This is a drafting amendment.
Control of Horses Bill, 1996: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 6, line 28, after "lost" to insert ", abandoned".
Section 2 (1) says the concept of "dispose of" includes to sell or to give away or have destroyed, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly. Is "destroyed" the correct technical term for killing an animal and if so, why? Would it be better to have a phrase such as "humanely kill"?
There should be an obligation on the local authority to sell or give away the animal. It is possible that as "dispose of" is defined in the Bill, the local authority could take the easy way out on every occasion and destroy or kill the animal.
Where I come from, when a horse goes down at the last fence, it is destroyed and there are many people destroyed with it. In rural communities there is no problem with the definition of destroyed.
We examined all formulations and definitions closely on Committee Stage in the Dáil. This was the ultimate definition. On the welfare issue, I am sure that local authorities will try to dispose of any animals confiscated or impounded in as humane a manner as possible. They will try to sell them on in order to cover their expenses. We have inserted new amendments which emphasise animal welfare, following our Second Stage discussion in this House and points raised by Senator Mulcahy. I am confident local authorities will act responsibly and have regard to the welfare of animals in all cases. This formula of words is the most appropriate for this definition.
The Minister will agree the word "destroy" is not good because it does not accurately describe what one is doing, that one is trying to humanely kill an animal, not destroy it. We should use as accurate a description as possible. The Minister said the local authority will try to ensure the animal is humanely killed. However, there is no obligation on the local authority — correct me if I am wrong — to ensure the animal is humanely killed. I accept there are provisions in the Bill relating to the treatment of horses by others, but where does it state that there is an obligation on the local authority to kill an animal humanely?
The Senator will know there are EU regulations and directives on how one destroys an animal with which we have to comply. There are sufficient provisions to ensure animals are humanely killed. I am satisfied with this definition. This terminology has been used in other legislation and has been recommended by the parliamentary draftsman. I accept his advice that this is the best definition we could include in the Bill to ensure its effectiveness.
I accept what the Minister said but I want my reservations about this definition on the record. I am not completely satisfied that the terms "destruction" and "disposed of" as drafted will place a legal obligation on local authorities when they are terminating the life of a horse. It is all very well to say there are EU directives but there is an obligation on us to include EU directives in our legislation as far as possible so that people will understand them. I will not press the matter, but we will agree to differ.
I am sure a veterinary practitioner will be responsible for destroying the animal.
It is not in the Bill.
I regard that as practice rather than anything else. I cannot imagine a veterinary practitioner adopting anything other than a humane attitude because that is part of their code of practice and professional ethic.
The words such as "appurtenant" and "hinny" cause me far more problems than the word "destroy". I want to bring to the Minister's attention the question of a public place, in particular where it refers to a field or other place to which the public have access, whether by right or permission. The implication for land owners concerns me. Provisions were included in the legislation on public liability whereby people would have access to land by licence, invitation or permission. I assume a private landowner is covered under the definition of a public place. Would a farm to which I invite somebody to hunt be covered by the Bill? The Minister is shaking is head; perhaps he will explain why I am wrong.
If a farmer gives a person permission to come on his property, it is solely for that person. If permission is granted to a hunt, it would be specified. It would not make a farmer's property a public place simply because he gave an individual or an organisation permission to come on his property. From my knowledge of that legislation, I do not see a threat to owners of private property under this definition of a public place. I have no reservations about this but I understand the Senator's point. This definition applies to places where people can wander at large. If a person wants to enter private property, they can only do so with the agreement of the landowner unless there is a right of way for the public which would make it a public place. I do not see a threat to owners of private property because of the provisions in the Bill.
If I rent my land to somebody who owns horses, I am liable for certain penalties under other sections of the Bill.
A person is liable under other sections but it does not mean a person's property will become a public place.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 7, after "authority" to insert "either singly or jointly with one or more adjoining local authorities".
There is not much difference between what I and the Minister propose. On Second Stage I said it could be economically desirable — and desirable from an operational viewpoint — for several, or for one, local authority to co-operate with another to appoint an authorised person. It strikes me as a sensible way to do this. I referred to the Abattoirs Act and the fact that in several counties people have not been appointed under that Act. I suspect that in practice a person with another job in the local authority will be appointed on a part-time basis to do this. It would be better for somebody to carry out this function on a full time basis which would suggest that it should be done on a regional basis. Perhaps the regional authority could be the operational agency in terms of appointing the authorised person.
I sympathise with Senator Dardis's point which was well made in his Second Stage speech when he proposed a greater role and involvement for the regional authorities, particularly when one considers that this problem is not confined to one local authority. It is a regional problem which affects four local authorities in Dublin. There is merit in his amendment. I made the point on Second Stage that the Bill should allow for greater co-ordination of the problem among the four local authorities in Dublin, which is the main problem area. The Minister said a model by-law system would be given to local authorities as the by-laws to be introduced when the control areas are put in place. I will be interested in the Minister's response. The more co-ordination of roles in the legislation the better it will be in terms of its implementation.
This amendment is implicit in section 20(10). We included a special provision on Report Stage in the Dáil to enable local authorities to take on the responsibility of other local authorities, subject to agreement. However, the appointment of officers must be the responsibility of local authorities. They may become officers of other local authorities, following agreement with them. This provision is included in section 20(10). We had to table a number of amendments to allow responsibilities to be shared among local authorities. Deputy Dardis's amendment is implicit in section 20(10).
I do not agree my amendment is implicit in section 20(10). Section 20(10) allows the authorities to co-operate in terms of licensing. My amendment goes beyond that and calls for cooperation between authorised persons. There is consistency in what I am arguing when I take the Minister's comments and the amendment on Report Stage into account. Section 17(3) allows the Minister to intervene in situations where, having consulted with the adjoining local authority about the need to control horses, he may direct the adjoining local authority to declare by-laws. The Minister can direct the adjoining local authority to declare by-laws if the problem spills over from one local authority to the next. The Minister should have such an appropriate power. Section 20(10) deals with how local authorities may enter into licensing arrangements. However, I do not understand how the authorised person is subject to the same sort of control as envisaged in section 20(10) for licensing arrangements.
Section 9(b) states: "at the request of that authority, by another local authority with which an agreement exists for the exercise or performance by authorised persons of that other authority in the functional area of the first-mentioned authority of the functions of an authorised person, or". That may cover what Senator Dardis is trying to achieve.
We are now trying to find out the number of angels on the head of a pin. I accept that section 9(b) allows local authorities to enter into an arrangement whereby an authorised person could be a joint appointment. However, section 3 states that "A local authority may appoint". There seems to be a contradiction between section 3 and section 9(b). I accept what the Minister says about section 9(b), but it seems that section 3 is excluding them from making a co-operative approach to the appointment of an authorised person.
The parliamentary draftsman believes the Senator's amendment is covered in the Bill. However, I will consider the Senator's points before Report Stage. It was originally intended to take Committee and Report Stages together but I separated them to give me an opportunity to consider the views expressed by Senators. The advice I have is that the amendment is implicit in the Bill. I can foresee a number of local authorities in Dublin or in any part of the country coming to some arrangement as regards authorised persons to avoid duplication, to save unnecessary expenditure and to co-ordinate facilities around a central pound. I already suggested that a number of regional pounds should be established. I will consider the Senator's points before Report Stage.
I am encouraged by the Minister's reply and I accept his suggestion. Perhaps he could ask the parliamentary draftsperson to look at section 3, which states that "A local authority may appoint in writing". Will that exclude several local authorities from coming together to appoint an authorised person? This is a sensible suggestion with which I believe the Minister agrees. We must determine if it needs to be done in a more tangible way than it seems to be expressed in the Bill.
The parliamentary draftsman advised me it was a function of the local authority to appoint its own authorised officer and that the precedent was not there for local authorities to appoint an individual.
The precedent is there. I tabled an amendment to a previous Bill which stated that a regional authority could hold certain property apart from the local authority. The Minister should tell the parliamentary draftsman the precedent has been set.
This is the procedure to appoint officers. The parliamentary draftsman also pointed out there is no reason that officer could not, in agreement with other local authorities, become the authorised officer for those authorities as well. I will consider the Senator's amendment before Report Stage.
If I withdraw the amendment, does that mean I cannot return to it on Report Stage?
You can return to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
I support the provision in section 7(1) whereby somebody can be permanently disqualified from keeping a horse or dealing in horses. I suggest the provision be considered for legislation on animal growth promoters. It would be useful in other legislation dealing with abuses in agriculture.
I strongly support this section. It is essential that people who prove by their actions that they are unfit to keep a horse should face the prospect of being disqualified from doing so for the remainder of their life if necessary. There is no excuse for cruelty to animals, especially to a horse. A horse, like a child, cannot speak in its own defence and is, by and large, helpless.
I know of some horses which defended themselves very well.
It is a shocking sight to see a horse tied to a lamppost without water on a summer's day, a thin and scraggy horse which has not been fed for days and to see lame horses hobbling around. I support the section because it is important to the Bill. When it is enacted. I look forward to several people being the subject of court orders which disqualify them from keeping a horse for any period, possibly the rest of their lives. The neglect of horses has continued for too long.
I thank the Senators for their support. It sends a clear message to all horse owners that, unless they put proper horse management and husbandry in place, they may not keep a horse under law. I hope the message will be heeded and that this provision will have the desired effect of ensuring horses are properly cared for.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 9, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following paragraph:
"(c) by a local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20(10) with the authority referred to in paragraph (a) where the offence was committed within the area to which the arrangements relate, or".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 9, subsection (1), line 7, after "27", to insert "28(2).".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 5 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
SECTION 15.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 6 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
More public spending.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."
I am disappointed my amendments have been ruled out of order. However, I do not presume to challenge the judgment of the Chair.
I am aware of a proposal to establish an equine project in the Cherry Orchard-Ballyfermot area which seems to me to make sense and is something——
On a point of order, is it in order to discuss something not in the section?
I am speaking on the section. I thank the Senator for being so helpful. I thought we were in Opposition together but perhaps I am wrong. I am sure the Leas-Chathaoirleach will allow me latitude given that my two amendments were ruled out of order.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I will allow a certain amount of latitude.
I will make my case briefly. I made an important point on Second Stage that those of us who are members of local authorities frequently encounter legislation which imposes a charge not on the State but on the local authority. In Kildare, courthouses and the lighting on the motorway have to be paid for by the local authority. This Bill entails another expense. The Minister made the point in his Second Stage speech that the local authority can charge for the licences they issue. I said that the amount of money raised by the local authorities would not cover the expenses they incurred. It is an undesirable feature of some legislation that the local authority has to foot the bill. That is not right if central Government makes the legislation.
It would be desirable to have arrangements whereby young people who may be in breach of the provisions of the Bill can be given training and support. These young people love horses which is something we must accept. That love should be encouraged and channelled in the right direction. I understand Dublin Corporation has set aside 11 acres for such a centre and that it will provide vocational training, employment, job training, horse care, leisure recreation and a potential for commercial income. That is something I commend strongly to the Minister. I hope it will succeed in that area and in others as well. That was my intention in tabling the amendment. I hope the spirit of it can be taken on board by the Minister to encourage this development and find funding for it.
This is a control rather than a developmental Bill. I emphasise again that we will encourage such projects as the Senator refers to and also projects such as Fettercairn which is working very well. We will provide every assistance possible to any organisation which establishes projects such as these to encourage good horse management and husbandry, especially among the youth. I am confident that FÁS, the local authorities, the vocational education committees and the area partnership boards will combine to assist in the establishment of these projects, which have been part of the discussion on this Bill since I introduced it. There is widespread support for this type of project. Unfortunately, it was not possible to include it in this Bill because we are setting up a control rather than a developmental procedure. I am sure that, if the need arises, local authorities and other agencies will respond.
The Bill is comprehensive legislation whose provisions will control the problem of wandering horses. There will have to be a response to that and no doubt local authorities and other agencies will respond by establishing and supporting projects such as the Senator mentioned.
In the explanatory memorandum there is a clear commitment from the Government for financial support for the Bill and there will be provision in the Estimate for financial support for implementing the Bill. In the Abattoirs Act, 1989, local authorities were given the power but not the resources to put it in place. We have come up with the concept of control areas because the Bill will have to be targeted at areas most affected. If you were imposing control areas through a national system you could not target financial resources at the most affected areas, which is the core philosophy behind the Bill. There is nothing to prevent any local authority from establishing itself as a control area but I hope this Bill will target the most affected areas and that the financial commitment to be given by the Government will be targeted at the same areas.
I hope the type of project that Senator Dardis mentioned will be developed where it is needed throughout the country. It seems to be a sensible way of proceeding.
I thank the Minister of State for his support for the type of projects I described as well as for his commitment to financially assist local authorities. As regards the racehorse sector, the apprentice school for young jockeys is a model of how young people can be educated and become involved in the horse industry. The project we are proposing is far less sophisticated and has the potential to do just as much good.
I agree with Senator Dardis on the importance of the corral projects. The Cherry Orchard one is being organised by a Kildare man from the racing club. As an application for urban funding has been made on behalf of our own project at Fettercairn in Tallaght, no central State resources may be required to establish it.
Section 15 states that the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may make grants towards the expenses of a local authority incurred under this Act.
How will this be implemented? Will a block grant be given to local authorities? Will a local authority or a group of local authorities working in tandem present their expenses at the end of year to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and expect that amount to be paid? We need resources in this area. I am glad the Minister, through his powers of persuasion with the Minister for Finance, has assured there will be moneys in next year's Estimates for this legislation, but how will it work? Some kind of reassurance needs to be given to local authorities if it is to be implemented.
I am sure it will work in the same way as any other expenses incurred by local authorities. Where they apply to the Department of the Environment, or in this case the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, they will have to make proposals and the Department will fund them accordingly. It will be based on their submissions.
Year to year?
Yes, of course, subject to the Minister for Finance. There is a financial commitment in the explanatory memorandum issued with the Bill. The Bill will not take effect unless local authorities are helped. A proposal has been made to include that in the Estimates and I am confident the money will be provided. It goes across party divisions and we all agree the problem must be faced up to. If it is dealt with immediately and can be brought under control, it will not incur the same amount of expenditure in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 13, subparagraph (ii), lines 2 to 4, to delete all words from and including "declare" where it secondly occurs, and substitute "make a direction under subsection (3) to the adjoining authority".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 9, 12 and 38 are related. Amendment No. 11 is an alternative to amendment No. 12. Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12 and 38 may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 13, subsection (1), lines 19 to 21, to delete "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" and substitute "entitling that owner to keep the horse in the control area".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 13, subsection (2), lines 28 and 29, to delete "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" and substitute "entitling that owner to keep the horse in the control area".
Will the Minister explain the background to these amendments?
They are all consequential following the provision in section 20(10). They should have been inserted on Report Stage in the Dáil but when the Bill was re-examined, to follow through with the principle of one local authority taking on responsibility for another, this provision had to follow right through the Bill. The amendments have a knock on effect and are being inserted on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman to copperfasten all the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The footnote to amendment No. 10 on the list of amendments should read "amendment No. 23". Amendment No. 10 is consequential on amendment No. 23 and amendment No. 19 is related. Amendments Nos. 10, 19 and 23 may be discussed together by agreement.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 13, subsection (4), line 47, to delete "(f)" and substitute "19 (1) (f), (g) or (k)".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 11 has already been discussed with amendment No. 8.
Does that mean that I cannot discuss it now?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When taking amendment No. 8 I announced that amendments Nos. 9, 12 and 38 were related, that amendment No. 11 was an alternative to amendment No. 12, and that amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12 and 38 were to be discussed together by agreement. However, I will allow the Senator to make a brief point.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 14, lines 7 to 10, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) by some other person who has been identified by the authorised person as being the owner of the horse".
I could resort to speaking on the section once again. Some concern has been expressed about the responsibility of, for example, a farmer who allows horses to be put on land. I can envisage certain situations where after harvest, people may be allowed to put horses out to stubble ground but it would be unreasonable to expect a farmer to be responsible for overseeing whether all horses entering the land were licensed, or that people would be dealing in them. I moved the amendment in that context to put the onus back on the person who owns the horse. That could be established by identifying the authorised person. That is the background to the amendment.
The formulation in the Bill is considered best in order to protect innocent parties. We previously looked at the question raised by Senator Dardis and feel that to protect the innocent party he refers to, this formulation is watertight. In consultation with the parliamentary draftsman on Senator Dardis' proposal, it was felt that our proposal is fairer and would provide a better defence for an innocent party in the type of case to which the Senator referred. For that reason I will stick with our own formulation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 14, subsection (5)(b), lines 8 to 10, to delete "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" and substitute "entitling it to be kept in the control area".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 14, subsection (7), line 16, after "accused" to insert "who is not the keeper".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 14, subsection (7), line 18, after "horse" to insert "entitling it to be kept in the control area".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 14, subsection (8), to delete lines 22 to 24 and substitute the following:
"horse being considered by—
(a) the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part, or
(b) another local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20(10) with that authority,
upon production of a receipt of the application and accompanying fee issued by the relevant authority:".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 should read ‘insert ‘(i)" instead of "insert ‘(1)"'. Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 25 and 26 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 16. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 14, subsection (9) (a), line 31, after "19" to insert "(i)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 14, line 33, after "19" to insert "(i)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 14, line 35, to delete "19 (j)" and substitute "19 (1) (j), or".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The footnote to amendment No. 19 should read "... amendment No. 23...".
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 14, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) is transported through the area in accordance with section 19 (1) (k)."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Government amendment No. 20:
In page 15, paragraph (f), to delete lines 3 and 4, and substitute the following:
"(f) is brought into or kept in the area in such circumstances or for such purposes or periods as may be—
(i) prescribed generally or in relation to any particular control area, or
(ii) specified in bye-laws made by—".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 22 is related to amendment No. 21 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 15, line 25, to delete paragraph (i).
I stated the rationale behind this amendment on Second Stage. I appreciate that a foal is defined in the definitions section of the Bill. However, many of those who keep horses, and to whom the Bill will apply, have colourful ways of describing the ages of their foals and when they were purchased. In view of this I do not see why foals or recently purchased horses should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill.
A licensing system should apply to all horses to avoid cruelty to foals and to horses that have been recently purchased. The Minister of State may argue that this is impracticable and that people must be given time to obtain a licence. However, if the transaction takes place within the control area the time to do it is immediately after the birth or purchase of the horse. Without this, a licensing inspector could be told that a horse was purchased within the past week which may not have been the case.
We considered this aspect. However, a person may purchase a horse, say, in Ballinasloe, where it would be very difficult to immediately obtain a horse licence. The horse would have to be brought to Dublin. We must provide some leeway. The person concerned has no licence to allow the horse to wander in a controlled area. This provision is important, therefore, both in the interests of fairness and to allow people an opportunity to licence their horse within a reasonable time.
Section 1 defines a foal as a horse not exceeding one year of age and which must be suckled by its dam or foster mother. If a foal is found wandering alone it would be impounded and in such circumstances the dam or foster mother would be licensed and identified. In view of this it would be somewhat draconian to impose a licensing system on foals. However, I will consider re-emphasising the necessity of keeping a foal with its dam or foster mother.
The Senator's amendment would tighten the Bill further. We have endeavoured to be as balanced as possible. In view of civil liberties and other such considerations we do not want to introduce draconian legislation. There are provisions within the Bill to ensure that those owning a foal must be responsible for its management. However, I will have a serious look at the Senator's amendment and will consult with him before Report Stage. Being a lawyer he doubtless has a greater understanding than the lay person of what happens in court.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 23 has already been discussed with amendment No. 10.
Government amendment No. 23:
In page 15, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(k) (i) is being transported from outside the area directly through the control area for the sole purpose of export from or leaving the State from a harbour, port or airport, or
(ii) is being transported through the control area, having landed from outside the State at a harbour, port or airport, directly to a destination outside the area;".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 27 is related to amendment No. 24 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 24:
In page 15, paragraph (k), line 39, after "prescribed" to insert "or specified in bye-laws made by—
(i) the local authority in whose functional area the control area is situated, or
(ii) a local authority which has entered into arrangements under section 20(10) on behalf of another local authority in respect of that control area or part thereof, with the consent of that other authority regarding the making of the bye-laws".
Will the Minister of State explain the background to the amendments?
They are in line with arrangements made by different local authorities. Amendment No. 23 provides that horses being transported through a control area en route to other areas, for example, a port for the purposes of travelling to England for sales or racing, do not have to be licensed or identified while in the control area. The purpose of the provision is to ensure that people are not victimised or do not have to endure unnecessary hardships or delays.
The reference to by-laws in respect of local authorities is to enable one local authority to take over the responsibility of another local authority area and to ensure that the by-laws would refer to that local authority. I have also included a provision allowing for another local authority to be directed by me to take over or establish a control area. In such circumstances, provision is made for the Minister to make the necessary by-laws where that local authority would be reticent to do so. It would cause a serious problem in that area as it would affect the other local authority with a control area. It follows on from the provision made on Report Stage.
I have a difficulty with amendment No. 27. We frequently talk about devolving powers to local authorities, of which I am in favour, but the amendment states that if the Minister does not like what a local authority did he will make sure it toes the line and does what he says. It strikes me as contrary to the general thrust of the Bill which imposes obligations on local authorities, which I assume they are prepared to take on board and exercise responsibly. I do not like giving the control back to the Minister after the local authority has done all this.
It might be used as an excuse by local authorities to not adopt by-laws as they could say it is not their responsibility under this subsection and that it is up to the Minister to make the decision. The most recent similar example I can think of is the significant difficulty in my local authority area in deciding how taxis and hackney cabs should be licensed. I do not like the provision as a matter of principle.
It refers to the by-laws made in section 19 and not to others. It is basically to facilitate the working of this Bill and is not intended to erode local democracy or local decision making. However, there will be times when the Minister will have to be involved if local authorities are not doing their job in order to revoke any by-laws. In cases where local authorities will not put by-laws in place the Minister will have to impose them. The power will be used very rarely but it will keep local authorities in line. We felt it was necessary to put this in place in order to ensure the effectiveness of the Bill and to facilitate its working. I do not see it as draconian legislation but it is quite necessary.
I was given responsibility for the implementation of the Abattoirs Act and I have spent the last two years encouraging local authorities to do so. The Minister must have greater powers than those given under that Act. As the Senator knows, a proposal is going to Government which would take the administration of the Act away from local authorities because while some of them implemented it, and it cost them money, others did not. This is a necessary provision in order to ensure the Bill is enforced. The reason for the provision is not to erode the powers of local authorities but to facilitate the effectiveness of the Bill.
We all accept there are circumstances in which it might be necessary for the Minister to intervene, and that applies more widely than just to this legislation. However, it is rather curious that this amendment has surfaced now. Why was it not included earlier? I do not understand why it has suddenly emerged.
Basically, it follows from the provision we made, with which Senator Dardis agrees, that a local authority can take on responsibility for another local authority where that local authority will not co-operate with the Minister or the other authority. It is a very important provision. As I said earlier, this provision only refers to the by-laws in section 19. If the Senator reads those by-laws it may become clearer to him. A range of by-laws will be made by local authorities in regard to the designation of control areas and so on to which this provision will not refer.
The Minister of State has struggled valiantly but he has failed to convince me why Government should put its large hands on little local authorities. Senator Dardis is not from my party but he made a very good point.
Harmony again.
We have been talking for years about the delegation of powers to local authorities. People ask time and again for more power for their communities and local authorities. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say it is up to local authorities to designate control areas but that if they make certain by-laws he will not support them. That does not add up.
A local authority is entitled to do whatever it wants as long as it is within the law. That is the important point. If a local authority tried to bring in an unlawful by-law it could not be implemented and the Minister would have very good grounds for refusing to allocate it any finance under section 15. However, either the Minister is giving powers to local authorities or he is not. Will the Minister consider revoking this?
If the amendment stated that where a local authority refused to make by-laws under this section the Minister would impose his own we might have sympathy for it. However, a local authority might make lawful by-laws but the Minister could decide "where he or she considers it necessary or expedient to do so, by order" to "revoke any bye-law made by a local authority under this section" without giving any reason for so doing. That is giving the Minister a huge power. Local authorities wish to say "hands off" to Ministers, especially in regard to horses, and to be let do it themselves.
It states earlier in the Bill that the Minister can step in if a local authority refuses to make a control order. However, in this case the Minister is telling a local authority to step out. The Minister will have an uphill battle to explain why the heavy hand of big Government should be on the little shoulder of local authorities.
I really dislike the words "or expedient" in the amendment. I can see the necessity of having to do it but it is even more undesirable to do it on the basis of expediency. The Minister of State gave the example of a local authority refusing to make by-laws. I took that to mean that the Minister could create by-laws in his own right. I do not take that reading from the amendment; I take it to mean he can revoke the by-laws established by a local authority. The best way to do that is to first instruct the authority to redraft the by-laws in question. The amendment gives far too much power to the Minister and is contrary to all we have said about devolution. I am opposed to this amendment.
I re-emphasise that the by-laws contained in section 19 are not as extensive as the by-laws contained in other sections, which give substantial powers to local authorities. The by-laws in this section relate specially to it and should be considered in that context.
The Bill provides that I can direct a local authority to declare its area a control area. This move followed reservations expressed by Deputy Kenneally and others on Committee Stage in the other House. They pointed out that there could be "border bandits", as the Senator called them, and the matter could get out of control with people bringing horses across control area boundaries. I included the provision to direct local authorities following the strong case made in the other House.
Amendment No. 27 relates specifically to section 19. By-laws under other sections, such as section 13, are completely free from ministerial intervention or involvement. There are no similar provisions in respect of amendment No. 27 regarding the procedures for making by-laws. The amendment relates specifically to by-laws made under section 19. The advice of the parliamentary draftsman and the officials was that it was important to make this amendment to the section to facilitate the working of the Bill.
I am concerned when reference is made to the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. Although the Minister has not done so yet, I become even more concerned when reference is made to the advice of the Attorney General. That tends to be the ultimate refuge.
Section 17(3) states that the Minister "may direct" the adjoining local authority. I favour the point that the Minister may direct them to declare by-laws, but that is not the case under the amendment. I accept the Minister's point that it relates to just one section but the amendment does not state that the Minister may give a direction. It states that if we do not like it, we will tell them to go away. It is much more restrictive than giving them a direction. I am prepared to accept the phrase that where it is considered necessary, the Minister "may direct" the local authority. However, the amendment does not state that, rather that by-laws will be revoked. Is it possible for the Minister to create by-laws unilaterally, irrespective of those a local authority may decide to make?
The amendment covers specific cases where horses are brought into an area. If a local authority makes by-laws to cover a particular aspect, it may not revoke them and this could limit the effectiveness of the Bill. The amendment relates specifically to temporary by-laws put in place by a local authority which are not revoked. The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the workings and effectiveness of the Bill. This will become evident if the Senator examines the matter closely. However, Senator Dardis and Senator Mulcahy have expressed strong reservations about it and I assure them that their comments will be carefully considered. If they are not satisfied with my explanation, I will have the matter considered in depth between now and Report Stage to ensure a clearer definition is available.
If opposition is expressed to the amendment on Committee Stage, is it possible to discuss it again on Report Stage?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes.
Even if it is opposed?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I understand it may be discussed.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 25:
In page 15, subsection (2), line 41, after "(j) (ii)" to insert "of subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 26:
In page 15, subsection (2), line 42, after "(j) (ii)" to insert "of subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 27:
In page 15, after line 45, to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) The Minister may, where he or she considers it necessary or expedient to do so, by order revoke any bye-law made by a local authority under this section.".
Amendment put and declared carried.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 28, 39 and 41 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 28:
In page 16, subsection (1), line 1, after "in" to insert "or brought into".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 29:
In page 16, subsection (6)(a), line 28, after "12 months" to insert "stated in the licence and".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 30:
In page 16, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(b) for such period being less than 12 months, as may from time to time be prescribed, stated in the licence and commencing on the date specified therein, or".
Will the Minister explain the purpose of amendment No. 30?
The purpose of the amendment is to allow discretion regarding the period of licensing. For example, after some time, a Minister may specify a six months period of licensing, such as in relation to car tax at present. The initial period will be for 12 months but discretion should be available to the Minister to direct, for example, a six months licensing period in particular cases. The amendment will ensure the Minister's hands are not tied.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 31:
In page 16, subsection (6)(b), line 30, to delete "that period" and substitute "either of those periods".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Government amendment No. 32:
In page 17, subsection (4), line 42, to delete "or" and substitute "and, where appropriate,".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Government amendment No. 33:
In page 18, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a) in respect of a licence for any period of less than 12 months as specified in the regulations,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
In page 18, subsection (5)(c), line 10, after "licence" to insert "made to the same authority which granted the first licence".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In page 18, subsection (6), to delete lines 14 and 15, and substitute "An application for a horse licence".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In page 18, subsection (6), line 18, before "fee" to insert "prescribed".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 37:
In page 18, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) Where an application for a horse licence is refused the local authority to which the application was made may retain such portion of the prescribed fee as may be prescribed.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 23 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Government amendment No. 38:
In page 19, subsection (1), lines 41 and 42, to delete "granted by the local authority for the functional area of which the control area forms part" and substitute "entitling the owner to keep the horse in the control area".
What is the reason for this amendment?
It is a drafting amendment consequential on an amendment on Report Stage in the other House and, as the Senator can see, there is a similar pattern through the Bill. It should have been put in place on that occasion but when we looked at the Bill on Report Stage we saw there were deficiencies. It is being inserted in the interests of consistency.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 23, after "in" to insert "or brought into".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 40:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 24, after "section 19" to insert "or as may be specified in the regulations".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 41:
In page 20, subsection (2), line 27, after "in" to insert "or brought into".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 29 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 42 is a Government amendment. Amendments No. 43, 46, 49, 51 and 59 are related and all may be discussed together, by agreement.
Government amendment No. 42:
In page 21, subsection (1), line 20, after "45" to insert "or section 1 (as amended by section 46) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, in relation to a horse".
What is the reasoning behind amendment No. 43?
I do not see why amendment No. 51 is in this grouping. It should be discussed separately.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There is no reason for not having a full discussion on amendment No. 51 in the context of the debate we are now having on all these amendments.
Surely the amendment is to a different section? My amendment is to section 39.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That may well be, but it is not unusual or without precedent to take amendments from different sections together and my advice is that these amendments are all related and are to be discussed together.
Why is my amendment, which is on a totally different topic to most of the amendments in this group, being discussed with them? It has nothing in common with those amendments. It should be discussed separately.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If that is the Senator's wish, when we come to amendment No. 51, I will allow the Senator to discuss it separately.
This is a very good amendment and came about following Second Stage contributions by a number of Senators. It improves this Bill considerably from an animal welfare point of view. This section allows a person authorised by the local authority or a member of the Garda to direct someone to seek veterinary attention for a horse that is obviously in extreme pain or distress, so they can request an individual who owns a horse or is in control of a horse to do that. If they do not do so, they are guilty of an offence. Other sections will follow up on that as well. It is very important that somebody can point out to the owner of a horse which is obviously in distress, underfed, undernourished or in pain that they must get veterinary attention for it. If they fail to do so, they are guilty of an offence.
Many people mentioned this issue and it formed a large part of my contribution on Second Stage. I am delighted with this amendment which reflects what I sought. It will allow a member of the Garda or an authorised person, without going to a vet, to say to somebody that they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a horse is being neglected and to demand veterinary attention for it. It is very important because members of the Garda are under pressure much of the time and such matters must be dealt with on the spot. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment. I and others who spoke that day mentioned the issue of animal cruelty.
I ask the Minister to look on Report Stage at the word "acute" in the amendment which states: "... the Garda Síochána who has reasonable cause to suspect that a horse in in such pain, distress or acute state of neglect...". The words "state of neglect" should be sufficient. The word "acute" would surely signify that the horse was literally knackered and on its last legs, but if a member of the Garda has reason to believe that the horse has been tied to a pole on a summer day and has not been given anything to drink for a day or two, that would be neglect. It might be too late for the horse if it is in an acute state of neglect. Perhaps another word could be used such as "considerable" or "obvious" or "readily ascertainable"?
Some horses that pass the winning post at the Curragh are in a state of neglect by the time they get there because they did not come first. I agree with the need for the amendments which are very desirable and praiseworthy. There are two aspects. One has to do with section 33 and amendment No. 43 and the words "or as soon as may be". The nature of the condition of the animal would suggest that immediate intervention was desirable. I can understand that there might be legal reasons for not imposing an immediate responsibility on the Garda, but to use the words "or as soon as may be" would seem to give too much flexibility.
In respect of section 40, amendment No. 59, whereby the intervention can proceed further and the animal may be destroyed, can the costs be recovered from the owner or the person in charge of the horse or horses in question? Such a provision would be desirable.
As regards the concept of neglect, it can be interpreted in different ways; horse that is well groomed could be considered neglected. The word "acute" was added to tighten the definition so that the subject of neglect would not be interpreted too broadly by the authorised officer. It is attempting to retain a balance in the Bill but I will further consider it and if we can replace it with a better word on Report Stage, we will do so. We can consider the matters raised today on Report Stage. That is the importance of having Report Stage next week. As we have demonstrated with this Bill, it is important when framing legislation to take everything into consideration. One amendment may lead to another. However, I will look at this.
As regards costs, in this case the veterinary costs would have to be met by the owner of the horse. Section 38 (2) (b) and section 39 (2) (a) also relate to costs and the reimbursement of costs by local authorities. This Bill allows local authorities to recoup their expenses if they dispose of or sell on a horse and the balance can be returned to the owner. The pound charges will be set down and the fines have been increased substantially. This Bill includes various methods for local authorities to recoup their expenses.
As regards the acute state of neglect, if we can get a better form of wording for Report Stage we will use it. This is a very important provision in the Bill. It strengthens it considerably because it also applied to areas outside control areas; it applies to horses anywhere in the country.
I am comforted by the Minister's words. He is right, the Bill cannot go too far. For example, if a horse was not given a drink for two hours that could be called neglect but we do not want a garda chasing that up. There is a little neglect, middle neglect and acute neglect, the test should be somewhere between middle and acute. As the wording stands, a garda would not be able to intervene until the neglect had become acute. That is the problem. A garda should be able to intervene before there is acute neglect. This is not an easy one to crack; I agree with the Minister that a garda should not intervene if there is a little neglect. This might seem like we are splitting hairs but when you are dealing with the welfare of an animal it could be a question of life and death because once it reaches the acute neglect stage it could be too late. I thank the Minister for agreeing to look at this again.
Can the Minister refer to a point made earlier regarding the wording in amendment No. 43 where a garda can take immediate action "or as soon as may be". I realise it may be too restrictive to impose a legal obligation on the gardaí to do something immediately, but the nature of the condition of the horse would suggest that immediate intervention is required.
I am advised by the parliamentary draftsman that this is the usual legal formulation.
He wins again.
The interpretation of "as soon as may be" would be without delay in legal terminology. As regards costs, amendment No. 52 covers the costs incurred by local authorities; we will come to that later. It is also referred to in other parts of the Bill. There will be provision in the Bill for a large level of recoupment of costs by local authorities for impounding or disposing of animals. As Senator Hayes said, we will have to provide more finance than is provided in this Bill to ensure its effectiveness.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 32, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 43:
In page 21, before section 33, to insert the following new section:
"—(1) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána who has reasonable cause to suspect that a horse is in such pain, distress or acute state of neglect or so severely injured or diseased as to be in need of veterinary attention, may require the owner or keeper of the horse, or if the owner or keeper is not readily available, a person apparently in charge or control of the horse, to immediately, or as soon as may be, obtain any necessary veterinary attention from a veterinary surgeon for the horse.
(2) a person who, without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.".
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 33 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are related and may be taken together.
Government amendment No. 44:
In page 22, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following new paragraph:
"(e) posing a threat to the health and welfare of persons or other animals, or".
This is an important amendment because it allows the authorities to move a horse which may prove a health threat to the public or to other horses. Allowing for a horse to be confiscated strengthens this section of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 45:
In page 22, paragraph (e), line 43, after "it" to insert "entitling the horse to be kept in that area".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 46:
In page 23, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána may seize and detain a horse in relation to which a requirement has been made under section 33 and the person or member has reasonable cause to suspect that the necessary veterinary attention has not been or is not likely to be obtained.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 37.
Question proposed: "That section 37 stand part of the Bill."
I am seeking clarification that what is required by section 37 can be put into practice, namely, that where a horse Is being detained under section 36 by a local authority or Garda superintendent, the local authority or the Garda superintendent may attach to the horse such identification device as they see fit. How does the Minister of State see this work being done? We have had the identification mark but in practical terms, when the local authority or the local Garda Superintendent seizes the horse what kind of device will be used? Will it be applied by a veterinary surgeon?
We have set up a small group of experts who are working on the optimum type of identification. That will include this type of identification. It is important when horses are detained that they are identified. If a horse were detained on more than two occasions then it would be confiscated pending appeal. When the Bill becomes law in a few weeks we will be able to identify a clear-cut national identification system.
Does the Minister of State mean a tattoo, a tag or other means?
There is tattooing, tagging——
Freeze-branding.
——freeze-branding and microchipping. There are a number of options open and we are looking for the optimum one. Different people support different types of identification. Senator Dardis made a strong case for microchipping. It is working successfully in some places but we will have to make up our minds. Horses in a pound can be identified in a different way from horses that have been initially identified by microchipping. An identification will have to be put on them when they are impounded either by the Garda or the local authority. It may not be as sophisticated as the original identification proposed but it will facilitate matters where horses are impounded repeatedly.
When will the results of this study group be available? On 26 May while speaking on Second Stage in the Dáil the Minister mentioned various forms of identification: freeze-branding, hoof and lip tattooing and microchip implantation. He referred to this when addressing the Seanad on Second Stage. I advocated the electronic animal identification system as one which would be desirable. It can be used more easily on horses than on cattle or sheep because the value of the animal tends to be that much greater and the slight extra cost that might arise from using that procedure can be borne.
When are we likely to have a decision on that? Could it be that one local authority would decide on electronic tagging, another on ear identification and another decide on the traditional type of thoroughbred passport identifying all marks on the horse? Such a development would be undesirable as there is a potential with the travelling community for horses to move around the country. It would be much better to have the local authority issue the licence and to have a standard type of identification system such as we have with motor cars. In the event of the horse being moved from Limerick to Dublin, it would not need a second licence because the first licence would cover it nationally just as a motor car licence issued in a local authority area covers that car anywhere in the country.
Proposals should be brought forward shortly because it is important to ensure the working of this Bill. I totally agree with having a common system of identification throughout the country. It would be very confusing if this were not so. Originally, our proposal to the Joint Committee was that identification be left to the local authorities but we changed that following consultation with them as it would not be practical. There will be a national system of identification prescribed by the Minister and that is the best way forward. We have narrowed the options down to two, microchipping and freeze-branding, as being the most desirable. We will make a decision shortly and hopefully I will have a proposal next week. When I go back into the Dáil with these amendments I will then declare the national system of identification. I agree with the Senator. It is desirable that we should have this system as soon as possible and I made a commitment to that last May. In the end, we want the optimum system of identification and that is why we are not rushing this. It is important that when the Bill is passed by the Houses we have a system immediately and that the matter does not drag on.
What about the application of the licence if it is taken out in Limerick and the horse moves to Dublin? The horse requires a second licence for Dublin.
There will be a requirement in the instance of the horse moving for a second licence. The Bill clearly states that when a horse moves and ownership changes it is an offence if the owner does not inform the authorities that he is no longer the holder of the licence for that horse.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Acting Chairman
We will take amendment No. 49 before amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Amendment No. 49 should read "subsection (1)" and not "subsection (3)".
Government amendment No. 49:
In page 23, subsection (1), line 14, before "Whenever" to insert "Subject to section 40,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 47:
In page 24, line 1, after "known" to insert "and can be readily found".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 48:
In page 24, subparagraph (2) (e) (ii), line 12, to delete "the other" and substitute "another".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 50:
In page 24, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) A local authority may recover as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction from any person by whom it is payable any amount due and owing to it under this section."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 24, subsection (1), line 22, after "fit" to insert "provided that, in every case, having the horse destroyed shall be the last option to be considered".
When a horse is to be disposed of, and "disposed of" is defined in the definitions section, destruction of the horse should be the last option considered. There should be an obligation on the local authority to either sell it or give it away but killing the horse should be the last resort. The horse has a right to life.
Before we have an interesting discussion on the right to life of the horse, we need to be realistic. There may be a need for this amendment but implicit in the Bill is that destroying a horse is seen as the last option. Earlier the Senator spoke about giving latitude to local authorities. We should not tie their hands. My local authority area has a huge problem with horses, despite the figures released by the Department last week. When this Bill is enacted it will be enforced through the local authorities. Many hundreds of horses will come into the possession of my local authority and something will have to be done with them quickly.
The Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently stated that over 99 horses in the last year had to be destroyed by the society because of their condition; it is a real problem. The local authority area in which I live and work has huge difficulties as a result of the treatment of horses by people who know nothing about caring for them, particularly in an urban environment. Is this amendment necessary? It is important that we do not tie the hands of local authorities who are working at the coalface in dealing with this problem.
I sympathise with what Senator Mulcahy is trying to do and the humanitarian grounds for his amendment. However, the amendment might be over restrictive. In circumstances where a horse breaks a leg it is technically possible to rescue the horse. It has been done where valuable stallions are involved. However, it is an expensive operation and the outcome is questionable. A vet would say that the preferred option would be to put the horse down. The vet must be given the latitude to make a professional judgment. Senator Mulcahy is probably referring to a horse that is neglected and which could be, by feeding and so forth, restored to full health. However, I envisage other circumstances whereby, if the amendment is included, the discretion which should be left to a veterinarian would be removed.
I agree with Senator Dardis but his point is covered by amendment No. 59 which provides that a veterinary surgeon can decide, where a horse is in a bad state, that it can be put down. My point is different. If the local authority cannot sell or trade a horse it should be allowed to destroy it but that should be the last option.
I understand the Senator's sentiments. However, the inclusion of his amendment would be most restrictive on local authorities. Local authorities will act prudently. From the point of view alone of recouping expenses they will try to sell an animal and if that cannot be done I am sure they will give it away.
There are costs involved in the destruction of an animal and I am confident that killing the animal would be a last resort. The animal would have to be in very bad condition. This matter is covered in amendment No. 59 which provides that local authorities will seek the advice of a veterinary surgeon before terminating the life of a horse. The Senator's concerns about the animal's welfare are adequately covered. I will recommend to local authorities that they take the Senator's recommended course of action as it is the humane one. However, if the amendment were accepted it could make life difficult for local authorities with a large number of horses some of which could be marginal cases and could not be disposed of otherwise. For that reason, I must reject the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 52:
In page 24, subsection (2) (a), line 31, to delete "charge such" and substitute "in bye-laws specify the".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 53:
In page 24, subsection (2) (a), line 34, to delete "as may be specified in bye-laws made by it".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 54:
In page 24, subsection (3), line 47, after "known" to insert "and can be readily found".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 55:
In page 24, subsection (3), line 47, to delete "horse" and substitute "horse,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 56:
In page 24, subsection (3), line 48, to delete "days" and substitute "days,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 57:
In page 24, subsection (3), line 49, to delete "notice" and substitute "notice,".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 58:
In page 24, subsection (3), line 50, before "notice" to insert "first-mentioned".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Government amendment No. 59:
In page 25, before section 40, to insert the following new section:
"40.—Where in relation to any horse detained under section 36, after veterinary examination, it is the opinion of the veterinary surgeon making the examination that the horse is in such pain or distress or state of acute neglect or so severely injured or diseased that it would be in the interests of the welfare of the horse, or the safety, health or welfare of other animals or persons it may come into contact with, to have it humanely destroyed, the local authority in whose functional area the horse is detained or the Superintendent or a person authorised by the authority or Superintendent, as the case may be, may direct that the horse be so destroyed immediately or as soon as may be.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
SECTION 41.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 26, line 2, to delete "apparently".
Some of those involved in this area have fertile imaginations. They could say that the person to whom they sold the horse looked 21 years of age. There should be an onus on a person selling a horse to ensure that the purchaser is not under 16 years of age. The word "apparently" offers them an out from the provisions of that section. I will withdraw the amendment but I hope the Minister will consider removing the word "apparently" on Report Stage.
The word "apparently" is used throughout the animal Acts but we will consider the Senator's suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 41 agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 62 is an alternative to amendment No. 61; both amendments can be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 26, subsection (1), line 12, to delete "wilfully or recklessly" and substitute "carelessly".
I am delighted my colleague followed my lead on this matter.
I am not sure who is leading whom.
I referred to this in my speech on Second Stage.
As I did in mine.
If the words "wilfully or recklessly" are included, a high burden of proof is imposed on those seeking to prosecute under the section. The correct standard should be neglect or carelessness. It should state: "The owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who carelessly permits the horse to pose a danger...". The amendment introduces the concept of negligence which is well-established. The negligence principle in law is that if one does something which affects one's neighbour in a detrimental way and one does so without caring about what happens to one's neighbour, one is liable to the neighbour in civil law. The test for carelessness should be the proper test.
The Senator will accept that recklessness is a greater degree 6f carelessness and is included to ensure balance in the Bill. People can be considered careless for simple things and including the word "careless" would render the provisions of the Bill too open. "Reckless" is the legal term used in most legislation and I have not seen the word "careless" used. "Careless" would render the Bill more draconian and we are trying to ensure balance. We will consider the matter further on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
Section 43 agreed to.
Acting Chairman
I call on the Leader of the House to move the suspension of the House.
I suggest we conclude Committee Stage now.
If the House agrees, we can do that.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Sections 44 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
On Wednesday, 20 November 1996.
I thank Senators for their important contributions on Second and Committee Stages and their positive approach to the Bill. It has been improved as a result of their contributions.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 20 November 1996.
Sitting suspended at 1.5 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.