactment of this legislation may require that new sections are put in place in the local authorities to deal with the problem. To date the problem has been addressed by the community or parks sections of local authorities. Does the legislation provide for a review mechanism? The effectiveness of the legislation must be reviewed once it has been in operation for a period.

There are a number of corral projects in Dublin which do tremendous work for children. In my constituency the Fettercairn corral project has helped many children to gain an appreciation of horses and to learn to look after them. Senator McAughtry asked me to emphasise the importance of a project established by Kevin Smith and Eddie Hardy of the Racing Club of Ireland. This project, which involves bringing children to Cherry Orchard, has shown promising results in giving children some understanding of horses. Corral projects have helped to occupy children who may otherwise become involved in crime. While the idea is still in its infancy, it has potential.

It is vital that this Bill is enacted as speedily as possible so that its provisions may improve the quality of life for many people in Dublin. The problem of wild horses is not just a problem for residents but it also impinges on the business community in south-west Dublin. To attract investment from industry our thoroughfares must be cleared of horses. The presence of horses takes from the area when one is trying to progress a business idea.

There are questions as to the suitability of certain animals to the urban setting. There was a celebrated case recently in my constituency of a jaguar being kept in a residential area. Some macho types believe that such animals are a status symbol and they feel they can intimidate local residents with them. They keep these animals as a totem to compensate for failings in other areas of their lives. The suitability of certain animals for urban communities must be examined. I commend this Bill to the House because it will allow us to address the problems faced by many people.

I thank the Minister of State for bringing this Bill before the House and for consulting with many interested bodies. I also congratulate Deputy Kenneally and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, who brought forward Private Members' legislation in the past on this issue. The Minister of State acknowledged their contribution. This Bill is needed to replace the old Victorian laws still in force which are a farce.

The control of horses is a serious problem in rural areas. People may arrive in an area bringing a large group of horses, and farmers may have to stay up all night to protect their fields. As Senator Hayes indicated, some of the people involved can be vicious and dangerous. There have been many court cases involving farmers who were threatened with iron bars.

This is a serious problem which causes much concern and hardship in urban and rural areas. Many people are scared of these groups which move from one region to another. Many of those involved are wealthy and can afford to drive expensive cars, often untaxed and uninsured. Often it is hard to find the owners of the horses or cars, but this Bill will end that. When damage is done, ownership is disclaimed. I have seen many cases in my area where farmers, or someone they have hired, must constantly watch their fields because other people put their horses into them, possibly into a dairy herd, which causes the herd to possibly break into a field of grain killing some livestock in the process. The damage in rural Ireland and the serious accidents to children and adults in towns and cities are frightening. People in rural areas involved in this abuse are wealthy and move their horses around to obtain free grazing if they cannot leave them on the side of the road. They do not care what damage is done. Other people are afraid of them because some of them are vicious.

I was at a by-election in Dublin recently and met a woman who showed me a horse which came up the road, walked in the front door of a house and through the house out into the back yard. That is good training.

Perhaps it was a canvasser.

Senator Hayes said it was wonderful for young people to have ponies if they were properly cared for, that it helped keep them out of harm's way. The present situation is no one is responsible for horses and much cruelty is involved. No one likes to see that. When young people see it, they take cruelty to animals for granted. That is not good for them. They have enough to deal with as it is.

I hope this Bill will be properly financed and not end up like the Abattoirs Act, 1988, where departmental officials thought it would be self-financing but has been a total disaster instead. I hope local authorities will not have to pay the cost of holding horses using money which would be better spent filling potholes. The Bill will fail if that happens. Successive Governments have had the habit of enacting legislation and leaving the implementation to local authorities with no finance given. I hope that does not happen in this case. If it does, it will defeat the purpose of the Bill.

Stray horses in cities are bad enough where there is street lighting but the problem is worse in rural areas. Many accidents with loss of life have occurred as a result of it. Young people have been seriously injured and I know some people who have lost their lives when driving along a road at night and having stray horses jump out causing an accident. No one owned the horses then. This Bill will put an end to that so people can drive in greater safety on dark winter nights. A horse at night can be dangerous. When I was young, I was cycling home one night with no light on my bicycle. The laws were not as strict then. I was cycling down a hill and thought I saw two people walking, but it was a horse standing in the middle of the road. I was fortunate I swerved in time to avoid it. Horses can be dangerous on public roads and can cause serious accidents. This Bill will end that. I support the points made by previous speakers. It is a nightmare driving in city or town because our roads cannot cope with the heavy traffic. An added problem of stray horses makes it more dangerous.

I am pleased the Minister consulted with so many bodies. That is important because Bills are too often brought in without it. Widespread consultation took place, which is only right and proper and should solve this problem. Most of those culpable are so cute, they will be entitled to free legal aid. If the Bill is not comprehensive enough, some legal person will be employed at enormous expense to the taxpayer to defend these people and find some loophole in the Bill. I hope they will not find any, thus enabling them to continue their disregard for the public.

My family had a serious accident three years ago. It was caused by one of these people driving an untaxed and uninsured truck. The car was written off. The five young people in it — three of my own family and two neighbours — were injured, although they wore their safety belts. The truck driver was very rude to the gardaí. He had a load of gates which was probably smuggled from Northern Ireland. He was also under the influence of drink. This is only one example of many, but it emphasises what can happen. I am sure there have also been similar serious accidents in the cities. I hope this will not be seen anymore. It was frightening for my family and my wife could not drive for two years. The Garda had great difficulty in discovering who owned the truck. I do not know how they do it, but these people run rings around the law and often manage to defraud insurance companies. It is bad enough that injuries result from accidents caused by these people, but there is a financial loss as well because insurance claims against them take years to conclude. Most of these people are wealthy but have no respect for the Garda, the law or people living in their area. It is high time this Bill was enacted. Everyone in this House will ensure that happens as quickly as possible so that our cities and towns will be safer for young and old.

I know Dublin has a major stray horse problem but was not aware it was as bad as I discovered in the recent by-election. Some told me it was worse. It must be a nightmare because it is like the wild west. The poor animals are underfed and probably do not receive sufficient water in warm weather. Ownership is disclaimed if someone intervenes. This has been ongoing and I do not know why an effort was not made years ago to curtail the problem. It has existed for a long time.

I am sure the Minister will inform us at a later stage in the debate whether local authorities will be granted sufficient funds to implement the scheme, because they will shy away from it if sufficient funding is not given. Too many Acts have required local authorities to implement them without funding being given. Local authorities have been put to the pin of their collar to carry out their duties as regards roads, housing, sewerage and water, besides also having to ensure this Bill deals with the problem.

I am sure the Minister has an open mind on any amendments which might improve the Bill, so that those charged could not go into court on free legal aid, find a loophole and laugh their way home. Some might think this problem is confined to Dublin but it is a serious issue in the country also. Certain people move around the country at different times of the year, entering an area as if they were Duffy's Circus and frightening the locals. The Garda have done what they can, but the law has been so weak and it has been so hard to pin down who owns what that they have been frustrated in their efforts. The Garda have suffered when they tried to stop these people trespassing, blocking roads or causing a traffic hazard. They will be relieved that the legislation is finally in the pipeline.

I welcome the Bill and if Members notice any problems I am sure the Minister will have an open mind. I compliment him on his consultations with various interested bodies from town and country and for bringing this long overdue Bill to the House.

In the programme for Government, A Government of Renewal, a commitment was made that legislation would be introduced to control wandering horses in urban areas. As many Senators said, that problem occurs in rural areas as well. I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister for dealing in an effective and common sense manner with what is in many respects a difficult issue.

Wandering horses have long been a problem in my constituency of Kildare, principally in housing estates in towns such as Newbridge and Athy. When a teenager rides a horse through a town centre at high speed late at night or early in the morning, he is a threat to the life and limb of every person who crosses his path, to say nothing of the risk to himself. Great concern has been expressed at public meetings about out of control horses in urban and rural areas and the nuisance and danger this represents to the residents affected. Major efforts have been made by concerned persons to improve local authority estates by planting flowers and trees, only to wake up one morning and see the planting devastated by horses who were ridden through the estate at night. The impetus for improvement is broken by a few hours of madness on the part of teenagers who have no respect for either the estate or the law of the land.

It has taken a long time for legislation to be introduced to deal with this issue but thankfully, by virtue of the Government's commitment and the hard work of the Minister and his officials, it is now passing through this House. We all fervently hope it will do the job the Minister and the Oireachtas intend.

The problem of uncontrolled horses under management by teenagers was almost caricatured earlier this week on a British television programme entitled "The Urban Cowboys". This programme was intended to encourage sympathy for youngsters is deprived Dublin housing estates who keep a horse as a loved pet. There was little comment about the inconvenience, to put it at its least, which this caused to other residents of these estates. Keeping an animal like a horse in a built-up estate, where the horse owner has neither the space, the facilities, the training nor the expertise to look after the animal, is unacceptable, inconsiderate and anti-social from the point of view of other residents and cruel to the animal.

Other Senators mentioned cruelty. Anyone who goes to the Smithfield horse market, which occurs on one Sunday every month, can see the damage and terrible torment caused to horses as they are raced up and down the cobblestones. There are no proper facilities to water or feed the animals. This is a cruel market which must be stopped.

The Minister has addressed the problems in a comprehensive fashion but we must also take into account the problem of engaging the interest of young people in urban housing estates and giving them constructive outlets and alternatives to anti-social and irresponsible behaviour patterns. I was pleased to hear Senator Hayes say that such facilities are available in certain areas so that youngsters who want to work with horses can do so properly, having received the correct training. We must clamp down firmly on the problems posed by wandering horses. On the positive side we must address with equal determination the provision of facilities for youngsters, in urban areas particularly, to guide them into constructive channels of development. If we do not address both aspects of this matter we shall create new problems.

I am slightly concerned about section 17 of the Bill, which deals with the licensing of horses in control areas. Kildare, where I live and work, is an important centre for the horse industry, not just in an Irish but in a European context. In so far as the licensing of horses in a control area is concerned, the Bill could impact on the horse breeding/training/racing industry by requiring persons who fall within a control area to obtain a license from a local authority in respect of the horses they own.

Section 19 of the Bill specifies exemptions from the licensing requirements. Did the Minister consider exempting persons or companies in the horse industry whose operations could be affected by the Bill? If not, would he consider doing so now? One hopes the likely impact would be the irritation of bureaucratic controls rather than a substantial problem because the bona fide horse industry, which is so important to my county and the country, is clearly not the intended target of the Bill.

It has been said that this legislation is primarily directed at the travelling community. There have been many cases where travellers have tethered their horses and kept them under proper control but youths stole the animals and damaged them, causing some pregnant mares to lose their foals. One could not blame the travelling community in that instance, when they had done everything possible to secure the safety of their horses. If the horses of some travellers are wandering out of control in urban areas that is not acceptable and the travellers concerned must be confronted by the law. However, over the years the management of horses by the travelling community and the care and attention they have given to them has been good in the main. The matters addressed in the Bill are not particular to the travelling community, although a minority of their members may face problems as a consequence of it.

I commend the Bill to the House and trust that it will provide the solution to the problems of wandering horses which people have suffered over many years. I congratulate the Minister on this necessary and pioneering legislation.

I welcome the Minister. I wondered why he was absent for a short while because I thought he would have preferred to be in the calm of the upper House rather than the Lower House.

Mad horses instead of mad cows.

That is deliberately provocative.

It is more pleasant here.

I am sure it is a relief to him that there is wide agreement on this legislation, there will be no controversy this afternoon and we will not even mention the other matter.

I welcome the legislation which is overdue. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, and Deputy Kenneally presented Private Members' Bills which provided the impetus for this one.

I agree with the remarks made by Senator Wall regarding the problems in County Kildare, especially in our larger towns, such as Athy, Newbridge and Naas. However, the biggest problem in Newbridge is wandering sheep from the Curragh. Many will testify to the overnight devastation of their gardens. This requires urgent attention not by legislation but by physical controls on the roads around Newbridge.

In his introduction the Minister of State referred to the impact wandering horses will have on accidents on the motorways around Dublin. We have already had accidents on the motorway bypassing Newbridge caused by sheep gaining access from the plains of the Curragh. Again, we need to attend to this by way of physical restraints rather than legislation.

I accept the need for the Bill and the need to control wandering horses. There are two aspects to the matter. First, there is the welfare of those who have been subjected to the scourge of wandering horses and, second, there is the welfare of the animals. The Minister of State referred to this aspect and confirmed that penalties have been increased.

One would have expected legislation of this kind at the time when the horse was the mode of transport. It is perhaps surprising that it was never introduced and is indicative of the fact that when horses were the working animals on the farm and throughout society we probably treated them with more respect than we do nowadays.

The Minister of State referred to the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and to the increased penalties which have been introduced, which I welcome. He also referred, here and in the Dáil, to the revenue that will accrue to the local authorities from the implementation of the legislation, although he confirmed that it may not be adequate to reimburse them. I can state categorically that it will not be adequate.

Local authorities are frequently responsible for implementing legislation for which resources are not provided. In this instance a section in the Bill provides that the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, reimburse them. However, this is inadequate. The legislation on abattoirs is relevant here. Several counties are not implementing it because of lack of resources to employ the veterinary staff to undertake the inspections. Other examples include the requirement on the local authority in County Kildare to light the motorways and to renovate the courts, which has resulted in battles over estimates on these matters. It is unfair to impose conditions on local authorities without giving them resources. This will have to be looked at again on Committee Stage.

On the question of adjoining local authorities, there are provisions in the Bill enabling the Minister to instruct a local authority which is not undertaking work being done by another authority to co-operate with the latter. However, there are many cases where adjacent local authorities should co-operate and where there would be a need for them to do so. Why should one county council have to appoint an official to issue the licences to carry out whatever types of inspections are required at the same time as another? The burden of work, especially outside Dublin and Cork and the bigger cities, would be such that it should be possible for several local authorities to join forces to defray expenses and make the system more efficient.

Local authorities are to create the by-laws which will implement the legislation. I am in favour of devolving powers to local authorities and it is right that they should be asked to make their own regulations. However, in my experience there has been a reluctance on the part of local authorities to accept these responsibilities. A recent example is the marked reluctance on the part of members of my local authority to reach a decision on the issuing of hackney and taxi licences.

The Minister of State said that he has established a committee to advise on a preferred system of identification of horses in advance of the enactment of the Bill. According to the Official Report, 29 May 1996, volume 466, column 535, he told the Dáil:

A task which I intend to tackle in the near future is the question of means of identification. There are various forms of identification — freeze branding, hoof and lip tattooing, and microchip implanting — which need to be examined in order that the identification regulations to be made under section 28 incorporate an optimum form of marking for the horses to be controlled. I have accordingly arranged for the officials of my Department to undertake a review of the various forms of identification to make it possible to introduce the regulations as early as possible after enactment of this Bill.

He referred to this again today and said that the identification system will operate in conjunction with the licensing requirement under section 18 to facilitate trace-back from horse to owner. This should be done as a matter of urgency.

Modern technology should be to the fore and the possibility of using microchip implants should be seriously considered. A company in my area markets these and I understand they are highly effective, virtually tamper proof, approximately the size of a grain of rice and can be easily inserted in the animal. It would be good to proceed on this basis. I have already said that bovine animals should be treated in the same way. We must come into the electronic age in this area.

It would also help in identifying the location of Ministers.

Perhaps the system advocated for criminals in the USA would be suitable.

We would know at which airport Ministers could be located.

It is a relatively simple task because there is a considerably smaller number of horses than of cattle. It is a procedure that could be introduced and it should be looked at carefully. Local authorities are often the most reluctant to introduce technology which appears to be widely available in society. This applies to computerisation as much as to anything else.

Section 17(3) provides that the Minister, "having received a request under subsection (2) and consulted with the adjoining local authority", may take certain action. Rather than have the Minister issue instructions it would be preferable if the local authorities co-operated. This could be done under the aegis of the regional authorities. However, there are circumstances where he would have to intervene.

How long will it take after enactment before we have effective action on the ground? We frequently introduce legislation in response to a need and once it is adopted in the Houses there seems to be tremendous delay in getting action on the ground. How much determination and commitment is there to improve this?

There is also the question of enforcement. For example, we introduced legislation preventing people from taking sand from the seashore but it was not enforced. I hope that this legislation will not suffer a similar fate.

I mentioned section 3 which deals with authorised persons. From my reading of the Bill these people appear to be limited to the area of the authority that appointed them. There does not seem to be a crossover whereby several local authorities could combine to appoint one person to do the job rather than making a part-time appointment to someone who has more onerous responsibilities within the local authority. It has been suggested to me that this could lead to loopholes. For instance, animals could be moved from a designated area to an adjoining area and thus evade the law.

There may also be cases where farmers allow people to use parts of their land for the keeping of horses. These farmers, having entered into an agreement in good faith, could be held responsible because the horses were not licensed when they came onto their land. This will impose an onus on the landowner which should more properly apply to the owner or manager of the horses. There are cases where landowners co-operate with members of the travelling community and allow them limited access to land. This may create difficulties and I have some concerns about it. It puts an undue burden on the landowner to determine whether the horse is licensed.

Section 43 (1) states:

The owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who wilfully or recklessly permits the horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to cause injury to a person or damage to any property shall be guilty of an offence.

The words "wilful" and "reckless" are much stronger than "careless". I can think of cases where somebody could be careless and bring about the consequences catered for by the subsection.

Let us assume that someone successfully defended an action based on section 43 (1) of the Bill. Would that impinge upon the civil liability which might arise to the person or persons injured? In other words, if an injured party makes a claim against a horse owner and the owner defeats that prosecution under section 43 (1) what would be the consequences for the civil case? Would it also fall?

As regards people moving animals into adjoining areas, I recognise the problem is specifically one which relates to urban areas in places such as Limerick, Dublin, Cork and Kildare but let us assume that we designate the urban area as the area for control, there seems to be an implicit incentive for people to move the animals into rural areas. There has always been a great love for horses in County Kildare and we have a difficulty with slow horses.

You send those to the city.

I am tempted to make a remark in relation to the earlier controversy on where meat might eventually end up. Many thoroughbred horses are trained in the Curragh of Kildare and it would be a prime area in which to prohibit wandering horses and the training of non-thoroughbred animals. However, this could lead to a situation where every trainer who puts a horse out on the Curragh might have to seek a licence. I am not sure that this is desirable. However, the competent local authority will deal effectively with the matter.

I welcome this legislation and hope it has a speedy passage through the House. We will look at the relevant sections on Committee Stage and may propose a number of amendments.

I welcome the Minister. This legislation is long overdue. It is not an easy issue to deal with considering our tradition with horses; the working horse, the sporting horse, the show horse and now the pet horse. Young people tend to have a pet horse but after some time the horse gets bigger and more difficult to keep. The young person may develop a different interest and the horse ends up as a wandering animal. In many cases the facilities used to maintain a young horse are unsuitable once the animal grows and so it ends up on the roadside or on public ground.

These realities forced the Minister to introduce this Bill. It is a very unhappy situation for many people. Parents living in built-up areas are worried about horses going on the rampage. Horses are sometimes encouraged to stampede and there is the possibility of serious injury or damage. I congratulate the Minister on his approach to the matter. He did not rush into it but consulted all concerned bodies and communities first. This Bill will make a major improvement to the situation.

I am interested in the input of local authorities into the matter. At present most local authorities have dog wardens who could double up as horse wardens, which would reduce the amount of extra funding needed. Dog wardens have a great knowledge of their areas and provide a successful service to local authorities and communities. All dogs have to be licensed and looked after and if they are not properly fed or housed there is legislation to deal with that.

This legislation is long overdue. Perhaps Senator Dardis finds it hard to compliment Ministers, but we must give credit where it is due. The Minister has dealt with a complex problem. Many of these animals are kept as pets in communities where people tend not to care too much about local or State authorities. The Minister had to deal with all those factors. He must be congratulated on this legislation which will greatly improve the situation.

There is a problem with wandering donkeys in Longford. I wonder if the Bill will take that into account.

I thought all the wandering donkeys were in Tipperary.

The Minister of State is lucky to be here dealing with wild horses rather than with mad cows elsewhere. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this long overdue legislation. There has been an increase in the number of road accidents, many of them fatal — unfortunately, I have seen them in hospitals — involving stray horses wandering onto roads, particularly in city areas. I hope the Bill will help alleviate that problem. There are also problems with injuries caused to people in their localities and with damage to property.

I commend those who have gone to urban areas, in particular, where young people keep horses and ponies about which they have no knowledge and tried to instruct and help them in caring for the animals. There has been great cruelty in some situations, some of which was inadvertent. For example, some of these people do not realise that animals need water. Many congratulations must be given to vets and organisations which have tried to alleviate the cruelty in which these animals are kept in urban areas. I can say on behalf of the Irish Ponyclub Association that it will give the Minister and his Department any aid it can to encourage children and young people in these areas to take better care of the animals which they are keeping, as many Senators pointed out, in totally unsuitable situations.

In the film "The Commitments" when a young fellow was asked if he was going to take his pony in the lift, he replied that of course he was because the stairs would kill him. That is the level of knowledge of many of these young people in regard to how horses should be kept. In view of our fine tradition regarding the keeping and breeding of horses and their treatment, I am very glad to see this legislation.

I welcome the Minister of State and the Bill. In common with other members of urban local authorities, I have looked for many years for legislation specifically directed at horses in the urban environment.

Many of these animals are owned by people who take advantage of open space intended to be enjoyed by other people by use as sports pitches, school grounds, grass verges, green areas in housing estates and private gardens. There is very little green space in our towns and cities for people's enjoyment. When horses are allowed to wander on such spaces they put the lives and health of people, particularly children and the elderly, in danger.

We need to protect the work of those who give their time in such urban communities to coach and organise sporting clubs. There are many soccer clubs in my city of Limerick which are probably the only outlet for many teenage boys in such areas. Men in those communities give their time, energy and knowledge to coach those boys. It is a shame to see their work undermined by unscrupulous owners of horses who allow them onto the pitches, resulting in the cancellation of matches, injuries and the tearing up of pitches.

It is time we had appropriate legislation to ensure that no longer happens and that these unsung heroes of local communities can continue their work. In many cases they can make the difference between youngsters having a sense of self esteem, pride and purpose about their lives and having a destructive, negative approach to life. They can make that difference with those young people. Sport is the most important part of the lives of many teenage boys, way ahead of their schoolwork or anything else. The Bill gives the local authorities the power to take public open spaces back into their control.

I welcome the measures in the Bill which require horses in urban areas to be licensed, controlled and looked after properly. The powers contained in the Bill are effective and will allow local authorities to seize and detain animals and fine their owners substantial amounts of money. It is important that the legislation provides for on the spot fines. Local authorities must have the will to implement the legislation because they are required to introduce by-laws. It is not enough to pass this legislation: local authorities will have to ensure it is effective.

In relation to the by-laws needed for pound fees, veterinary fees, transportation costs and so on, I assume it will be up to each local authority to decide the appropriate level of fees. Reference was made to an increase in the fines in the 1985 legislation, but that legislation also refers to fees. Will each local authority introduce its own by-laws in that regard?

I particularly welcome the animal welfare provision, to which reference was made by other Senators, whereby a local authority will be able to seize a horse which has been badly treated and to disqualify an offender from keeping horses. It is important that the legislation will make it possible to stop those people, although probably a minority of animal owners, even in urban areas, maltreat their animals.

I wish to query section 17, which relates to the control areas, and section 28, which deals with the means of identification of horses. The Minister introduced amendments on Report Stage, following a long debate on Committee Stage in the other House, to section 17 in relation to neighbouring local authorities. This matter was raised earlier and the amendment appears to cover it. There is a problem in Limerick where the functional areas of Limerick and Clare County Councils extend to the suburbs of the city. If I understand the Minister's amendment correctly, it appears the local authorities can either reach an agreement or the Minister, if necessary, can intervene. Senator Dardis made a good suggestion that the regional authorities may have a role. The regional authority in my area covers the two counties which border Limerick city.

Regarding section 28, the Minister said he has established a committee to consider appropriate types of identification for animals. I am not an expert in this area, but Senator Dardis suggested microchips were a good option. Will the same method of identification be used throughout the country to ensure there are not ear tags in one county and microchips in another?

They definitely will not have tags from Counties Tipperary, Monaghan and Cork.

The Bill deals specifically with horses in urban areas. The problem with previous legislation was that its scope was too broad. For example, thoroughbred horses on the Kildare plains need different legislation from the horses which I encounter in my daily work, while cattle which break out from a Tipperary farmer's field are adequately covered by the Animals Act, 1985. This is focused legislation which has been drafted to protect urban citizens and it appears it will be successful.

The Bill does not mean that people in a city or town cannot own horses. As many Members stated, there is a tradition of horse ownership. For example, in Limerick I remember horses pulling the old Rank's flour carts. Many city people kept horses as work animals and many of their children and grandchildren keep horses in urban areas now. However, it is important that animals kept in urban areas are controlled. There is a similar project to those in Cherry Orchard and Fettercairn, Tallaght, in St. Mary's Park in Limerick where animals are kept in a communally controlled area and have adequate grass. The project was not established by the local authority but it is aware of it. Insurance is a difficulty but there appears to be a way around it.

Other Members raised the important issue of insurance, which is one of the problems facing local authorities in trying to co-operate with well meaning and responsible horse owners. However, the legislation is not aimed at those who try to come up with a communal and controlled response to the keeping of horses in urban areas but irresponsible horse owners who allow their animals to graze at will, wander onto streets and endanger other citizens. I hope the Bill will be enacted soon and that local authorities will respond and use it effectively to control horses in problematic urban areas in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford.

I may be out of order, but will the Minister consider changing the Title to include rural areas which also have major problems?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is out of order.

What about donkeys?

They could be covered in further legislation at a later date.

I thank the Members who contributed to the constructive and positive debate. They made sincere and objective contributions and they all supported the Bill. This was also the case in the other House where the Opposition parties tabled amendments which helped to strengthen the provisions contained in the original legislation. I pay tribute to all sides for their positive contributions. Senators spoke at length about the various sections and issues relevant to the Bill and I will deal with the points raised.

I listened carefully to Senator Mulcahy's contribution and I consider that section 46 is sufficient to deal with cases of cruelty to all animals, including horses. By proposing this new deterrent against acts of cruelty and restating the table in the relevant provision of the 1911 Act, I am putting horse owners and others on notice that any acts of cruelty against horses or other animals will bring them face to face with the full rigours of a strengthened protective law.

The table shows there are already wide ranging prohibitions in relation to cruelty to horses and other animals. In addition, I have introduced measures in the Bill to deter any ill treatment of horses, such as section 20(5)(c) and (d) in relation to the fitness of a person to keep a horse and the provision of suitable stabling. Section 23(2) provides for revocation, amendment or suspension of a licence if ill treatment of a horse is suspected. Further strengthening of my resolve to curtail poor animal welfare is reflected in section 34(1)(b) which enables the authorities to obtain a search warrant if there is reasonable suspicion that a person is illtreating a horse on any premises. Section 44 empowers local authorities to make by-laws to specify the control and welfare of horses. These measures should go a long way towards addressing the need for good animal welfare.

Senator Mulcahy's observations on forfeiture are relevant. He will be glad to learn that I have made provision in section 8 for forfeiture. I agree with the Senator about the level of licence fees. Regarding the need to ensure uniformity countrywide and to facilitate the striking of a reasonable fee, I have expressly inserted section 22(1)(c), making the fee a matter for decision by the Minister rather than local authorities, which was my original intention.

Regarding Exchequer assistance to local authorities, at least in the initial stages of the Bill's implementation, I draw the House's attention to section 15 which provides for grants to local authorities. I am open to considering the issue of providing Exchequer funding to assist local authorities in putting the legislation into practical effect with the minimum of delay.

Senator Mulcahy made a valid point regarding the sale of a horse before it is destroyed. He will be glad to learn that the Bill leaves this issue to local authorities in terms of the ultimate disposal of an animal. If a local authority wishes to attempt to sell rather than destroy horses which have been forfeited, it can do so. It will be a matter for each local authority to decide how it will dispose of forfeited animals.

Senators Mulcahy and Dardis referred to liability and I take their point about strict liability. However, I have taken the advice of the parliamentary draftsman on the issue and his formulation in section 43 is most suited to the legislation. However, I am prepared to ask him to reconsider the point.

I appreciate Senator Mulcahy's observation on foals. However, the problem is that foals cannot be identified adequately. They have to grow to the adult stage before it becomes technically feasible to apply a lasting identification under the legislation. There is little point in building into the Bill features which in practice would be unworkable.

A number of Senators referred to the enjoyment of horses by young people. Nothing in the Bill will prevent local authorities or others putting together projects or arrangements centred on providing young people with an opportunity to enjoy horses. On the contrary, by making ownership and the keeping of horses more difficult for those who cannot or will not control or keep them, this Bill provides a framework which will encourage the responsible enjoyment and keeping of horses on any projects which local authorities or others may wish to put together. I will refer to corral projects later when I refer to Senator O'Sullivan's contribution.

I thank Senators Byrne, Belton and Henry for their support. I assure Senators Byrne and Belton that I am very sympathetic to their concern that we do everything possible to support implementation of the Bill by the local authorities. I assure them of my intention to assist local authorities in the three key areas mentioned. I accept that legislation will not in itself address this problem. I have been acutely aware of this and intend to assist local authorities by providing them with a set of model by-laws which they can adopt to local circumstances. Rather than local authorities having to draw up their own by-laws I intend to provide them with the model by-laws which can be adapted to their own circumstances.

I intend to advise local authorities on the most suitable options for dealing with horse identification. I would prefer a national horse identification system to ensure uniformity of horse identification across the country. However, there may be also an opinion that we should give people the option of freeze branding, tattooing or microchipping. We are examining these options at the moment. For clarity and effective enforcement I would prefer uniformity of identification. I intend to consider the question of providing some Exchequer assistance to local authorities in the initial stages of implementation. We have made a proposal to the Department of Finance to ensure that this will be the case. The explanatory memorandum specifically mentions that when the Government accepted this Bill it accepted that it would make a financial contribution as well.

The Government used the word "may".

It is very important that this financial contribution be made to ensure the effectiveness of this Bill and because there is so much concern among the Government parties on this issue. It was mentioned in the programme, A Government of Renewal. I am sure this support will be forthcoming.

Senator Hayes spoke about the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals. This organisation has carried out unselfish and heroic work for animal welfare. I have great respect for the DSPCA and I wish to mention Ms Teresa Cunningham for her pioneering work and for her and her organisation's determination to care for and protect animals but also for courage in what were, at times, life threatening situations when working to protect the welfare of animals. I publicly acknowledge that today.

Senator Hayes also referred to the wandering horses population. He will be glad to know I carried out a census when I was drawing up this Bill to get an accurate audit of the number of stray horses throughout the country. I will read out some figures for him. For example, in the Dún Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council area there are 90 stray horses, in Fingal there are 75, in the South Dublin County Council area there are 600 and in the Dublin Corporation area there are 300, making a total of 1,065. They are accurate figures. For the benefit of Senators O'Sullivan and Byrne, in the Limerick County Council area there are 15 stray horses and in the Limerick Corporation area there are 233. In Tipperary North Riding there are 69 stray horses and in Tipperary South Riding there are 170. I am sure Senators want to know those figures. The wandering horse population is large. Sometimes the figures are exaggerated but a horse is a big animal and very visible, so ten horses together can create a sense of size.

The problem of unsuitable accommodation was mentioned. This Bill will give local authorities sufficient scope to determine what accommodation is suitable and what is not by the by-laws which they can make under section 44. These can be shaped to fit local authorities' particular circumstances.

Senator Wall mentioned the problem of horses in rural areas. The legislation will be flexible enough to extend to any area, urban or rural, where there is an acute horse problem. This Bill is not confined to urban areas. If there is a horse problem in any part of a local authority area, the local authority can designate a control area to resolve the problem. We did not wish to have a national scheme because there are very responsible owners of horses and it would be unfair to impose a licensing and identification system on them when they were not the creators of this problem. Ultimately, if various councils felt they had a problem in their areas of responsibility this could become a national scheme, but it is up to the local councils. I am sure the council will respond to the problems in their own local authority areas and no doubt they will be put under pressure from their members to do so.

Under section 17, a local authority will be empowered to declare all or any part of its functional area to be a control area where horses must be licensed. Providing local authorities avail of the powers which the Bill will give them, the legislation will be every bit as effective in rural as in urban areas; there is no difference. Senator Wall referred to certain named persons or groups and under section 18 (3) (f) the Minister may exempt from licensing certain named persons or groups. A scale of fees will apply under section 22 (5) which would reduce the financial burden on groups such as pony clubs and so forth.

Senator Dardis referred to identification and his views are very relevant. I am now in discussion with inspectors in my Department with a view to arriving at an early decision on the best mode of identification. Microchipping is not to be ruled out as a form of identification and I intend to give it serious consideration. Our examination of this issue is proceeding in tandem with the Bill. Microchips are one of the options being considered at present.

Senator Dardis spoke of "border bandits". Section 17 (3) of the Bill was introduced to assist local authorities in curtailing this potential problem which may straddle the boundaries of adjoining local authorities. Before deciding on the issue I will take into consideration the concerns of that local authority not wishing to declare a control area.

Concern was expressed on Committee Stage in the Dáil at what would happen if one local authority designated its control area and its neighbouring authority did not even though it had a problem with wandering horses and they wandered into the declared control area of the other authority. We decided that a local authority would contact the adjoining local authority and request it to declare its control area. Where a refusal occurs, the local authority could apply to the Minister who will then advise the adjoining one to declare its control area or, if not, impose one on it.

This was a weakness in the Bill which has been rectified so that this problem will not arise. I remind the House that this ministerial power will be used as a last resort and is not intended to undermine local democracy. The Minister will give the local authority concerned every opportunity to declare its control area and put by-laws in place. It will not be imposed upon it but it will have to be done to protect those who reside in the areas of the local authorities concerned. However, I am confident that where a local authority has a problem in its area or on the border with the control area of an adjoining authority, they will face up to their responsibilities and use the powers which the Bill will give them. I expect ministerial intervention will be a rare occurrence.

I accept Senator Belton's views on local authorities and they have a central role in the operation of this Bill. Through direct powers under the legislation and the by-laws that may be introduced under it, local authorities are being given extensive powers to bring the problem of wandering horses under control. On Senator Dardis' point, I am conscious of the danger of people moving their horse to areas which are not subject to licence. I have included various provisions in the Bill which have immediate effect to deal with this eventuality, such as powers of arrest, seizure, detention and forfeiture of horses and by making non co-operation with the authorities an offence. Sections 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 39 and 41 are also relevant outside control areas.

Will any counties be ring fenced?

No, this is comprehensive legislation.

There will be a sigh of relief in Tipperary, Cork and Monaghan.

We are not talking about beef now, Senator.

Senator O'Sullivan asked if each local authority will introduce its own by-laws. They will, but the Department will draft model by-laws which they can adapt to their needs. As regards pound fees, it is appropriate to leave that to the local authorities as the fees will differ in certain cases because of the varying distances involved in carriage to the pound. Such flexibility is needed. She also mentioned the question of support for corral projects. The projects at Fettercairn and Cherry Orchard were mentioned in a number of contributions.

There is one around Dublin Airport.

While I generally agree with any measures to engage young people in disadvantaged areas in useful and wholesome activities I emphasise that this is legislation for the control of horses. The Bill is regulatory rather than developmental and is hence an unsuitable vehicle for the furtherance of projects such as Cherry Orchard or Fettercairn. The fact that these projects can be launched and progressed ahead of the Bill is indicative of their separate nature and their suitability for consideration under existing local authority schemes. The leaders of these projects will have nothing to fear from this legislation if they are in position to comply with its requirements.

As I indicated in the Dáil on 29 May, I recognise horse ownership as part of the traditional fabric of urban life and I have no intention of upsetting that tradition. My objective when the legislation is in place will be to secure responsible ownership of horses and good horse management. Those projects are a commendable step in that direction. The young people in question are the subject of positive discrimination in having horse projects organised for them. I land local leadership in its endeavours to ensure they are not excluded from horse ownership.

I thank Senators for their positive contributions. I hope Committee Stage will be scheduled soon to afford Members a further opportunity to debate the Bill. I also hope that it will have a speedy passage through this House because we want to enact this Bill as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 30 October 1996.
The House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 October 1996.
Top
Share