Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Dec 1996

Vol. 149 No. 11

Control of Horses Bill, 1996: Report and Final Stages.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before we commence, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded. Where the House agrees to recommit the Bill in respect of any amendment or group of amendments the debate is, of course, not subject to restriction.

I wish to read out a correction to the Bill. In Committee amendment No. 10 the text substituted should not include the figure 19 as it already appears in the Bill. I ask the Cathaoirleach to direct the Clerk to make that correction in accordance with Standing Order 103.

There are two further points which I wish to clarify and correct. In Committee amendment No. 46 the reference to "section 33" is to section 33 inserted by Committee amendment No. 43 and not to section 33 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann. In Committee amendment No. 20, on the insertion of subparagraphs (i) and (ii) the existing subparagraphs (i) and (ii) become subordinate and must be renumbered as clauses.

Those are technical amendments suggested by the draftsman.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is it agreed that those corrections be made? Agreed.

Amendment No. a1, in the name of Senator Dardis, is on the additional amendments circulated this afternoon.

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 7, line 7, after "authority" to insert "either singly or jointly with one or more adjoining local authorities".

I apologise for the fact that this amendment was circulated quite late. It arises from a commitment given by the Minister on Committee Stage to consider an amendment before Report Stage.

I can envisage circumstances where some local authorities would not have many horses which would require licensing and the exercise of the Bill might not be very onerous on them. It would make eminent sense to have several local authorities co-operate to appoint the authorised person under section 3. Under the Abattoirs Act some local authorities have appointed veterinary inspectors to monitor the implementation of that Act but others have not done so. There is a good case for such co-operation which would save the Exchequer money. It would mean that rather than having one person in a single local authority jurisdiction deal with this on a part-time basis it would be his or her sole remit. That would be particularly desirable in the Dublin metropolitan area, which is one of the areas at which the Bill is primarily targeted.

I retabled the amendment because the Minister said he would look at it before Report Stage. It was suggested there was no precedent for such an arrangement but that is not so. I moved an amendment to the Heritage Council Bill whereby a regional authority rather than just a county council would have the right to hold certain property. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht accepted that amendment. I am now making a similar proposal to the Minister of State. I commend the amendment to him and the House because it makes excellent economic and practical sense and is a desirable feature which should be included in the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is there a seconder for the amendment?

I second the amendment. It makes a great deal of sense. As Senator Dardis said, the Bill will primarily be of use to the Dublin local authorities. In my local authority area of Fingal we could do with any assistance we can get from authorised personnel in our adjoining local authority area. Blanchardstown is on the border of Fingal County Council and Meath County Council. Fingal County Council will have a substantial amount of work to do in relation to this legislation.

As Senator Dardis said, local authorities regularly have reciprocal arrangements. For example, Fingal County Council recently sanctioned an arrangement to increase the amount of water we supply to Meath County Council. Similar arrangements exist between Dublin Corporation, South Dublin County Council and Fingal County Council in relation to sewage. Until a few months ago South Dublin County Council looked after the refuse arrangements for Dublin Corporation.

To ensure the legislation is effective we need to have as much assistance and co-operation as possible. There are expectations that when this Bill is enacted the problems of stray horses experienced by householders in the Dublin suburbs will be alleviated. This is a sensible amendment. It would increase the manpower available to local authorities experiencing problems with wandering horses.

Section 3(2)(b) makes it clear that a local authority can take on the functions of another local authority if there is an agreement between the two local authorities. Senator Dardis's proposal, therefore, is already contained in the Bill. Section 9(b) and section 20(10) also make provision for joint arrangements.

When I introduced this provision in the Dáil it was for the same reasons that Senators have put forward on this amendment. Provision is already made in the Bill and local authorities can appoint an authorised person who can take over the role in another local authority with the agreement of the two local authorities. I agree with the Senator Dardis's point that there might not be enough work for one authorised officer in one area and the officer could supervise the implementation of the Bill's provisions in other areas.

There is not a great deal of difference between the Minister of State's position and mine. I would like to see the point stated explicitly in subsection (1) but I am prepared to accept the Minister of State's assurance that local authorities may co-operate with each other and that it will be possible for the authorised person to operate within the areas of other local authorities by agreement. It was the purpose of the amendment to allow local authorities discretion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Acting Leader to move the motion for recommittal in respect of amendment No. 1.

I move: "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1."

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 9, line 7, after "28 (2)" inserted by Committee amendment No. 4, to insert", 33,".

Senators will recall that an amendment was agreed on Committee Stage which added a new section 33 to the Bill dealing with authorised persons or gardaí requiring veterinary attention for horses in extreme pain, distress etc. On reflection I propose that the new section 33 be added to a series of provisions which attract on the spot fines under section 10(1).

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 11, line 16, after "19" to insert "(1)".

This is a drafting amendment required as a result of an amendment made in the Dáil to section 19.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

I ask the Acting Leader to move the motion for recommittal in respect of amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive.

I move: "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive."

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 3 to 17, inclusive.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 15, line 28, to delete "2 weeks" and substitute "one week".

As a result of consultation with the local authorities I have decided to reduce the stated period from two weeks to one week in the belief that a shorter period will be of greater assistance to the local authorities. Senators will appreciate that the provision, even after this amendment, will afford the local authorities the facility to change the period in the light of experience of operating the Bill.

On Committee Stage, Senator Dardis and Senator Mulcahy stressed that two weeks might be too long a period to allow a person to get a licence for a horse if they had bought a horse and kept it some distance from where they live. The amendment is designed to facilitate the effectiveness of the Bill. It arises from feedback from the local authorities and the Committee Stage contributions of Senators.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 15, after line 45, to delete the following which was inserted by Government amendment No. 27 in Committee:
"(4) The Minister may, where he or she considers it necessary or expendient to do so, by order revoke any bye-law made by a local authority under this section."

Senator Dardis can take some credit for this amendment. On Committee Stage amendment No. 27 empowered the Minister to revoke by-laws made by the local authority under section 19 dealing with exemptions from the licensing requirements. Senators expressed strong reservations about this and I undertook to consider their views. I examined the matter and amendment No. 27 should be deleted.

I thank Senators for their valuable contributions to the Bill on this matter. Local authorities may have been concerned because it could have eroded some of their powers and entrusted too much power to the Minister. In case there would be any question about the devolution of powers to local authorities in the Bill I decided to delete the amendment. It might have added to the effectiveness of the Bill but its withdrawal will not limit it.

I thank the Minister of State. I expressed serious reservations on Committee Stage, particularly about allowing the Minister to do things if he felt it expedient. It also did not address what the local authority would do in the event that the Minister would tell it to revoke a bye-law.

My only regret is that Senator Henry and Senator Norris are not here. I have frequently commented on my lamentable success in having legislation amended. I would have liked them to have been here to note this singular victory.

We will inform them of it.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 16, line 26, to delete "and stabled".

As a result of consultation with the local authorities I have decided to remove the words "and stabled" in the belief that the work "maintenance" is sufficiently comprehensive to connote stabling. Senators will be aware that a stabling provision will remain in the Bill at section 44(2)(b).

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In Government amendment No. 30 as agreed to in Committee to delete "for such period being less than 12 months" and substitute "for such other period".

On Committee Stage I explained that my purpose in introducing amendment No. 30 was to allow the Minister discretion regarding the periods of licensing. On further reflection I have decided to extend that discretion to enable the Minister to prescribe licensing periods not only for fractions of a year but also for periods greater than a year. It may eventually be practicable, in the light of experience gained from operating the legislation, to allow two or three year licences, as we have for motor vehicles at present.

There is a commendable outbreak of common sense which I hope continues when we discuss subsequent legislation. The Minister must be congratulated on taking a sensible approach to this matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 7:
In page 18, line 1, to delete "specify" and substitute "prescribe".

This is a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to align the wording in section 22(5) with the mention of the prescribed fee in that section. The same applies to amendment No. 8.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, reported and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 18, lines 3 and 4, to delete "so specified" and substitute "prescribed".
Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 are related. I ask the Acting Leader to move the motion for recommittal in respect of amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive.

I move: "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive."

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive.
Government amendment No. 9:
In page 19, line 32, after "disposal" to insert "and its nature".

My purpose in tabling amendment No. 9 is to afford the local authorities more detailed information about the movement and transfer of horses. If this amendment is accepted, it will not be sufficient for a horse owner merely to state the fact of disposal. He must also state how the horse was disposed of, whether by sale, gift or destruction.

As regards amendment No. 10, having given further thought to the words "(where known)", I now believe the inclusion of such a formulation could be unhelpful to the local authorities in their efforts to keep track of horse ownership and transfers. I want the local authorities to have express powers to require the former owner of a horse to state the name and address of the new owner.

As regards amendment No. 11, as a result of consultation with the local authorities, I have decided to make provision for notification where a licensed horse dies other than by destruction. As regards amendment No. 12, I have given further consideration to section 25(2). I now consider it prudent to allow some flexibility in the defence for the benefit of an accused. A similar wording is found in section 29(3).

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 19, line 33, to delete "(where known)" and substitute "to the authority".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 11:
In page 19, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:
"(2) Where a horse the subject of a horse licence dies other than by way of disposal, the holder of the licence shall within 14 days of the death inform the local authority which granted the licence of the death and its cause."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 19, line 35, after "who" to insert", without reasonable excuse,".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 12, inclusive, reported and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 19, line 35, to delete "subsection (1)" and substitute "this section".

This is just a drafting amendment.

I am delighted the Minister is taking a technical interest in matters of drafting and phraseology. I also want to make the House aware that I was following with bated breath and great interest the contribution of Senator Dardis, particularly when he said I was not here. However, I was aware of every word that dropped from his lips. I take this opportunity on behalf of myself and my colleague, Senator Henry who could not be here in person, to congratulate the Senator on his remarkable success.

He is like the Holy Trinity; he watches from afar.

I am the Holy Trinity.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are related. Amendment No. 15 is a substitute amendment on the additional list circulated this afternoon. I ask the Acting Leader to move the motion of recommittal in respect of amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive.

I move: "That the Bill be recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive."

Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 24, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(f) the disposal pursuant to a direction of the local authority in whose functional area a horse is detained or of the Superintendent, as the case may be, where the release of a horse is refused under subsection (5), and the time after which such disposal shall take place,
(g) such other matters as it considers relevant.".

Amendment No. 14 is a drafting amendment as paragraph (f) is consequential on the new subsection (5) given in amendment No. 15.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 24, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(5) A local authority or a Superintendent or a person referred to in subsection (3) may refuse to release any horse detained under section 36 where it or he or she, as the case may be—
(a) is not satisfied that adequate accommodation and sustenance, or if detained under section 36(2) adequate veterinary attention, will be provided for the horse, or
(b) has reason to believe that the horse will be cruelly treated, following such release.
(6) Where a horse is to be disposed of under subsection (2) (f) or section 39 by way of sale or auction, the local authority or the Superintendent concerned shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the horse is not sold to the owner or keeper of the horse at the time it was seized under section 36 or any person acting on his or her behalf.
(7) Where a local authority decides to destroy, or has entered into arrangements under subsection (3) for the destruction of, a horse detained under section 36 it shall endeavour to ensure that the horse is humanely destroyed.
(8) Section 8 of the Pounds (Provision and Maintenance) Act, 1935, and section 5(3) of the Animals Act, 1985, shall not apply to horses detained under section 36.".

I come from an urban area where we have had many problems with wandering horses over the past few years. Recently an arrangement was agreed between the Garda and the contractor so that animals wandering on public roads or trespassing on council property would be collected and taken to the pound. Amendment No. 15 states that "a local authority or a Superintendent or a person referred to in subsection (3) may refuse to release any animal detained under section 36 where it or he or she, as the case may be — (a) is not satisfied that adequate accommodation and sustenance, or if detained under section 36(2) adequate veterinary attention, will be provided for the horse". I ask the Minister to clarify what that means. The pound in my area is 20 miles away from the town. Is the superintendent responsible for the town or the district and who is the designated person in the local authority? We need to clarify this because there is no point introducing legislation which cannot be implemented.

Subsections (5) and (6) are extremely good provisions. Subsection (7) states: "Where a local authority decides to destroy, or has entered into arrangements under subsection (3) for the destruction of, a horse detained under section 36 it shall endeavour to ensure that the horse is humanely destroyed". Should we not insist that the wording is changed to "it shall ensure that the horse is humanely destroyed"?

This provision is included in the 1985 pounds regulations. We are including this provision to keep the Bill in line with those regulations. Local authorities pointed this out to us during our consultations with them. If a superintendent or an authorised person is satisfied that the person who had the horse in the first case is not prepared to look after it properly or could abuse it, they can refuse to release the horse. We were fortunate to have some time between Committee and Report Stages so that we could send the Bill to all local authorities for their advice. This provision strengthens the Bill.

To answer Senator McGennis's point, that was as a result of Senator Mulcahy who, to give him credit, raised the matter of disposing of horses in a humane fashion. I have inserted the reference "it shall endeavour to ensure that the horse is humanely destroyed" to satisfy his question. While we must allow some flexibility in the wording, it is considerably stronger than the way it was previously structured. It directs local authorities to destroy a horse in a humane way. The wording is a considerable improvement on what was there before and it will have the desired effect.

Is it not possible to direct them?

It points out quite clearly that the onus will be on the local authority to ensure that a horse is humanely destroyed. The wording is important because while there are times when a local authority may not be in a position to do so, it should endeavour to. The subsection was inserted following consultation with county councils and also because of Senator Mulcahy's amendment on Committee Stage. He was concerned about it and I took his concerns on board.

On Committee Stage, Senator Mulcahy moved an amendment providing that "in every case, having the horse destroyed shall be the last option to be considered". I accept that what the Minister has done tries to meet Senator Mulcahy's concern that the destruction should be humane.

I have some difficulties with subsection (6) of amendment No. 15 which states:

Where a horse is to be disposed of ... by way of sale or auction, the local authority or the Superintendent concerned shall take reasonable steps to ensure that the horse is not sold to the owner or keeper of the horse [I can understand that] at the time it was seized under section 36 or any person acting on his or her behalf.

In a sale or auction it is quite difficult to establish that somebody is acting on behalf of the owner or keeper of the horse. It will present certain practical difficulties and I am not sure how they can be addressed. However, it might be preferable to have it by way of "a person in good standing" to give wide discretion as to whom the horse will be sold and to ensure it could not be a person acting on behalf of the owner or keeper.

What penalty is there under law to prevent someone attending an auction and acting on behalf of the owner or keeper of the horse to buy it back for a small fee and then return it to them? In addition, how will it be possible to identify someone acting on behalf of the owner or keeper? It is almost like a business arrangement at arm's length, but what does that mean? I have a slight problem with that aspect.

Under the terms of the Bill, a local authority selling a horse must take reasonable measures to prevent an unsuitable owner or keeper from buying back, or using somebody else to buy back, a horse seized from him or her. It is as far as we can go in this instance. It is important to spell out to local authorities that they should ensure that owners who would be considered unsuitable because of their history in dealing with and caring for horses should, as far as possible, be prevented from buying back the horse. We inserted this provision following our trawl of local authorities. As it stands, the wording is as far as we can go. It does not make it an offence but the measure is strong enough to ensure that it is implemented. I ask Senators to accept the amendment.

Section 38 refers to "animal" but surely that should read "horse" instead so that there would be an element of consistency in the legislation. Will the Minister of State examine that?

That is the intention and is provided for in the amendment.

Is the Minister of State satisfied that adequate accommodation and sustenance is available? Horses are wandering because they belong to travellers who have been rehoused or are living in a settlement. They have no land or accommodation but they keep the horses under reasonable control where a local authority makes an effort. Will the Minister of State clarify what is meant by adequate accommodation? If they do not own property on which they can keep horses and if they have not leased land for that purpose, which is what is required, does it mean that when this legislation is in force, all horses wandering in public places or on private property without authorisation will be collected and brought to pounds? When the section is applied it means they will not be released. While I do not wish to labour the point, it requires clarification.

I understand Senator Sherlock's point. One of the reasons we removed the word "stabled" in amendment No. 5 was to meet that concern. We substituted "maintained in a proper fashion" instead. The Senator referred to the travelling community. Provided the authorised officer is satisfied the horse will be maintained in a proper fashion by whoever that person may be, the horse will be released. By their nature, travellers may not have access to a stable but they may be able to maintain a horse in ordinary circumstances.

This is a case of opening the stable door rather than locking it after the horse has bolted.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 16:
In page 26, line 1, to delete "attempts" and substitute "offers".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 26, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:
"(2) In this section ‘sell' and ‘sells' includes barter, exchange and other transactions by which a horse is disposed of for value.".

I am concerned that there should not be acquisition of horses by people under 16 years of age. Accordingly, I consider it prudent to widen the connotation of "sale" to include "forms for transfer of ownership for value not involving money", in other words, barter, etc. This provision originated in a Scottish Act relating to deer. We have engaged in wide considerations with regard to this legislation which prevents people circumventing the concept of selling because they could use barter, exchange or other forms of transaction. When adopted, the amendment will further strengthen the Bill with regard to the selling of horses to minors.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, inclusive, reported and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I take this opportunity to thank Members for their co-operation, interest and courtesy in dealing with the Bill. The debate has been characterised by a positive appreciation of the matters we are seeking to address and there has been unanimous support for the principles and policies which the Bill seeks to establish as part of our law. I wish to put on record my appreciation of the constructive and non-contentious manner in which the Bill was debated by this House, which reflects the fact that Members share my anxiety to bring the Bill into law at the earliest opportunity.

It was clear from the quality of the debate, that Members had done their homework and were fully aware of what the legislation sets out to achieve. The genuine interest and enthusiasm shown and contributions which Senators made on the Bill have allowed me to develop a comprehensive legal framework for the control of wandering horses. Members put forward a range of proposals for change during debates on the Bill. While I have not accepted all these proposals, I have considered each carefully and I have made sure to draw upon any which were amenable to insertion in the Bill, either on practical or legal grounds. I like to think I have accommodated Members to the fullest extent possible.

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 given the construction of a major motorway on the perimeter of Dublin city in the area where there is a high concentration of horses. Encounters between unattended horses and vehicles travelling at speed create the potential for major accidents.

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 cross-section of people in urban communities. Horses have long been and remain a fact of economic life for many urban dwellers, including jarveys and carters. Securing a responsible, welfare-friendly maintenance and ownership of horses is therefore a prime consideration for me. I believe the Bill has been drafted and amended to care for the interests of both the public, especially motorists and those living in urban areas, and horse owners.

The many positive contributions from Members have greatly assisted in the preparation of this important legislation and have forged a balanced approach to responsible horse ownership coupled with the protection of the public. I reiterate that this legislation will provide a more secure and stable environment within which those who are prepared to properly maintain and control their animals, with due regard to the interests of their neighbours and other members of the community, can derive full use and enjoyment from them. There is nothing in the Bill which need impede or obstruct anyone who wishes to put in place arrangements for the enjoyment of horses by young people which are based on proper maintenance and control of the animals. In addition, this legislation substantially strengthens the framework of legal protection of horses throughout the country.

I take this opportunity to thank the many groups and individuals who gave me the benefit of their ideas and insights when drafting this Bill. At long last we have a piece of legislation which, when enacted, will devolve power to local authorities to tackle a problem which has bedevilled urban life in the past and which has greatly increased in recent years. I also wish to thank the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which deserve special merit and praise for their work in this area and their dedication to the welfare of animals in this city. Without their efforts, hundreds of animals would have suffered and indeed perished. For many years, the ISPCA and the DSPCA requested the introduction of legislation to address the particular problems associated with horse ownership in urban areas. I assure those who supported the Bill that I will do my utmost to secure vigorous enforcement on enactment.

I thank my officials for their work on the Bill. As I explained on the last occasion, in March 1995 we sat around a table with a blank piece of paper with no model on which to base the Bill. However, we have produced comprehensive legislation thanks to the input of councils, interests groups, Deputies and Senators. I thank Members for their invaluable contributions.

In my Second Stage contribution, I stated that no other legislation will have the same a direct impact on the lives of people in the area I represent as the Bill before the House. This legislation, which the Minister of State steered through both Houses and which is a credit to him, will finally deal with the problem of horses wandering through urban areas damaging property and hurting people. The style and manner in which the Minister of State introduced this legislation — he was always open to ideas and change as illustrated by the emergence in the Bill of amendments proposed by Senators Dardis and Mulcahy — are the hallmarks of someone who has shown great skill and dedication to this task.

A number of months ago, the Minister of State and I attended a meeting in Tallaght where he addressed a hostile crowd who outlined the severity of this problem in our community. He took on board their suggestions, although there was a great deal of scepticism about whether the legislation could change the problem in our area in a positive manner. With the enactment of the legislation and the speedy enforcement of its provisions by local authorities, the Minister of State will have reinforced the message that we are serious about resolving this problem once and for all. He deserves credit for his skill and determination. I pay special tribute to his officials for their work on this complex legislation which is probably the most worthwhile to the community I represent to be enacted during the life of this Oireachtas.

I also thank the Minister of State and his officials. The Minister of State is to be commended for the way he handled this matter in terms of his grasp of the detail of the Bill. On many occasions he did not have to refer to his officials and he was able to answer complicated questions in an effective and direct manner. He also displayed a refreshing openness to consider and take on board ideas emanating from all sides of the House.

Another notable characteristic of deliberations on the Bill is that the Minister of State and his officials stayed with it to the end. It has been my experience that, when a Bill passes Committee Stage, it is no longer subject to further scrutiny. It is obvious that they have continued to scrutinise the Bill right up to the end to ensure that any deficiencies were rectified. I share the sentiments expressed by Senator Hayes and I hope the Bill will have the desired effect. It will only be as good as the will to enforce it and I hope the local authorities will be proactive in creating the by-laws, issuing the licences and enforcing the measures contained in the Bill.

On Second Stage we proposed that support be provided to help train young people in horsemanship and the care of horses. I hope these projects will be developed and will receive assistance from the Department and the Government. The Seanad has done a good day's work.

I congratulate the Minister on this legislation. Unfortunately, I did not get an opportunity to speak on any of the earlier Stages. I had the opportunity to meet the Minister a year ago with a deputation from the local authorities and I found him very helpful. He assured us that he would bring this legislation forward as quickly as possible. At that time he said he hoped we would be helpful to him, and I think we have been. It is good to see a Minister come into the House with an open mind prepared to take on board the suggestions of Senators or members of local authorities.

Since 1985 a number of Bills attempted to deal with this problem. I think the Minister will admit that none succeeded. I hope this legislation will be effective and will achieve the objective that we have envisaged for it.

Wandering horses kill people. Some people have suggested that this legislation attempts to deprive young people of the enjoyment of horses. The Minister stated that there is nothing in this Bill which need impede anyone who wishes to put in place arrangements for young people to enjoy horses so long as the proper maintenance and control of these animals can be assured. That was the fine line we all wanted to achieve in this legislation. We need to ensure that horses are controlled, that they are not a danger to lives, that they do not kill people and we need to ensure that children in urban areas still have an opportunity to enjoy animals.

The Minister has assured all who supported the Bill that he will do his utmost to secure vigorous enforcement of its provisions. Mention is made in the Bill that he may grant some financial assistance to local authorities. This commitment needs to be stronger. It will cost local authorities a lot of money to enforce.

In my local authority area there has been widespread intimidation of those who have been rounding up horses to the extent that members of staff have been told by young people that they knew where the officers live. They have visited these officers' homes, threatened them and, in some cases, assaulted them. We need to ensure that the finance and Garda support are available or else this good legislation will have been done a disservice and the work of the local authorities will be derided in the communities.

I commend the Minister for this legislation. It has been 20 years awaiting and I hope it is successful.

I congratulate the Minister and his officials on this legislation. They have closed all the loopholes and have made it as tight as possible. The Minister trawled through Scottish law and spoke to local authorities. They know how smart the owners of horses are at finding ways around legislation. I was elected to my local council when the 1985 Animals Act was passed. At the time we hoped it might work in urban areas. However, the owners of these horses found a way around that Act. The combined expertise that the Minister has amassed should ensure that we got it right this time.

I support Senator McGennis's point about the need for adequate finance. The Minister said on Second Stage that he hoped to secure a little funding for local authorities. I hope that money will materialise. I also hope the legislation will be enacted soon. This has been mentioned to many Senators.

Those of us who represent areas where uncontrolled horses are a problem accept that there is a tradition of horses in urban areas. However, when it comes to the balance of rights, public safety and animal welfare must be the two main considerations. Anyone who does not respect that should not own a horse or keep one in an urban area.

I also welcome this Bill which has many sections; this indicates how important it is. I thank the Minister for steering it through the House.

Section 13 which refers to local authorities is very important. It requires the local authorities to draw up their own by-laws. This is an area where the Minister could play a leading role. Having seen the legislation signed into law he could ensure that the local authorities adopt those by-laws. This will be the first step in giving effect to this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Top
Share