Amendments Nos. 1 and 14 form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (1), lines 23 and 24, to delete the definition of "control area".
When we discussed the heads of the Bill I first heard of the concept of these control areas and I indicated at that time that I was not happy with it. It was agreed that the Bill would proceed. For drafting reasons it would have been impossible then to start amending the Bill. On Second Stage I also spoke at some length about the control areas and set out the reasons I believe it is not such a good idea. In drafting the amendments I took the control area out of the definition section but if I was to achieve what I want — control area is mentioned throughout the Bill — it would have been necessary to pass a huge number of amendments. That is why I tabled the amendment to a later section that the control area should be the entire country.
For instance, take a situation in Waterford city or Limerick city. Contiguous to Waterford city is the Kilkenny County Council area — and there are Waterford Corporation local authority houses in County Kilkenny. The same applies in Limerick where there are Limerick local authority houses in County Clare. If Waterford Corporation decide to bring in a control area and right beside it, Kilkenny County Council do not have a control area, it makes a nonsense of the legislation and something similiar can happen in the Limerick/Clare situation. All one needs to do to circumvent the law is move from one area to the next. For instance, horses from Waterford city will be put into a pound in the Kilkenny County Council area if that is not covered by by-law. It can be covered afterwards. Once the problem arises, the county council can decide to introduce a by-law and make that a control area. The problem is that it takes time and it will take up to two months to introduce a control area. Why not make all of it a control area from the start?
One of the reasons control areas were not to be introduced was in order to bring about the situation where farmers with work horses, which are few and far between, would not have to register them. Much of this legislation is based on the control of dogs legislation and many references were made to it here. The inspectors do not go into farmyards to see if dogs are licensed; They do not go on to private property to inspect. I do not envisage that under this legislation they will go on to private property to find out whether the horses are licensed. This legislation seeks to tackle the problem of wandering horses but by and large these horses are not wandering. If they are there is problem but I do not see the need to restrict those areas. We have to be practical as to the way the legislation will operate in tackling the scourge of straying animals. In this instance, the whole country should be the control area.
I support the amendment. Deputy Kenneally spoke about Kilkenny and Waterford but I would make the same point about my constituency in Dublin where there is a similar problem and there are four local authorities involved. Problems in regard to horses and the travelling community occur frequently where city meets country. There would be no point if one side of Ratoath Road or one side of St. Margaret's Road was a control area and across the road was not. While there are more houses in the county area, there is inclined to be a green area between the city boundary and the county. There is very little co-operation on these matters between the different local authorities. In many cases, they almost dump the problem on one another. Rather than different arms of the State co-operating together, it is the other way around. If this means that one side of Santry Avenue or Ratoath Avenue will be a control area and the other will not, it will make a farce of the legislation. It would be best if we went along with the amendment and introduce control for the whole area. That would solve the problems.
I consider what has been said to be a practical proposal. For example, our control area was out to the Kildare border which would be the area I would hope to see controlled. It is not far from Tallaght and if Kildare County Council decided not to exercise their powers to make a control area to our border on the edge of the county we would have the possibility to stray horses. From looking at maps, it would be close to some residential areas and we would be in the predicament of having people hopping backwards and forwards across a borderline that would be like jumping the Berlin Wall on a regular basis except there is no wall there. These people would find corridors and areas of movement and suddenly we would have to provide gardaí to patrol the control areas on the borders. All the country should be a control area until such time as a local authority, in considering its by-laws, defines certain areas differently. In other words, we should reverse the procedure rather than ask the local authority to create control areas. We should create a national control area and allow local authorities the discretion, through its by-laws, to change their area. That might be the best way to deal with this.
This problem arises because of the origins of this legislation. The problem was most severe in urban areas and there was much pressure brought to bear on public representatives from residents' associations etc. It originated with the indiscriminate use of horses in urban areas and their being allowed to wander. We must ensure that the legislation is comprehensive and does not contain loopholes.
My constituency, Dublin Central, falls within the remit of Dublin Corporation. Near Ballyfermot it is bordered by a district, which is the responsibility of South Dublin County Council, where there is a problem regarding wandering horses. If Dublin Corporation decided to designate Ballyfermot as a control area and South Dublin County Council decided not to do so for the neighbouring district, the owners of horses would find it easy to transfer their animals to the waste ground lying between the two areas in the event of hot pursuit. When the opportunity arose, they could then transfer their animals back again. In dealing with this problem, there must be a considerable degree of co-operation and co-ordination between local authorities throughout the country — particularly those in the capital city.
I understand the concerns of the farming community about licensing horses engaged in agricultural work. Perhaps the entire country could be designated as a control area and power devolved to local authorities to exempt certain areas. In that context, the concerns of farmers might be laid to rest. I am aware that problems can arise, however, if local authorities are not prepared to co-operate with the proposed legislation.
I do not believe the problem identified by Deputy Costello in relation to Dublin Corporation and South Dublin County Council will arise, because the council is very concerned about this matter. I support the amendment and request that the Minister of State reconsider whether the county boroughs and administrative counties in County Dublin could be viewed as automatic control areas without the necessity of introducing by-laws. This might be a useful compromise because the control of horses is a major problem for all areas in County Dublin. I imagine it is envisaged that these each district will be deemed to be a control area in any event. If they were so deemed at the inception of the legislation, it would not cause any hardship.
In the interests of consistency, it is important that the entire country be regarded as a control area. We dealt with this subject on Second Stage and during a number of private sessions of the committee. Like myself, the Minister of State lives in a rural constituency and I thought he might agree with the amendment table by Deputy Kenneally.
With regard to agricultural horses and those on stud farms, very few are working the fields at present. Such animals are highly regarded and a beauty to behold and they attract a great deal of attention at ploughing matches. Unfortunately, however, they are becoming very scarce. The owners of stud farms are very careful, for economic reasons, to ensure that their horses do not wander.
The Minister of State is aware of a community whose horses graze the long acre. There have been many deaths in County Wexford as a result of wandering horses. Members living in urban areas might not have as much experience of horses as their rural counterparts and must realise that horses are very sensitive. A horse is liable to do anything if frightened by noise. It is quite possible to pass cattle on the road without disturbing them, but that is not the case with horses. Because of deaths and damage to property, it is essential to designate the entire country as a control area. Rural and urban areas experience different problems. However, when there is a danger to life, limb and property, we must ensure that the legislation covers every area.
To give credence to my point about communities with horses grazing the long acre — at times these animals are not tied up and at others they are tethered to trees planted by local authorities — a member of one of the communities in question recently admitted owning £250,000 worth of horseflesh which graze at the roadside. This is the scale of the issue at hand. We cannot brush it aside and state that it is confined to any one area; it is not. If we are to pass this legislation, we should do so properly and in toto.
Section 17 of the Bill defines this issue. I represent Limerick County Council which discussed this matter yesterday and there was unanimous support among councillors for the legislation. County Limerick has one of the greatest problems regarding control of horses because of the preponderance of travellers in the area rearing these animals. When asked about the control area, the county manager stated firmly that section 17 ensured that local authorities could create by-laws. That discretion should be left to local authorities. There is nothing wrong with the provision that leaves discretion with local authorities to define the by-laws that operate in their counties because they define by-laws in other situations.
This problem exists in certain urban areas in County Limerick but in others there are no such difficulties. There might be isolated cases where a transient travelling population moves into an area but they tend to concentrate their activities outside the larger urban centres. There are adequate controls within the Bill and suggestions about introducing the control area on a national basis are unnecessary. It should be left to the discretion of local authorities to define by-laws regarding this specific problem.
I thank Deputies for their contributions. We considered this issue very carefully and it was originally suggested that a national licensing system should be introduced. However, following an audit of the number of wandering horses throughout the country, we discovered that some areas have no difficulties in this regard. The problem seemed mostly an urban one in a number of areas rather than a national one and that is why we decided on control areas. This concept was used in the Bill on pollution control in the 1980s, and operated successfully. There is nothing to prevent the country becoming one control area if all local authorities designate their areas of responsibility as such. If we change this part the whole Bill changes because it is structured around the idea of control areas and local authorities taking responsibility for their areas. I cannot accept the amendment. On Report Stage I can consider the possibility of the Minister imposing a control area where in two neighbouring areas, one has a control system, and the other has not. I could discuss with the parliamentary draftsman and officials the possibility of the Minister designating such a control area if there was a major problem. If there is not a licensing system in a neighbouring council area and horses wander into a control area, they will be confiscated immediately.
We have consulted the councils in the problem area and they are pleased with the thrust of the Bill. Some of the amendments they sought are covered by the amendments tabled and we will discuss them later. They accept it is a good effort to come to terms with this problem and amending legislation can be introduced in future if necessary.
As Deputy Byrne knows the Abattoirs Act, 1988 encompass a national scheme but is not used nationally. I would like to leave it to local authorities, to make by-laws where they have a problem and this Bill enables them to do that. It also gives power to the Garda and authorised people of the local authority to implement the law. For that reason, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment. However, I assure him I will consider the possibility of ministerial imposition in the case of an extreme problem in an area where it creates problems for neighbouring councils.
I cannot accept the Minister's arguments. He said the Bill is structured around there being control areas and my amendment would upset that. However, my amendment designates the whole country as a control area. I do not know of anything that will be affected by having the entire country as a control area. When we first received this Bill, it was the Control of Urban Horses Bill and it was then changed to the Control of Horses Bill. That suggests it was initially considered only an urban problem. It is largely an urban problem but it is also a rural one. While the Minister no doubt is right that the audit undertaken suggests there is not a problem in certain areas I can assure him that, if this legislation goes through, there will be a problem in those areas in the future. I am concerned about the length of time it will take to introduce by-laws but we can introduce amending legislation at some stage in the future if necessary. I am afraid this Bill will not work. We have a duty to ensure it works now and I would fail in my duty if I did not press this. I am afraid I have to push my amendment.
I support my colleague as I am from a rural constituency that has this problem and I do not know of any constituency that does not have it. This amendment is necessary to deal with a severe problem. The Department of Social Welfare has grave difficulty in carrying out audits, on people so I doubt if the truth has been discovered about the number of wandering horses. I would like to know who carried out the audit and how it was done. I would also like to know how many wandering horses were discovered in Wexford.
Recently we debated crime and stern measures to deal with it. We now have an opportunity to deal with a problem that has caused death on roadways. We are talking about people who, when their horses are impounded, come with sledge hammers to break down the walls and gates and release them. Should we use kid gloves as suggested here? I cannot understand why the Minister will not go the full distance in dealing with this problem. Maybe he should stand back and reconsider the situation.
I would like to know who was contacted in county councils? Was it officials or elected members, the people who represent the public? I am interested to know how many county councils have discussed this. A request from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry has not been discussed in Wexford. When there is a problem with wandering horses in Wexford, as there is constantly, it is discussed. I am certain that any official who suggests it is unnecessary to include Wexford in the control area, does not listen to Wexford County Council members.
It is a serious problem and it is essential we include the country as a whole. No-one gains by ducking and dodging at this stage. In the past when wandering horses were reported, the local authority said it was a problem for the Garda and the Garda said it was a problem for the council. That is how we will end up again if we continue along this road. This is not a political argument. It is about commonsense. Let us come down — pardon the pun — off the high horse, get on with the job and do it properly let us forget about the politics and make this Bill what it should be.
There may be parts of the country where there is no problem and the Minister may be reluctant to have a blanket control area but it should not be a case of seeing how this works and, if there is a problem, bringing in amending legislation. We all know there is only one opportunity to deal with these matters and amending legislation will be slow to come in, as this Bill has been. The problem I see is where one local authority meets another. Any local authority can declare their own control area but what if they do not co-operate? The reality is that scrap yards, municipal tip heads and illegal halting sites are often placed within 50 yards of local authority boundaries. One can talk about policing these areas but a Berlin Wall is not going to be built. Nor are gardaí going to be lined up for one stray horse. This is looking for trouble and will nullify the whole aim of the Bill.
I am thinking of an urban or Dublin context. If one of the four local authorities in the Dublin area declares a control area, must the other three declare the same automatically? That might not solve the problem in Waterford or Kilkenny. Could one have a situation where neighbouring local authorities must do the same if one local authority declares a control area? If Waterford declared a control area and they had a problem with Kilkenny, if requested Kilkenny would have to declare one also. It would not be open to discussion. Kilkenny could ask Carlow or another bordering county to do the same. I see the problem where one local authority meets another. That gap must be closed and this Bill does not do that.
The concerns I expressed on the amendment related to our borders with Kildare and others. The Minister has spoken reasonably. He has provided in the Bill that problems will be dealt with by the Minister. Should one local authority not address the problem, that will deal with it adequately. What we need is immediate action and it will be satisfactory if the Minister can find the formula to put in the Bill. There has to be something to deal with this in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment. The Minister's proposals seem to go toward that proposition. If Dublin exercises a control area right to the borders of Kildare and the problem moves to Kildare, I am certain that Kildare County Council would deal with it. It is likely that they would take drastic action to deal with the new situation. There would be a large number of people moving into their area, which is a non-controlled area, creating the very problem we are trying to get rid of. The integrity, intelligence and goodwill of the councillors of that area would have them take steps to deal with the problem as the other local authority had. The Minister's intervention in the area of an immediate problem would be adequate. I ask the Minister to make sure that would happen fairly speedily and not be delayed. That would address the problem.
The Minister's response was very helpful. The instance I gave was the boundary between Dublin Central and Dublin County where two local authorities experience a problem. One might be more reluctant or negligent in acting in a forceful fashion to declare a control area. The fact that the Minister would incorporate an amendment to provide for such contiguous areas to be deemed control areas, taking to himself that authority to do so, is very helpful. The Minister should look at another suggestion in that area. We see where the problem arises, certainly in the urban context. It arises between local authorities within the urban area and between local authorities bordering on county areas such as Kildare or Meath. Within the urban area it would be Ballyfermot, Ballymun, Finglas, the outlying areas of Clondalkin and Tallaght and the bordering counties. There should be some amending provision in the legislation that would put an onus on local authorities to co-operate in those flash-point circumstances where control areas are required to implement this legislation. They would be under some legislative requirement to consult on the issue so there would not be an undue delay, enabling people with a nomadic lifestyle to move horses around and avoid the law. That would be very welcome.
On the entire country being a control area, the more I think about it the more I feel problems would arise. The legislation's purpose is to target the problem where it is and deal with it. Have the Deputies consulted with the IFA and other farming organisations on the degree of trouble that would arise from licensing tens of thousands of animals? The legislation states that classes of animals may be prescribed by the local authority but an agricultural animal at one point is in a field and at another point wanders on to a road. One would have to license all animals. That could raise considerable objections from farmers and their organisations throughout the country. Is it necessary to have resources dispersed in that way? The Minister's response would deal with the problem adequately. Perhaps he could deal with the other matter that I raised.
As somebody representing the centre of Dublin for quite a long time, it is unusual to be addressing this problem but Dublin Central extends to the borders of another local authority, away from the inner city. There is clearly a problem. In the parts of my constituency that are badly affected by wandering horses and horses beyond anyone's effective or responsible control, the problem exists precisely in the areas criss-crossed by the territories of different local authorities. This Bill in its present form would be a recipe for ineffective operation of its own measures if this amendment is not accepted. It facilitates the passing the buck mentality. The gardaí blame the corporation, the corporation blames somebody else. This is a half measure and half measures are never satisfactory. I hope I am not misinterpreting the reply of the Minister of State as one of waiting to see how it works. Now is the time to have the effective measure and the only way to achieve that is to include the whole country.
The reply of the Minister of State did not give a convincing reason for not accepting the amendment. He said some areas do not have a problem and that we should target those that do. When areas are targeted the effect will be to shift the problem and the Bill will be deficient, thus adding a layer of bureaucracy rather than providing a smooth efficient law for the country. I support the amendment.
The suggestion that the Minister of State will propose a measure on Report Stage to allow for ministerial intervention where disputes arise between local authorities is not practical. It would not help the effective operation of the scheme intended in the Bill.
The national audit was carried out through the county secretaries and we got a good response across the country. We asked about the number of wandering horses in Wexford and were told there are 800. Deputy Byrne should suggest to the county manager and the county council in Wexford that they implement the provisions of the Bill immediately. Other parts of the country do not have a problem. For example, Laois, Leitrim and Louth county councils either did not respond or reponded that there were no wandering horses. Many other county councils have very few wandering horses concentrated in specific areas which may be designated as control areas.
The greatest problem seems to be in Dublin. About 33 per cent of the wandering horses are in the greater Dublin area; over 1,000 horses with about 600 of those in the South Dublin County Council area. The philosophy behind the Bill is to take on the problem where it exists and put the resources into those areas. It will take a major resource commitment to support the councils and the Garda. This is not an easy problem to resolve but the county councils must be supported in doing so.
All the county councils have been kept informed about progress of the Bill. We encourage them to co-operate as much as possible in its implementation. There is a lot of goodwill towards it and the county councils which have problems are anxious to use its provisions and have promised their cooperation. I thank Deputy Costello for his contribution. We will encourage cooperation between the councils. We will ensure the Bill is implemented and the Government has committed resources, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum. It will require a financial commitment.
This problem has been around for a long time and is only being tackled now. We have worked hard with the parliamentary draftsman to reach a solution and feel that the scheme we propose is the most effective response. I oppose Deputy Kenneally's amendment, although I understand his reasons for putting it forward. The Bill will be effective and contribute to an effort to control the problem.
The Minister of State's idea about contiguous areas will not work. If Waterford Corporation designates its entire area as a control area then Kilkenny County Council area, which is contiguous to it, must also become a control area; Wexford is contiguous to Kilkenny so it must become a control area. That would apply around the country and bring us to the situation which I am trying to achieve.
The Minister of State is aware of our views on the control area as expressed in discussions on the heads of the Bill and on Second Stage. If there was a genuine desire on the Minister of State's part to meet my aims he would have tabled an amendment by now. However, the will is not there so I must press my amendment.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Noel. Brennan, Mattie. Browne, John (Wexford). Byrne, Hugh. Kenneally, Brendan. |
Lenihan, Brian. Molloy, Robert. Ó Cuív, Éamon. O'Keeffe, Ned. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Bell, Michael. |
Deasy, Austin. |
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
Deenihan, Jimmy. |
|
Broughan, Thomas. |
Finucane, Michael. |
|
Byrne, Eric. |
Ring, Michael. |
|
Costello, Joe. |
McCormack, Pádraig. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Walsh, Eamonn. |
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 14 may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), line 29, after "unaccompanied" to insert "(whether tethered or untethered)".
The purpose of the amendment is to make the definition of a stray horse more inclusive and copperfasten control over straying horses. My fear is that there may be an attempt to claim that a tethered or staked horse, although unaccompanied, is under control and not amenable to seizure.
We therefore extended the definition to ensure that the law will be more effective. The definition of "stray horse" will be more exact and inclusive.
How many stray horses are in the country and could the Minister of State provide a breakdown of the figure county by county? What use are these animals put to by their owners? Why are they needed? In certain Middle East and North African countries camels have a social status. They can be traded for wives and other items.
Only in Kashmir.
What becomes of the thousands of stray horses in this country? Are they used for any gainful purpose? Are they slaughtered for meat consumption by the French and Belgians? Are they used for breeding or have they any utilitarian purpose? Why do they exist?
According to our national audit there are 3,229 horses. I will provide the Deputy with details of the numbers of horses in various counties. Waterford Corporation advised that there were 40 such horses in its area while Waterford County Council advised that there were 30.
The horses are used for different purposes in different places. In Dublin they appear to be used primarily for recreation. It has become fashionable to own and look after a horse. They are also of commercial value in Dublin. Given the level of activity at some of the fairs it is clear that people are into the buying and selling of horses. In some cases they are used by carters. There is a connection between horses and the livelihoods of some people. They are used for a large number of purposes.
I welcome the amendment. It was essential to tighten up the provision as it would have been open to abuse. A horse could have been tied up anything if the authorities were sighted. Has the Minister any further views on the definition of "stray horse", which includes the words: ". . .by any person apparently in charge. . ."? Is it necessary to tighten this definition any further? At local authority level we have discussed the concept of dogs being under effective control. In this instance what do the words "by any person apparently in charge" mean? There must be a leash on a dog which may be short or extended. Does it mean that there must be reins on the horse, that it may be held by the mane or that one must walk beside it?
Is this wording not open to interpretation? Somebody could say he was in charge of a horse even where the horse was running down a road. How close would the horse have to be to him? Would he have to exercise physical control over it? Perhaps the Minister of State would consider tightening the definition.
The Minister of State has introduced the word "tethered" to the definition of "stray horse". Would he consider that a young person accompanying a tethered horse on the margin of the road would be unsuitable? Is it not necessary to define "accompanied" as being somebody who would be capable of being in charge of the horse? In Dublin many horses are in open spaces or on the margins of roads and accompanied by young children who are supposed to be, but are incapable of being, in charge. The animal is accompanied, but not properly so.
This part of the Bill could be interpreted to mean that a stray horse would not be stray if accompanied by a young person. This should be clarified. People graze horses on road margins. According to the Minister of State's audit there are 600 horses in south County Dublin. This means that there are virtually 600 horses in Tallaght. One can imagine the effects of this on the community there. The numbers of horses grazing on the roadsides are beyond belief, while those in charge are nearly all young people. Will the Minister of State clarify this? It it is not clear at this stage there may be problems.
While this legislation is more relevant to the Dublin area, I am concerned with the term "(whether tethered or untethered)". Nature is important here. What kind of tethering does the Minister of State have in mind? By tradition, horses have always been in blinkers and mouth pieces as these are considered to be the safest and fairest way to control them. While they are a threat to human life, with many people suffering serious and tragic injuries, I am concerned that this technical matter be clarified.
We do not have the same problem in rural areas. This legislation should specify that the horse should be controlled by a person over the age of majority, which is 18 years. Horses are nervous animals and given the high powered vehicles travelling across the country they are not easily controlled by youngsters.
There is a problem here. The numbers speak for themselves. Years ago horses were used by farmers for work on the land. This has changed and they are now used for the purposes of sport and leisure. They are mainly used for trading between travelling people. Given the threat to humans, that aspect must be tightened.
The term "tethered or untethered" should not be included, but rather a definition of how the animal will be tethered. Horses are compassionate animals and can be caring in their own way.
The Bill is vague regarding a person in charge of a horse. At any given time of the year in Enniscorthy, from where I come, there could be up to 300 horses. They are not always strays but they are on the side of the road or using local authority land. More often than not the horses are under the control of young people, ranging in ages from seven to ten years and can very easily become strays.
In recent years there have been a number of cases where horses were on the road in somebody's control but as soon as an accident happened, the people disappeared and nobody was in charge of the animal. This occurs on a regular basis. Children have been kicked by horses while the animals were grazing on local authority green areas. When an accident happens the young people are told to disappear and nobody accept responsibility. This area must be tightened.
The Bill states that 16 year olds must have a licence. However, what is the position regarding people under 16 years of age in charge of horses? The parents may hold the licence but, more often than not, young people are in charge of the animal or indeed nobody may be in charge of it. It is most important that this area ia strictly controlled. In the area in which I live, the horses are top quality animals and well fed. I am regularly told that the horses are rented to race horse trainers and large farmers in particular parts of the country for specific purposes. This area should be followed up because local authorities and families should not be subjected to wandering and stray horses while the owners are making substantial amounts of money by renting them to people in the race horse industry who are supposed to be responsible.
I welcome the amendment relating to tethering. Unfortunately, it is common practice in the city to tie a horse with a rope to a plank or stick and to stake it to a plot of land. While I appreciate Deputy O'Keeffe's comments, the definition of tethering is included in the definition of a stray horse, which I presume will come into play in terms of removing the horse to the pound. Will the Minister clarify if there is any other reason for defining a stray horse in the Bill? That appears to be the position and I welcome the amendment. South Dublin County Council is anxious that the amendment is included in the legislation. I am not sure I agree with Deputy Walsh that all the horses are in Tallaght. A number of them are in the zone shared by Deputy Costello and myself in Clondalkin-Cherry Orchard. This is the other major stud area in that part of the city.
It is obvious there will be co-operation between members from different local authority areas.
I welcome the amendment. Stray horses are tethered with long ropes from trees and poles on green areas. Horses are wandering and not under competent control in such cases. The amendment covers many of the horses in urban areas. They are tethered for long periods in all types of weather.
Regarding the strength of the definition of a stray horse, questions arise in relation to the word "apparently" which is used twice in the definition. The first is where the Bill states: "stray horse" means a horse apparently wandering at large. . ., but a horse is either wandering at large or it is not. The Bill also states ". . .unaccompanied by any person apparently in charge. . ." The definition is very diluted and many legal interpretations of it are possible. How can it be apparently "wandering at large?" To whom is it apparent? Is it to the local garda or the youngster who has been given the job of keeping an eye on the animal?
The same applies in relation to somebody apparently in charge. What does that mean? How is a competent person defined? This aspect should be examined more closely to consider if that type of wording should be included given that in urban areas most of the horses are apparently in the charge of youngsters who are minors. Does the measure relate to somebody under the age of 16 years, which is the threshold in terms of the licensing of the animals?
What about youngsters riding horses through housing estates and green areas? Is that a stray horse? In many cases they are wandering around without competent people in charge. It is not trespass on the common highway, such as lanes and roads which are public areas. In urban areas, many youngsters have horses within the context of tethered or untethered which occasionally wander. However, they also ride the horses around the area. The issue of a competent person arises in that instance. If somebody is apparently not in charge, effectively, they will come within the definition of a stray horse. Much of the time that is the manner in which the horses are used. Will the Minister clarify this point?
The problem appears to be the use of word "apparently". As Members are aware, "apparently" is a legal formulation to enable the authorities to act on suspicion rather than certain knowledge and was included to strengthen the definition on the advice of the parliamentary draftsman. All the various aspects and questions raised were examined and we consider that it is the best definition available. Various questions were raised about it and we consider we came up with the best definition.
The inclusion of the phrase whether the horse is tethered or untethered arose from the Second Stage contributions, particularly that of Deputy Ahern who made a strong case in relation to tethered or untethered horses and whether they would be regarded as wandering. The term was included in case there was a grey area in terms of the definition in the Bill. The point was already covered but the definition can give rise to interpretation that any horse which is unaccompanied, whether tethered or untethered, is a stray. The words were included to avoid any confusion.
The word "apparently" was included because it is a legal formulation to enable authorities to act on suspicion rather than certain knowledge. The amendment is included to strengthen the definition of a stray horse and will have the desired effect.
I support the amendment. If a horse is tethered, it can cause extreme cruelty to that animal. It was reported in the newspapers in the past few weeks that a horse, which was left tethered to a tree, continued to walk around the tree in search of grass and food until it eventually strangled itself. The DSPCA was called out by local residents and it removed the unfortunate animal. That is not an isolated incident in Dublin; the DSPCA has a litany of such incidents of extreme cruelty to horses. For that reason I welcome this amendment.
Perhaps the Minister could define "unaccompanied". Anyone under a certain age should not be regarded as being competent to look after a horse.
The word "unaccompanied" is self-explanatory. A horse must be accompanied in that it must be kept under control. Somebody who is not in close proximity to a horse is not in control of it. As regards the age of the person in control of the horse, the authorised officer would have some discretion in determining the person's capability to control the horse. If someone is in control of the horse, they must be holding its reins. Deputy Ahern is worried that young people may not be capable of being in control of a horse. The authorised officer, whether it is a member of the Garda or a person appointed by the local authority, will decide if these people are capable of controlling the horse.
A stray horse is defined as one which is unaccompanied. If a seven year old child is walking along the roadside with a horse and is accepting responsibility for it, it is no longer regarded as a stray animal. However, a child is not capable of looking after a horse.
There seems to be some confusion about this point. Perhaps the Minister would clarify his reply.
Other sections in the Bill deal with the responsibility of parents of whoever is in charge of the household to ensure that young people are not in charge of horses. Criminal liability is also important in this regard. An authorised officer must decide if a person is fit to be in charge of the horse. This is explained in section 36 (1) (c), which states: "An authorised person or a member of the Garda Síochána may seize and detain any horse that the person or member has reason to suspect is not under adequate control." If they feel a child cannot control a horse, then that horse is not under adequate control.
Although I did not participate in the debate on Second Stage, I am interested in horses. A stray horse means an animal which can go wild; it has not fixed abode. Since the days of St. Joseph in the desert, animals have been properly tethered. I have worked with horses and I know that tethering a loose rope around a horse's neck does not control the animal. We must define "tethered". It is not possible to control a horse in any situation with a loose rope on his neck because it would slide up and down. The best way to control a horse is with blinkers and a mouthpiece. It would be a greater threat to tether the horse with a loose rope around its neck then not to tether it at all. Horses are easily annoyed and they are animals of habit. It would be cruel to tether them in this way. We should define how to tether a horse.
The Bill provides that no one under the age of 16 can get a licence to own a horse. Surely it defeats the purpose of the Bill if it does not clarify that a horse is not accompanied if a four-year-old child is wandering around with it? The horse should only be regarded as being accompanied when it is with a person over the age of 16. A person under the age of 16 is not granted a licence because they are deemed not to be competent to look after a horse. As other Members have said, a horse should be accompanied by a competent person over the age of 16.
I asked the Minister if the word "apparently" was too wide if it might be more appropriate to require a competent person to accompany an animal. We are talking about a public arena and a competent person would be properly defined in terms of the person who is entitled to own a horse and to license and register a horse. We had pitched the age of 16 for the purposes of the Bill. There was debate about whether it should be 16 or 18 and the Minister opted for the lower age. That would be the lowest age that could be accepted in terms of charge over a large animal which can cause serious injury on the public highway. Section 36 indicates that straying is only one of the criteria under which horses can be seized and detained. Others are causing a nuisance, posing a danger of property etc. . Would it be advantageous for the Minister to make a definition of this purpose or even to put in a separate section referring to a competent person and defining it for the purposes of accompanying a horse in a public area?
On Second Stage I referred to the competence of people in charge of horses and I urged the Minister to define clearly who would or would not be in charge of such horses. Too many young people are in charge of horses in urban areas. Last summer in Wexford, during the very dry period, horses were brought down to the river Slaney in groups of 25 and 30 for watering with seven and eight year olds in charge of them. On many occasions the children were kicked by the horses. Accidents were caused and immediately the young people disappeared. No one was in charge or responsible and as a result no criminal charges were brought. It is too loose to leave this decision to the authorised officers because these people travel through urban areas without ever seeing an authorised officer. By the time the officer arrives I guarantee they will be well out of sight and range. For the Minister of State to say that the authorised officer will decide whether the person of seven or eight is competent is too loose and it is very unfair to leave that decision to an authorised officer.
I agree with Deputy Gregory that we should state in the Bill that unless you are 16 years of age, you are not entitled to be in charge of such horses or groups of horses.
I support the amendment. We are putting into the legislation "(whether tethered or untethered)" and, as the Minister of State said, this is a result of Second Stage contributions. This strengthens the definition of a stray horse. It is not meant to be a definition of what tethered or untethered is. I would be reluctant to enshrine this in legislation — and perhaps it can be looked at again.
Section 36(c) covers the problems that are being raised and provides adequate controls. One of the matters brought to my attention when I produced my Bill — I was suggesting that a licence holder had to be someone over 18 years of age; it is 16 in the Bill and I support that — was that there were certain people involved in the equine industry, particularly in rural areas, who were concerned about that. They told me that it is common in many rural areas for a 12 or 13 year old to own a horse or pony. These people have grown up with horses and are able to control them. It would be very difficult to put a definitive age in the legislation. Perhaps it is something to be looked at again. There is not much more that the Minister can do with it.
Which of those sections would be relevant when a claim comes before a court for criminal damages as a result of the behaviour of horses? Will the section on stray horses be used or will section 36 on the seizures of horses not under adequate control be used? When claiming compensation for injury or damage to property, which of those two sections is relevant?
Section 36 adequately covers the concerns of the Deputies and section 42 also refers to criminal liability. I welcome the support of Deputy Kenneally for this amendment. This definition of a stray horse was not thought of lightly. It was considered carefully by my officials and the parliamentary draftsman because it is a very important part of the Bill. We sought advice from local authorities on this definition. We consulted widely on it and this is the definition which resulted. I understand where the Deputies are coming from and the concerns expressed today. Nevertheless, the Bill deals adequately with the reservations they have. This Bill has to be looked at in total because the sections are interdependent and when the Bill is read in total it will be understood why certain provisions are included. A concern raised on one section may be answered by another.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.