Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee on the Roads Bill, 1991 debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jul 1992

SECTION 64.

I move amendment No. 158:

In page 52, lines 27 to 30, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) On the commencement of this section, any agreement entered into or any scheme or bye-law made under the Act of 1979 shall, where such agreement, scheme or bye-law relates to a national road, be deemed to have been entered into or made by the Authority and with effect from such commencement all functions, rights and liabilities of the road authority concerned in relation to such agreement, scheme or bye-law shall transfer to the Authority.".

Part V of the Bill transfers tolling powers in respect of national roads from local authorities to the National Roads Authority. Consistent with that principle, this amendment proposes to substitute the National Roads Authority for the relevant road authority in any toll agreement made with private investors under the Local Government (Toll Roads) Act, 1979. In practice this amendment will only affect the toll agreement scheme and by laws made for the West Link toll facility. In that case the National Roads Authority will take over all the functions, rights and liabilities of Dublin County Council in relation to that toll facility. The original draft of subsection (2) of section 64 was not explicit in this regard and was open to the misinterpretation that the National Roads Authority could set aside the toll agreement entered into by Dublin County Council with National Toll Roads PLC in respect of the West Link.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 64, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 159:

In page 52, before section 65, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:

65.—(1) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take reasonable care for his own safety and for that of any other person using the public road.

(2) It shall be the duty of a person using a public road to take all reasonable measures to avoid—

(a) injury to himself or to any other person using the public road.

(b) damage to property owned or used by him or by any other person using the public road."

The purpose of this amendment is to codify the existing common law duty of care imposed on road users. The proposal of section 65 would impose a duty on road users to take reasonable care for their own safety and for the safety of other road users. Road users will also be obliged to take all reasonable measures to avoid injury to themselves or other road users and to avoid damage to their own or other people's property.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 160:

In page 52, before section 65 but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:

"65.—The owner of a horse found straying or unsupervised on any road shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £200 and to a further fine of £2,000 for each subsequent offence.".

There is an opportunity in this legislation to deal with very vexed questions arising throughout this country. I do not want to be seen to be anti-traveller in my view but everyone in this State must conform to a certain level of law abiding activity. To some extent, in certain areas not only travellers but traders are basically above the law and beyond reproach, either because the Garda do not or will not or cannot——

What amendment are we on?

We are dealing with section 65.

Amendment No. 160.

I thought the next section dealt with travellers.

This amendment concerns horses. In my constituency there is a grave problem with wandering horses. Children in housing estates have been hospitalised having been severely injured by horses. Wexford County Council have hired a group of 22 farmers to impound horses. This is a problem that has not been taken seriously by those in their ivory towers in departmental offices in Dublin. There are no adequate penalties or enforcement of the law in relation to wandering horses.

A Private Members Bill was put forward by The Workers' Party which proposed that one could not own a horse unless it was registered and unless one had a place to keep it. This problem has gone beyond a joke and I propose in amendment No. 160 that the owner of a horse found straying or unsupervised on any road shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £200 and a further fine of £2,000 for each subsequent offence. There is total disregard for the law in this area and I appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment.

I also believe that wandering horses are a major hazard on our roads. The problem has transferred from rural areas to towns and built-up areas. Years ago in rural areas people were pestered by wandering horses but in my county, and in other counties which I pass through on my way to Dublin, horses now are more of a nuisance in built-up areas. It is a problem we will have to take in hand and deal with effectively.

I fully appreciate the problem Deputy Yates has highlighted which, as Deputy McEllistrim stated, is no longer just a rural problem. People who used horses years ago now have Hiace and Mercedes vans. Straying horses are more dangerous than straying cattle or sheep because a horse can take fright, jump on a moving vehicle and cause serious accidents. There should be severe penalties imposed on owners of straying horses. Generally the owners of these horses have not got land on which to keep them. Farmers with horses and other valuable stock have them properly fenced in and if animals break free it is beyond the farmer's control but we are talking about people who keep horses without adequate land provided for them. Severe penalties must be imposed on these people and they should not be allowed to graze their horses on the grassy areas of our major roads.

All of us want to see a solution to this problem of wandering horses and the damage they can do in urban and rural areas, particularly on roads. We have many examples of legislation which has been designed to improve various problems such as litter, stray dogs, video nasties and so on. The impact of this legislation on these problems has been minimal. There is as much litter now as there ever has been, if not more. There are certainly more unsupervised dogs roaming around, without anyone knowing who owns them. From my experience the problem with horses is that if one finds an animal in one's yard, the owner will not admit that the animal is his so the higher the fine, the less likely it will be that the owner will claim the animal. There is only one answer to this problem and that is the extension of pounds in local authority areas where the local authorities impound these animals and owners are required to pay to get them out. If they are not claimed they can be sold for use in the horse meat industry where, I am sure, many companies would be willing to buy them for a nominal sum of money.

A far more practical approach would be to strengthen the law with regard to pounds. In my own constituency the only pound we have is in Baltinglass so if a problem arises in east Wicklow, the animal has to be transported 40 miles to the nearest pound. I know of a case where private individuals transported animals to the Curragh and released them there. This was one of the remedies used of which I am aware. We have to tackle this problem in another way and the only practical solution is to put straying animals into pounds rather than to proceed with an alternative idea that may sound reasonable but which experience in many areas has shown to be impracticable.

The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1851, as amended by the Animals Act, 1985, makes it an offence to turn loose any horse on a public road or to let any horse wander upon any public road or street, with fines up to £150 for the first offence and up to £350 for any subsequent offence. The Animals Act, 1985, which was introduced by the then Minister for Justice, updated and improved the law in relation to wandering animals. This Act gave new wide powers to local authorities and the Garda to impound wandering animals found on public roads, public parks and other open spaces. It also gave new powers to local authorities regarding the sale, disposal or destruction of impounded animals and it also provided for increased fines for offences such as allowing animals to wander on to public property. The Act also abolished the then existing immunity of occupiers of land adjoining the public road in relation to damage caused by animals straying on to the road. Any strengthening of the existing law should be looked at in this context and not in the context of the Roads Bill. I must also point out that £1,000 is the current upper limit fine that can be imposed on summary conviction.

In the light of this explanation I hope the Deputy will withdraw his amendment. I accept the concerns that Deputies have expressed in relation to wandering horses in various parts of the country. I have had some representations in regard to this problem which has reached dangerous proportions in some built-up areas. At the same time, it would be better if, in considering this matter, we were dealing with a composite set of legal provisions — preferably from the Department of Justice — relating to Garda enforcement and the impounding of stray or wandering horses. We will have to consider to what extent facilities can be modernised to cater for these problems, which have existed for some time and which have not been solved by the changes made in the 1985 Act. Under that Act, it appears that many substantial powers were provided for but which still do not adequately deal with the problem, but it is not really an issue for the Roads Bill.

First, I have pursued this matter vigorously, as have some of my colleagues from Wexford. The solution to this problem is always one further step away. The Department of the Environment say it is a matter for the Department of Justice. I have tabled endless questions to the Minister for Justice on this matter, who replied that it was a matter for the local authorities. When you pin them both down they say it is the Department of Agriculture that is responsible for horses. Someone somewhere has got to say that it is not acceptable that people would deliberately put animals on someone else's land, where they liked and when they liked. The farmer is put in a very difficult position. If horses are put in my field and I turn them out on the road and they hit a car, I am responsible. The law is a joke. It is all right to say it should be a matter for another Bill and another day but nothing is being done about it. In some cases the Garda are afraid of the itinerants. I have had people come to me whose lives are being destroyed by this problem. People are very upset and about once every six weeks I have to attend a public meeting on this issue. I am conveying the problem to the Minister, who has some responsibility in this area — perhaps not in the context of this Bill — in the hope that he will do something about it because much misery is being caused to people by others who do not give a damn. This problem will not go away and I plead with the Minister to ensure that between his Department and the other Departments tough action is taken.

If a law-abiding person or a group of people set about removing horses from the roadway and an accident occurred they would be held responsible. That is the law at present. That is not right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 161 not moved.
Top
Share