Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 May 1996

Vol. 466 No. 2

Control of Horses Bill, 1996: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (Mr. Deenihan)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

This Bill gives effect to a commitment in the programme, A Government of Renewal, to introduce legislation to control wandering horses in urban areas. The commitment arises from an undesirable phenomenon, mainly urban, which has been developing for some time. The problem has now reached such a stage that it can no longer be ignored and must be the subject of resolute legislative action without further delay. Deputies will be aware that straying horses are creating problems in many of our towns and cities, causing damage to property, traffic accidents and injury to persons, particularly children. Deputies will also be aware of recent media coverage of fatalities associated with horses straying on roads. Roads add to the topicality of the issue. With the construction of a major motorway on the perimeter of Dublin city, in the very area where there is a high concentration of uncontrolled horses, there is potential for horrendous carnage as a result of collisions between unattended horses and high-speed vehicles.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to ensure that horses are not a source of danger to life and limb. My concern is to secure a responsible, welfare-friendly maintenance and ownership of horses. I fully 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 are a fact of economic life for many urban dwellers including jarveys and carters. I am satisfied that the Bill is a balanced approach to horse ownership in an urban environment.

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

Deputies will be aware from the reply to a parliamentary question in the Official Report of 2 April that representations and observations were received from a wide variety of interested parties including other Government Departments, local authorities, public representatives, the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, MEAS, representatives of the travelling community, the Automobile Association, the IFA, the Dublin Horse Owners Association, the Joint Animal Aid Committee and from concerned individuals in relation to the general issue of urban horse control.

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

In drafting the Bill I also took account of the control of horses Bill introduced in 1990 in Private Members' Time by my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa. I commend him for his initiative in promoting that Bill, which was a most valuable source of ideas for me and my officials in drafting the Bill now before the House. There are, of course, differences of emphasis and context between the Bills, but, either expressly or by implication, I have adopted many of the ideas and concepts in the 1990 Bill and of the Private Members' Bill introduced recently by Deputy Brendan Kenneally. It is a measure of the general support for legislation of this kind across the political spectrum that Deputies have taken the interest to draft Bills of their own. A task which I intend to tackle in the near future is the question of means of identification. There are various forms of identification — freeze branding, hoof and lip tattooing, and microchip implanting — which need to be examined in order that the identification regulations to be made under section 28 incorporate an optimum form of marking for the horses to be controlled. I have accordingly arranged for officials of my Department to undertake a review of the various forms of identification to make it possible to introduce the regulations as early as possible after enactment of this Bill.

I would also like to refer briefly to the question of the monthly horse fair in Smithfield Market. There have been calls for its abolition. I have given full consideration to this matter and concluded that the issue is far too complex for treatment in a Bill of this kind, which deals with control rather than major legislative change. The general topic of markets needs to receive the comprehensive attention of a body such as the Law Reform Commission before a decision is taken on the question of abolition. My Department operates market legislation going back to the last century which is virtually defunct and, on the face of it, should be repealed. However, piecemeal abolition of such legislation or of Smithfield Market is not the way forward. At this juncture the priority is to run Smithfield on a fully regulated and supervised basis. That position, in conjunction with the ban on the sale of horses to minors under section 40 of the Bill, will largely deal with the adverse aspects of Smithfield.

Judging by representations received and Private Members' Bills, there is an expectation that the Bill under discussion should deal comprehensively with a range of detail in relation to the welfare of horses. This is unnecessary. Instead I have decided that the penalty provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, should undergo a major recasting to include penalties for conviction on indictment. Section 45 provides that the maximum penalties under subsection (1) of section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, will be as follows: on summary conviction a fine of £1,500 or six months' imprisonment or both and on conviction on indictment a fine of £10,000 or two years' imprisonment or both. This provision seeks to address a limitation of the existing section 1 (1) in that it contains only minor penalties on summary conviction. The table accompanying section 45 shows subsection (1) of section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, following insertion of the new penalties. I consider that the new provision is sufficient to deal with cases of cruelty to all animals, including horses. In proposing this new deterrent against acts of cruelty and in restating by table the relevant provisions of the 1911 Act, I am putting horse owners and others on notice that any acts of cruelty against horses or any other animal will bring them face to face with the full rigours of a strengthened law of protection.

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

The central provision in the Bill for the control of wandering horses in mainly urban areas is the declaration, by means of local authority by-laws, of control areas where a horse may not be kept without a licence. These areas will be declared by by-laws made by the local authorities under section 17, which empowers a local authority to declare any area within its functional area to be a control area where horses must be controlled by licence in order to prevent them from causing annoyance, damage, injury or nuisance. A particular advantage of control areas declared by by-law is that, where there is an intrusion of an urban horse problem into the nearby rural hinterland, the by-laws may extend the control provisions to the rural area. Another advantage is that the control provisions of the Bill may be introduced on a staged or a pilot basis whereby there can be concentration of resources on local authorities where the horse problem is acute and local authorities with a minimal horse problem may defer implementation.

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

I would now like to deal section by section with the other main provisions of the Bill. Section 2 contains definitions. The defintion of disposal of a horse includes selling, giving away or destruction. The definition of horse is that contained in the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965. Considerations of consistency arising from the necessary amendment of this Act by section 41 require that this definition be adopted. A stray horse is defined as a horse apparently wandering at large, lost or unaccompanied by any person apparently in charge of it in a public place or on any premises without the owner's or occupier's consent.

Section 3 provides for the appointment of authorised persons by the local authorities to exercise the functions conferred on them by the Act.

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

Section 6 provides that maximum penalties for offences under the Act, other than section 42, will be a fine of £1,500 or six months' imprisonment or both. For an offence under section 42 dealing with criminal liability the maximum penalties will be: on summary conviction a fine of £1,500 or six months' imprisonment or both; and on conviction on indictment a fine of £10,000 or two years' imprisonment or both. The summary fines are payable to the local authority which prosecuted the offence.

Section 7 provides that, on conviction of an offence, a person may, in addition to the penalty imposed, be disqualified from keeping a horse for such period as the court sees fit.

Section 8 empowers the court to order the forfeiture of a horse to a local authority on conviction of the owner of an offence where the welfare of the animal so demands. The local authority may seize and detain a horse and dispose of its as it thinks fit.

Section 10 allows the imposition of an on-the-spot fine of £50, variable by ministerial regulation, for offences such as failure to licence a horse kept in a control area under section 18; failure to inform the local authority of the disposal or change of ownership of a horse under section 25; failure to produce a horse licence for inspection by the local authority or the Garda Síochána under section 26; failure to remove an unlicensed horse from a public place or control area under section 27; failure to comply with by-laws under section 43; and failure to keep a horse out of an exclusion area or to comply with a requirement of an authorised officer or a member of the Garda Síochána that a horse be removed from an exclusion area under section 44.

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

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

Section 19 exempts certain horses kept in control areas from the licensing requirement. Examples of such exempted horses are those kept by the local authority, the Garda Síochána or the Minister for Defence, horses being treated by a veterinary surgeon on premises other than the premises where the horses are kept and foals kept with their dam or foster-mother.

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

Section 22 sets out the procedure for applying for a horse licence. The application shall be to the local authority and shall include the submission of a prescribed fee as specified by ministerial regulation. An application unaccompanied by the fee shall be invalid.

Section 23 sets out a procedure for appeals against a decision by a local authority to refuse to grant a horse licence or to amend, revoke or suspend a horse licence. Where the local authority notifies an application for a horse licence or a licence holder of such decision, the aggrieved person may make representations within 14 days of the notification. The applicant or holder may in turn appeal against such decision to the judge of the District Court. A decision of the District Court on an appeal shall be final save that, by leave of the court, the appeal from the decision shall lie to the High Court on a specified question of law.

Section 24 requires each local authority to maintain a register of horse licences granted by it. The register must contain information such as an identification reference and description of the horse; the name and address of the horse owner or, if the horse is kept by a person other than the owner, the name and address of the keeper; the place where the horse is kept.

Section 25 requires that, where the holder of a horse licence disposes of a horse, he or she must notify the local authority about the disposal within 14 days of disposal and must surrender the licence to the authority. Where ownership of the horse has changed, the name and address of the new owner, where known, must be given to the local authority, and the authority must record these particulars in the register maintained under section 24.

Section 26 provides that an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána may request a person whom they suspect is the owner of a horse kept in a control area to state whether such owner has a licence for the horse. It is also provided that the authorised person or the Garda may request the holder of a licence to produce it for inspection within ten working days of the request.

Section 27 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to require a person in control or charge of an unlicensed or unexempted horse in a public place or control area to remove the horse immediately from the public place or control area.

Section 28 empowers the Minister to make regulations for the identification of horses kept in control areas. This provision is intended to facilitate the prescription of nationwide means of identification so that straying over county border can be detected.

Section 29 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to inspect and examine any horse. It is also a requirement of this section that the person in charge or control of the horse shall give the authorised person or the Garda any reasonable assistance he may request for the purposes of the inspection or examination.

Section 30 obliges any person who keeps or has charge or control of a horse, or the owner or any person in charge of a premises where a horse is found, to give, when requested, the name and address, if known, of the owner of the horse to an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána.

Section 31 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to request their name and address from a person whom the officer or garda suspects is committing or has committed an offence.

Section 32 provides that an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána may direct a person to desist from offending against the provisions of section 42 or against by-laws made under section 43 or 44, i.e., to desist from dangerous use of a horse, from infringing by-laws relating to horse control and welfare, or from having a horse in an area from which it is excluded, if the authorised person or garda has reasonable cause to suspect that the person is so offending.

Section 33 provides that, where an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána suspects that an offence is being committed or a horse is being ill-treated in any premises or vehicle, the authorised person or member may enter such premises or vehicle and may, there or in any other place and with the assistance of other persons or equipment, search for any horse or document and may take extracts or copies from the document. The authorised person or the garda may not enter a dwelling without a search warrant authorising such entry.

Section 34 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue search warrants to a named member of the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary by force, and, within one month, to exercise on the premises named in the warrant any of the powers conferred on a member of the Garda Síochána under the Act.

Section 35 makes it an offence to obstruct or impede the authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána in the exercise of their functions under the Act.

Section 36 empowers an authorised person of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána to seize and detain any horse which the officer or member suspects to be a stray horse, a horse not under adequate control, a horse causing a nuisance or posing a danger to persons or property, a horse being kept in a control area without a licence, a horse not capable of being identified or a horse being kept or ridden in an exclusion area. A person who, without lawful authority, removes a horse from a place of detention while it is being detained shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 37 empowers the local authority in whose functional area the horse was found or the superintendent of the Garda Síochána to attach an identification mark or device to a horse which has been detained under section 36.

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

Section 39 requires every local authority to maintain a register of horses seized and detained in its functional area which come into its possession. Every superintendent is required to maintain a register of horses seized and detained by the Garda Síochána. The registers must contain particulars such as an identification reference, a description of the horse, the date of seizure and detention, the manner in which the horse is dealt with, the place of detention and details of the person reclaiming the horse.

Section 40 makes it an offence to sell or attempt to sell a horse to a person under the age of 16 years. Section 41 is a necessary amendment of section 24 of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1965, to obviate conflict between the prohibition against the sale of animals as pets to a person under the age of 12 years and section 40 of the Bill. The table accompanying section 41 sets out the provision in section 24 of the Act of 1965 following insertion of the amendment.

Section 42 attaches criminal liability to the owner, keeper or person in charge or control of a horse who wilfully or recklessly permits a horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to cause injury to a person or damage to property, or who wilfully or recklessly causes a horse to pose a danger to a person or property or to injure a person or damage property.

Section 43 empowers local authorities to make by-laws for the control and welfare of horses in the whole or part of its functional area. A local authority may specify the manner in which a horse is to be kept under control in a public or other place so as to prevent injury or nuisance; and specify the manner in which a horse is to be accommodated.

Section 44 empowers a local authority to prohibit by by-law the keeping or riding of a horse in an area where the horse is causing or is likely to cause a nuisance, injury or damage. An authorised officer of a local authority or a member of the Garda Síochána may require a person whom they suspect is contravening any by-law made under this section to remove the horse immediately from the area to which the prohibition applies.

These are the salient features of the Bill which I commend to the House and, in doing so, I would like to thank all the organisations and individuals who contributed to its preparation. As I indicated we engaged in a wide-ranging consultation process in formulating the terms of the Bill. Nevertheless, I will listen very carefully to contributions from Deputies and will be prepared to consider favourably and will be structive proposals which would improve the measures and which are appropriate to the legislation. I thank my officials for the hard work they put into the preparation of the Bill and I look forward to an open, comprehensive and constructive debate.

Mr. Kenneally

I welcome the Bill and am glad that the Minister of State and the Government have reacted to the Control and Regulation of Horses, Bill, 1996, published by me earlier this year. It is wonderful to see the Government trotting after Fianna Fáil when we introduce a Bill. While welcoming its provisions, I give a general welcome to the Bill as many areas need to be looked at again. In this context I wish to put forward some ideas. However, I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity some weeks ago to discuss these provisions in committee after the general principle of the Bill had been produced.

I am opposed to the unnecessary use of licensing to solve social problems but when people are killed on the road and life is made unbearable for people living in housing estates and elsewhere then proper controls on the keeping of horses must be introduced and enforced. I drafted my Bill out of a sense of frustration at the lact of action taken to tackle this growing problem. Dogs are not allowed to roam free in public places, yet horses, which pose a greater danger to the general public, are largely uncontrolled. It is unbelievable that no form of registration or licensing has been introduced in this area.

I always felt that wandering horses would cause deaths on the roads and unfortunately this was borne out earlier this week in County Tipperary and a few weeks ago in County Meath. These are only two in a long list of mishaps, some fatal, which the road using population has had to endure for many years. We have never looked at the problem in its proper perspective or realised the level of frustration and anger among the public or danger posed to them by wandering horses. Some weeks ago a young girl lost her life at a concert as a result of a breakdown in crowd control. Calls were rightly made for a major investigation into this incident and the procedures generally followed at such events. The loss of human life is a serious matter which always warrants investigation, yet we have allowed horses go uncontrolled for decades with a consequent loss of life. As such incidents were conveniently classed as road accidents there seemed to be no urgency in dealing with the problem.

The difficulties and dangers presented by wandering and uncontrolled horses are so old and seemingly so well accepted that I often wondered if we as legislators would ever face up to our responsibilities. One can keep a cat or dog with little bother or imposition on one's neighbour but the keeping of a horse cannot be called a trivial decision as it has major cost implications for the owner, its size makes it difficult to properly control and its general welfare necessitates a great deal of work by the owner. As the ISPCA says every Christmas, a dog is a present for life. However, for those people who live beside irresponsible neighbours a horse can be a life sentence. This is not good enough and the problem must be dealt with. Those who own or control horses must be made live up to their responsibilities both to the animal and society.

Many people who keep horses have small gardens or no gardens but even if they had large gardens I doubt if they would allow them to cut up the lawn or damage it. Instead they irresponsibly allow their horse to graxe the long acre, the side of the road, or hunt them into public land where they disrupt the unfortunate residents. Lest anyone thinks I am singling our a particular section of the population, I would remind Deputies that the settled population is as much to blame, and in many cases more so, than travellers for the problem of wandering horses. Richard III is said to have cried out in frustration, "A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse". I know many housing estates where he would find a stable full of horses any afternoon. In addition to this obviously unacceptable problem, we should look at the financial cost of horses which are let run loose. In many cases gardaí are called out to deal with this problem, taking them away from other duties. They must also try to find and notify the owners or else arrange for the animals to be collected and transported to a horse pound.

My experience of the problem has been in an urban context but I am aware that it is also a problem in many rural areas. We must not only legislate to curb the current difficulty but also anticipate future problems and the way some horse owners might try to circumvent the new law. Accordingly, it is important that the regulations are enforced throughout the country, not merely in urban areas.

I note that the Minister has now entitled the Bill — Control of Horses Bill, 1996, rather than Control of Horses in Urban Areas Bill as it was entitled when its heads came before us in committee. Initially that change heartened me since I assumed that some of the points made by my colleagues and me had been taken on board by the Minister but, unfortunately, it appears that is not the case.

I should like to point out those provisions which should be included in the Bill and comment on how its actual proposals, as drafted, withstand that scrutiny.

A system of identification of horses is most important and a tamper-proof method introduced if at all possible. There are a number of systems of identification which can be used — such as freeze branding, microchip implant, lip tattoo, hoof tattoo and others, the least likely of which to be tampered with being the microchip implant. I am informed that even the Irish Show Jumping Association is considering implementing this method of identification resulting from problems it has encountered in the course of its competitions. I was also interested to discover that this method has already been introduced by the Fettercairn horse project in Dublin, to which I shall revert later. While other methods are open to abuse, perhaps there is some other tamper-proof means of tagging horses and, if so, they should be deployed.

I am fully aware — and the Minister must accept — that people are very adept at circumventing controls and quickly devise methods to cheat society and the State. So far they have been able to reproduce smart cards for television decoders, refresh Telecom phone cards, falsify insurance certificates, alter animal records, even copying road tax discs; the list is endless. When it comes to frustrating the law, dodging payment of a fine or otherwise refusing to comply with an accepted system, people will devise and use the most ingenious methods.

Logically, therefore, a chip implanted by means of minor surgery, replaceable only by the same method, is probably the only system with any chance of success, given the level of expertise involved and, while it may be a paying proposition to attempt replacement in the case of a valuable racehorse, it is a far more remote possibility in the case of a less well-bred horse kept as a pet.

The regulations should be enforced for all horses with the exception of thoroughbred racehorses. In addition, it should be an offence to keep any horse over the age of six months unless it can be properly identified. Any change of registration must be duly recorded. Any person transferring possession of a horse could do so only if he was the holder of registration papers for that animal. In the interests of eradicating disease, we have been able to effect such control in the case of cattle, much more numerous, so that it should not be an insurmountable task in the case of a few thousand horses.

Registration should be carried out by the local authority of the functional area in which the horse is to be kept, with restrictions on the type of person who could qualify to own a horse. I envisage this registration procedure being operated somewhat along the lines of the present motor vehicle registration whereby the Garda would have easy access to the records to establish the ownership of an impounded horse. Registration papers would follow a standard format and be valid, from date of issue, for the duration of the horse's life, any fees arising in this identification process and in the production of registration papers to be paid to the relevant local authority.

In the context of this problem, the most important part of any legislation is the actual, physical control of horses. Horses should not be permitted to be in any place other than, (a) the premises of the owner, (b) the premises of any other person in charge of the horse and (c) the premises of any other person, with the consent of that person, thus ensuring that its owner or such other person in charge of it keeps it under effectual control. The very application of such criteria immediately precludes horses from straying on public roads, private property or lands in the control of a local authority.

If those measures are breached, immediate action must be taken and horses impounded under the provisions of the Animals Act, 1985. When a local authority has taken possession of any animal, it should be transferred to a national pound. I will revert in a moment to my reasons for recommending the establishing of a national pound.

When a horse has been impounded more than once, the relevant local authority may dispose of the animal as it thinks fit, even to the extent of having it destroyed humanely by a veterinary surgeon. The impounding of a horse should be carried out by a member of the Gárda Síochána, a local authority or an ISPCA inspector, such bodies agree their liaison arrangements for that purpose.

Whenever a horse is claimed from the pound and the authorities are satisfied that the applicant is entitled to claim it, certain undertakings must be given to ensure the animal's future well-being. All costs incurred in the removal of a horse to a pound, veterinary fees and provision of sustenance while maintained in the pound, must be paid for before release.

As the Bill stands, each local authority is required to provide its horse pound. However, most of them do not and it would probably not be financially feasible. As I perceive it, the main problem has to do with security. Local authorities are in poor financial circumstances at present and, if compelled to provide a 24 hours a day presence at a horse pound, the likelihood is they would be able to provide one person or at the very most two at any given time. If a number of horses were impounded and their various owners banded together to raid the pound to recover their animals, its defenders would not be in a physical position to prevent them, thus rendering such a facility useless.

If there was a national pound funded by all local authorities, proper security could be provided 24 hours a day and any owner wishing to retrieve a horse would be obliged to do so in an orderly manner.

The legislation relating to the sale of horses also needs to be tightened up, to the extent that any horse fair, sale or mart would require the permission of the relevant local authority, impose a prohibition on the sale of horses to any person aged under 18 years, accompanied by a provision that there would be an approved veterinary surgeon available and so on. I outlined a number of other stipulations in my Bill, too lengthy to list here and to which I shall refer on Committee Stage.

Sufficient grazing must be provided for the maintenance of horses. While there are instances of horses kept in a house or garden, this can be allowed only if its owner can prove that it is a work-horse on which he depends for his livelihood or a substantial part thereof. It is ludicrous to think that a horse can be cared for properly on the roadside. Therefore, it should be a requirement of the Bill that people are able to prove they have proper quarters and open space so that horses are not mistreated or have less than a normal lifestyle resulting from the confined space in which they are kept.

Following an accident involving a wandering horse, the animal's owner will be liable for damage or injury caused to any person, motor vehicle or any other property. From where will the resources come to pay compensation to the victims of wandering horses? More often than not, their owner would be unable to pay any realistic amount of compensation and the likelihood of insurance cover is slim. Perhaps we should consider a scheme of insurance akin to car insurance to provide adequate cover in such circumstances. An innocent pedestrian, cyclist or motorist should not be at a loss; neither should a householder who suffers serious damage to his or her home, land or other property.

There is no reference to the ISPCA in section 3, although I specifically referred to it, and it must be involved. Perhaps it is intended that a local authority can designate members or officers of that society as authorised persons.

Section 6 sets out the penalties involved. I am prepared reluctantly to go along with them although I had suggested more severe penalties. I note also that the fine has been reduced from £2,000 in the general scheme of the Bill, circulated previously, but that the term of imprisonment has been increased from three to six months. One could argue forever about the amount of a fine or length of incarceration. At least I am happy the Minister is not taking too lenient a view in this respect.

The provisions of section 7 are in accord with my views. Nevertheless, there should be a provision that a judge can disqualify a person from ownership of a horse, if necessary, for life.

With regard to the forfeiture of horses dealt with in section 8, it appears that court action must be taken before a local authority can dispose of any animal. I referred earlier to my belief that, if an animal has been impounded twice, it could not be returned to its owner but disposed of by the relevant local authority. Under the general scheme of the Bill we discussed previously, the Minister had suggested that, if an animal has been impounded on three occasions, it could be disposed of in some manner. It is hard to argue which of those methods would be the more appropriate or proper. The Bill, as drafted, appears to move away from that provision. There may not always be a will to go to court to seek a conviction, particularly because of the costs involved, which may not be awarded to the local authority, and the delays usually encountered in court cases. It would be easier to grant powers to local authorities after two or three visits to the national pound.

I am intrigued by section 11 (1) which states that "a register may be prepared, established and maintained in a form that is not legible if it is capable of being converted into a legible form". I have tried to figure out what that section means, without success, and I ask the Minister to enlighten me on it.

I have a major difficulty with the concept of control areas stipulated under section 17, which basically urbanises the Bill. We were told on Committee Stage that a local authority could designate a county as a controlled area. That being the case, why should it not be written into the legislation? It is suggested that there is not a problem in rural areas, but on two recent occasions I have met wandering horses on rural roads in my constituency. Nothing is more dangerous than being confronted with wandering horses on driving round a bend at normal speed. It is dangerous, disruptive, unnecessary and should be dealt with firmly by the Minister in this legislation, but the danger, aggravation or loss is not always confined to roads. Horses can inflict damage on crops in rural areas, on rural gardens or on innocent bystanders in their homes. The practice whereby owners of horses can drive their animals into fields at will to graze on the cream of crops, regardless of the damage they cause, must stop. It must be brought home to people, who inflict such loss on farmers or other land owners, that such practice is no longer acceptable, that there is a law to deal with it, the will to enforce it and no jurisdiction in which it does not have effect. There cannot be safe havens for people who attempt to flout the provisions of this legislation.

I am concerned that the owners of a large number of horses will move to an area within a local authority jurisdiction which is not a controlled one. I foresee problems in suburbs of cities such as Waterford or Limerick, which are in a different county. That would make a mockery of the legislation. The Minister stated that if there was a problem concerning wandering horses in an area, new by-laws could be introduced to deal with it, but from reading the Bill I gather it may take a number of months to do so, by which time the owners of horses could move them to another area that is not controlled. One of the reasons the Minister put forward this proposal is that a large number of farmers own work-horses, which do not cause a problem, and they would be exempt from registration. In farming a new law we must be practical and appreciate how these measures will operate in reality.

While the general scheme of the Bill was presented to us, there were many references to the Control of Dogs Act, 1986. Despite that legislation I am not aware of inspectors going on to the private property to ascertain if dogs are licensed. If they are not running free or causing a problem, they are largely ignored. That is a common-sense way of enforcing the regulations. Similarly, I do not envisage authorised persons visiting farms throughout the country to ascertain if their horses are licensed. I do not see how a well-cared for horse, tethered or stabled three fields from the public road will attract the attention of members of the suffering public or an inspector. Initially, I expect those people, who may have to bring their animals on the public thoroughfares, will be registered. It is also likely that many of those now flouting the law will not register their animals. However, that could be remedied if the horses were impounded as there are not circumstances in which a horse would be released from a pound without being properly registered.

Another reason that provision is included may be to exclude areas in which thoroughbred horses are normally found. Unless I missed it, I did not find any provision to exempt thoroughbred horses from registration. If it is intended to cover that through the use of control areas, those with thoroughbred horses in urban areas would have to register them whereas those in rural areas would not. Those horses need to be specifically exempted.

The remaining sections in Part II concerning licensing of horses, maintenance of registers etc., appear to be very much in line with what I suggested and I do not have a problem with their content. If my reading and understanding of section 28 is correct, I compliment the Minister on listening to the views put forward during the committee hearing. According to the explanatory memorandum, the Minister is empowered to make a regulation for the identification of horses which would be a nationwide means of identification. I accept the Minister's right to make such regulation by the best means available and I assume that section means there will be a standard system for the country or control areas as envisaged by the Minister.

I made the point forcefully when the heads of the Bill were discussed that some of these animals are mobile and could easily end up in different local authority jurisdictions. That being the case, the previous suggestion of allowing each local authority to decide its means of identification could not work. Under a standard system it would be easy for information to be transferred from one local authority area to another.

Section 40 introduces an age of 16, below which a person cannot own a horse. Below that age the head of a household is deemed to be the owner. I suggested an age limit of 18 years, but in doing so I was conscious that provision could be circumvented by an adult registering as owner of the animal involved. There is nothing we can do about this and I cannot quibble with this provision. It may throw some responsibility on a parent to ensure a horse is properly looked after.

I agree with the proposals in section 42 whereby criminal liability is attached to the owner or person in charge of a horse as it would be unfair to put the onus on the injured person or the property owner.

Section 43 may contradict section 28. Section 43 appears to give power to the local authority to make a by-law in its functional area whereby it can require identification of a horse in such manner or by such means as may be specified. If it is given to the authority to decide the means of identification, that is different from section 28 which provides that the Minister lays down, by way of regulation, the system of identification.

The Bill does not deal specifically with the sale of horses, a problem area identified by a number of animal organisations in the past. The Minister may intend to cover this area in each local authority by means of a by-law, but it might make more sense to specifically include provisions in this legislation. Neither are there any provisions on the keeping of horses. In my Private Members' Bill, I proposed provisions governing the keeping of horses in restricted areas, the amount of grazing land required etc. However, I have an open mind about this now, particularly in view of the arguments put forward on Committee Stage.

I mentioned the Fettercairn Horse Project, the Ranch, located in Tallaght and I would like to deal with it in more depth. The main reason for bringing forward legislation in this area is chiefly to curb the menace of wandering horses and not to put a stop to the fun and joy that horses bring to so many children and adults. This is not normally a problem in rural areas, but can be in an urban context. I had the pleasure of visiting and seeing at first-hand the excellent work being carried out in a supervised and orderly manner. This project could be a prototype for other areas although I realise this type of horse ownership is largely Dublin based. Currently, approximately 30 horses, individually owned, are catered for by this organisation and if it did not exist, those animals would be running wild and causing many problems.

Currently there is an area of approximately one acre of land beside a local community centre owned by South Dublin County Council. This land has been fenced off into corrals with chain-link fencing. Boundary fencing has been provided as well as temporary stabling. Every morning young people water their horses and release them from the corral to graze on land largely owned by the local authority. The horses are staked to prevent them from wandering. After school the young people clean the corrals and stables and water the horses. At approximately 7 p.m. all the horses are locked up for the night. In addition to the obvious social benefits this activity provides by keeping so many young people occupied there are also other possibilities for future employment in the equine area. Courses in horse riding and stable management, workshops on animal welfare and harness making and so on are been conducted.

Many of our larger towns and cities are becoming urban jungles and we constantly hear the call for the provision of more and more green areas. It would not be such a bad idea if some of these green areas encompassed a fenced-off portion for equine pursuits under the control of approved local bodies. Often large indoor recreational facilities are provided when a simpler and cheaper solution could be found. The experience in Fettercairn is an example of that. The leaders of this project are concerned that once this legislation is enacted the land will be taken back from them by the local authority and the horses impounded. This would be a retrograde step. We could address this issue on Committee Stage by tabling an amendment to give a mandate to local authorities to set land aside for this purpose. It would have to be strictly controlled with only organisations approved by the local authority eligible to participate.

I look forward to the debate on this Bill and to further discussion on Committee Stage when some of the changes I have suggested might be implemented.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand that the main spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats Party will not be speaking until later in the debate. I would, therefore, normally call on a Government spokesperson.

Mr. Broughan

Would it be in order if I share my time with Deputy Gregory? Perhaps Deputy Gregory would like to speak first.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is satisfactory and agreed.

Mr. Gregory

It would have been more satisfactory had the Chair told me that when he indicated that I could have the Progressive Democrats time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy misunderstood. I was quite specific in what I indicated to the Deputy, which is what I have just announced. I would normally call on a Government Deputy at this time in accordance with established practice.

Mr. Broughan

Deputy Gregory has an early appointment, so I am agreeable to his speaking first if he so wishes.

Mr. Gregory

I thank Deputy Broughan for allowing me to speak first. I have just a few comments on this Bill. I represent an area in Dublin and hope, following the next general election, to represent a wider area than I currently do when the Dublin Central constituency will include Cherry Orchard and Ballyfermot where this is quite an important issue. When one reads the weekly accounts of cruelty to animal in our newspapers, and the accounts of residents in these areas expressing their constant concern on grounds of health, safety — even for the animals themselves — caused by horses being left wandering on urban green spaces, in front gardens and on roadways, one has to welcome this Bill. As somebody who has expressed concern for the welfare of animals in the past I have no difficulty in saying I welcome many of the provisions in this Bill.

The one major question I have about the Bill is whether it will exclude young people from owning horses on the basis of class. If one lives in a poor, disadvantaged area and in poor circumstances, will this Bill preclude owning a horse or any other animal?

In the Cherry Orchard area young people, in anticipation of this measure, have been attempting to rent land so that they can maintain their horses in a proper and responsible way within the provision of this Bill. I welcome the fact that the Minister said he was prepared to listen to suggestions. In some ways I am reiterating the suggestion of the previous speaker when I give the example of the Cherry Orchard area where Dublin Corporation has developed an action plan and intends, as part of that plan, to set aside 11 or 12 acres as part of a pilot project for a horse welfare scheme. It is hoped to get the support of FÁS, the vocational education committee, the DSPCA and various other authorities in conjunction with and under the control of the local communities to organise a similar project to train young people in the welfare and care of horses and allow them to continue to own horses in a responsible and controlled way.

My suggestion to the Minister, which I hope he will respond to in detail, is that a measure which can and will have a major impact on the ownership and control of horses in the Dublin area in particular should be accompanied by Government incentives to the local authorities or direct to communities to enable young people to organise alternative projects. The current situation is that many young people simply leave their horses wandering on open green spaces. This is unacceptable to everyone concerned, including the owners, many of whom I have spoken to, but it is the result of simply living in a community that does not have the resources to do otherwise. What I am asking is that the Government which is introducing this measure should at the same time announce measures, incentives, and assistance to local authorities to establish projects such as the one in Fettercairn, or the one the community in the Cherry Orchard area is attempting, with little or no resources to set up. The Minister and the Government should look carefully at this to see what financial or other resources can be made available to allow such projects to be managed and run by the local community. If this is not done the Bill will effectively exclude young people from owning horses on the basis of class. That would be wrong and would discriminate against people living in disadvantaged areas.

It is appropriate that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform is here because, in many ways, this is an issue of equality. I represent an area in which many young people have a minority interest in owning horses. In many ways this Bill represents the will and wishes of the majority. The issue of concern to everybody is the appalling cruelty we have witnessed almost on a weekly basis.

In that context I pay tribute to the work of the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals because without its selfless activity, the situation would be much worse. Perhaps the Minister when responding will indicate what help and financial assistance the Government gives to the DSPCA because I understand it operates on very limited funding and very little State support. The DSPCA has led the campaign against cruelty and highlighted this issue and has had a major input in having this Bill brought before the House. I welcome it.

Many speakers will emphasise these points but a point that may not be emphasised by others, is that of maintaining the amenity value of horse ownership in urban areas by State support in an organised and responsible fashion. If this is to be done it will require resources, a range of incentives and giving a lead and direction to the local authorities to try to do this. I hope the Minister will respond to this aspect of the problem in due course.

I thank Deputy Broughan for sharing his time with me.

Mr. Broughan

I welcome this Bill but I am exasperated at the length of time it has taken to bring it before the House. It is a classic example of the urban-Dublin-rural divide in this House. Urban horses have always been a problem. I recall a poem by Evan Boland in which the wandering urban horse is referred to as a "was horse" somewhere in the south side of Dublin.

This problem has exploded in the past three years and horses have become an extremely difficult, irritating and dangerous nuisance in many parts of Dublin. I am certain, however, that this legislation or the smaller Fianna Fáil Bill could have been produced two to three years ago. Why was there such an incredibly long delay? Is it because many people in this House do not give a damn about Dublin and are not concerned about the fundamental issues that affect Dubliners or is it that we have such huge entrenched vested interest group who avail of the tax free concessions in the horse breeding industry in the rural horse rearing aristocracy which controls so much of our land? This problem in a minor way is like the horrendous drug problem which affects our city in a major way. We know we desperately need legislation, facilities and treatment but we Dublin Deputies are still waiting. Deputy Bertie Ahern who represented Dublin Central for nearly 19 years saw the problem exploding but what did he do as a senior Minister to try to cope with it? Unfortunately, some Members seem to say, "to hell with Dubliners and to hell with Dubliners' concerns" and you really wonder what Dublin Deputies have to do to get the key problems facing Dublin on the agenda.

This Bill only does half the job because many of its provisions refer to making further lengthy bureaucratic by-laws by the local authorities. The earliest the Bill could be in operation in Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Coolock is nearly a year from now. This saga has lasted four to five years. Why did Dublin representatives have to wait so long for this? It is utterly exasperating and outrageous and sometimes I think it would be better to have a regional parliament in which we would deal with our own problems in this city.

I concur with Deputy Gregory that the urban horse has brought some benefits to very deprived areas. In my own constituency I have seen several mammies buying horses for their young people and it effectively kept them out of serious trouble with drug related crime.

The upsurge of interest in horses has coincided with the decline in joy riding which previously was a desperate menace and we had to wait until 1994 for legislation to deal with it.

I have seen the great affection, the great interest and the developing equestrian skills of many urban children and young people. For all of these reasons we need to encourage those young people but to do that we need substantial funding. There is a one or two line reference to that in the Bill — and I will return to that later — but I do not see the kind of massive support to which Deputy Gregory refers if we are to set up a number of urban stables around the city.

This Bill is necessary and the key reason for its introduction is to deal with stray animals. The open spaces in my constituency from Moate View Drive and Green across through Belcamp, Darndale, Fr. Collin's Park in Donaghmede, Edenmore, Springdale Road, Donaghmede Park and our new city estates have been utterly and totally wrecked and young trees have been pulled up. The Dublin City Parks department does excellent work but its effort has been totally frustrated by the problem of stray, uncontrolled horses. There are young people in football and camogie teams who spend an hour or an hour and a half trying to repair a pitch before the game can commence. Likewise on the streets, many footpaths are fouled and totally wrecked as a result of this problem. Uncontrolled horses are dangerous. In the past six months there were three very serious incidents in my constituency where horses reared up on a young child and caused fairly serious injury. Then we had the spikes left on our open spaces and which are a danger to athletes, footballers and so on. While driving on one of the roads in my constituency I narrowly avoided a horse jumping across the boundary field of Darndale Park.

Many of the corporation tenants in my constituency who live next door to where horses are kept face difficulties. There are one or two spectacular cases of five or six horses that are kept in urban stables. The reality is that most urban households and gardens are not big enough for such large animals to be tethered in. There is reference to this in Roddy Doyle's book, The Commitments. Urban horses going in through the front door seems funny but it is unpleasant for those who live next door.

Like Deputy Gregory, it was the cruelty to animals which motivated us to demand this legislation. During Christmas at least six horses died in the Coolock ward of Dublin City. Horses have been left out in the wind, rain, snow and heat. They have been cruelly ridden, with perhaps many children on them, kicked and beaten. Some horses have even been ridden to death. The last speaker paid tribute to the DSPCA and other organisations which have tried to rescue horses. This, most of all, is why we are debating this Bill.

I am disappointed that there is nothing in the Bill about horse sales and fairs. Deputy Kenneally introduced a Bill on horses a few months ago, at least a page of which was devoted to sales and fairs. The Smithfield horse fair in Dublin is causing difficulties. It is run in an out of control and ad hoc way without any permission from the local authority. This has only happened in relatively recent times; it is not an ancient tradition. It is too cruel even to think about horses being raced on cobbled ground or behind vehicles but this happens on the first Sunday of every month in a part of this city. The Minister should look at this area again.

I welcome the attempts in the Bill to establish areas of control in local authority functional areas. The decision to ban the sale of horses to people under 16 is merited in the circumstances. The Minister's decision to introduce reasonable penalties for cruelly abusing horses and for refusing to implement this legislation is to be commended. I welcome the power to seize and detain horses. There have been difficuties in organising round ups of horses in north side estates in recent years. Section 8 will go some way towards doing something about this. There is no reference in section 12 to how horses will be identified. Deputy Kenneally Bill's referred to freeze branding, micro chip implants and lip and hoof tattoos. I presume the Minister will make an order or issue regulations with regard to branding but this should be detailed more clearly in the Bill.

There is a section relating to by-laws. Having been a member of a local authority, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will know the lengthy debates authorities have in order to agree by-laws. I welcome the democratic procedures outlined in the Bill. However, they are long drawn out and the Minister should look at this. Section 15 refers to grants to local authorities. I hope this will include serious and positive provision for the meritorious side of urban horse owning because this needs resources. I welcome the provisions on the designation of control areas and the management of licences. I welcome the fact that under section 20 not maintaining horses properly, abusing them and causing them injury or harm will constitute major offences. Section 42 clearly establishes that errant horse owners will be subject to criminal liability for demage.

There could be a positive side with regard to horses if we establish a regime of controls. A previous speaker referred to Fettercairn in Tallaght. There is a plan for Gallanstown in west County Dublin. North Coolock also comes to mind. In all these areas there is the possibility of having urban stables. I agree with other Deputies that we need a reasonable amount of land attached to such stables if children are not to have access to open spaces or their gardens. We need serious funding from the Government to be able to do this. Perhaps horse owners like Mr. Charles J. Haughey, who does not live too far north of the urban horse owning area, and owners in County Meath, who do not live far from Finglas, might put some of their facilities at the disposal of young horse owners who truly want to be involved in equestrian sports.

I am exasperated that this legislation has taken so long to be introduced. I hope its passage through the Oireachtas will be quick, that local authorities will implement it and that we will provide real funding to support the positive side of urban horse owning.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): I welcome the Bill. There have been a number of attempts to introduce a Bill on the control of horses over the past few years. I commend Deputy Kenneally for recently introducing such a Bill and putting forward radical and wide ranging suggestions on how to control wandering horses.

There is a perception among some Deputies that this problem exists only in Dublin and the major cities. It exists throughout the country. Enniscorthy is noted for the number of horses who wander through the streets, greens, housing estates and other areas of the town and its hinterland. For many years we have fought to have such a Bill introduced. A local action committee has put forward numerous suggestions to me and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, as to how some of these major problems can be resolved.

Many road accidents have been caused by horses. Some people have been killed and others seriously injured. Children have been kicked by wandering horses. Pedestrians have been knocked off footpaths and roadways. Large numbers of horses are galloped through Enniscorthy to the River Slaney on a regular basis, particularly during the summer, in order to give them water. Many horses are well looked after, particularly in rural towns. They are not undernourished and are always of the highest quality. However, when there is a road accident, a pedestrian is knocked down or a child is kicked, nobody seems to own the horses. It has proved to be a major difficulty for local authorities and the Garda to apprehend and bring to justice the people responsible for such accidents.

Local authorities have done their best over the years to deal with the problem. However, because of lack of funds, manpower and legislation, they were never in a position to deal comprehensively with the problem of wandering horses in towns and along highways. They usually collect such horses and bring them to a pound. However, the following morning they find that the gate of the pound has been broken or its railing has been cut and the horses have been taken out. The horse disappear from the urban area for a period but within a week or ten days they again wander uncontrolled through the town with no one seeming to have responsibility for them.

We need to provide pounds of a standard adequate to keep these horses in. Empowering local authorities to make by-laws for the control and welfare of horses is worthwhile. However, the issue of where to keep them if they are apprehended is another day's work. Major finance could be made available to local authorities to upgrade their pounds. However, Deputy Kenneally's suggestion of a regional pound may be a better way of dealing with the issue. Such a pound would be operated by a number of authorities who would pool their resources and finances in order to have a high quality pound. The Minister should consider this possibility.

People who own wandering horses are often wealthy. However, it is difficult to pinpoint who owns horses and from where they come. There was a serious accident on the Wexford road last Christmas. Two or three cars were badly damaged and some people were injured. When the accident happened, there were people with the horses. However, when members of the Garda appeared on the scene, some of these people had disappeared. Others said the horses did not belong to them but to other people of the same name. This is a difficult problem. Under existing legislation if I report a problem to the local authority, it will, in turn, report it to the Garda Síochána who will state that there is very little, if anything, it can do, as it does not have the necessary powers to deal with it.

This is an interesting Bill. The Minister of State said that all worthwhile and radical suggestions will be considered favourably. That is welcome because every Deputy has experienced the problem of wild and wandering horses. During the Dublin West by-election candidates were made aware of the concerns and fears of the local community about the damage caused to property and playing pitches. What is of more concern is that people have been injured. This gave rise to appeals to bring forward the Bill as a matter of urgency. The problem was highlighted on a regular basis in recent months by Deputy Kenneally, by Deputy De Rossa when in Opposition and by most Deputies at some stage. It is up to each one of us to make a contribution to ensure the best possible legislation is enacted into law to resolve it once and for all.

Communities throughout the country are fed up to the teeth with this problem and the lack of control over stray and wandering horses. I appreciate that in some areas people have traditionally kept horses and acted responsibly, but there are also the cowboys who want to make a fast buck without having to provide land or feeding stuffs or exercising any control, as this costs money. The horses are usually placed in the local farmer's field or allowed to roam on public land. Unfortunately, whenever they break free, no one seems to be able to deal with the problem. I do not want to change the traditional way of life, but the suggestions put forward by the Minister of State and Deputy Kenneally that people should have to provide land, act responsibly and so on are welcome. In this way the Garda Síochána and local authorities should be able to identify the owners when horses are found wandering on the highways and byways.

At a time when millions of sheep and hundreds of thousands of cattle are marked on the ear, back or tail — this system works reasonably well — it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility, in an era of high technology, to devise a system involving the use of microchips or tattoos to identify horses. The Minister of State said he will seriously consider introducing regulations to provide for this. He also said he is empowering local authorities to make by-laws for the control and welfare of horses in the whole or part of its functional area requiring identification of the horse in such manner or by such means as may be specified and specifying the manner in which the horse is to be accommodated. As there appears to be a slight contradiction, perhaps he will clarify the matter. There is a need for regulations to ensure a proper identification system is put in place to enable the Garda Síochána and the local authorities to positively identify the owners of animals immediately when an accident occurs resulting in damage to property.

The local authorities have an important role to play. They provide such services as refuse collection and street cleaning on a daily basis and know who lives in each housing estate. Its members and staff are very much aware of what is happening. It is vital that they are given adequate resources to implement the provisions of this Bill and any regulations and by-laws which may be made under it. Too often in the past regulations have been made without providing the necessary finance to allow local authorities to implement them. The Minister of State said that he intends to adopt a hands-on approach. While this is important it is equally important that the local authorities are provided with the wherewithal to deal with this serious problem.

Section 37 states that where a horse has been detained under section 36 the local authority in whose functional area the horse is detained or the superintendent of the Garda Síochána, as the case may be, may cause to be attached to the horse such identification mark or device as the authority or the superintendent sees fit. In Enniscorthy horses rounded up by the local authority are placed in the local pound. More often than not they are removed the following morning by their owners and once more allowed to roam the streets. Because of the lack of a proper identification system no one knows who owns each horse or if they have been impounded previously. This is an important section and must be rigidly enforced.

There is a need for close co-operation between members of the Garda Síochána and local authority officials who have criticised each other. There is much frustration. It seems the Garda Síochána does not want to know whenever the local authorities contact it about the dangers posed by wandering horses on the roads as it does not believe it has any particular role to play in the matter. There must be close co-operation between the Garda Síochána and local authority officials, which is not happening at the moment. There is a lot of frustration and criticism of each other's roles in relation to the problem. The Garda Síochána do not want to hear from local authorities when they contact them about the danger of wandering horses on the roads because they feel they do not have the powers to deal with it or any particular role to play. In fairness, the Garda do not have the necessary round up facilities.

For a number of years in Enniscorthy and Wexford, the IFA and the ICMSA have been involved with the local authority in rounding up animals and taking them to pounds further afield. To a certain extent that has worked because people have to travel to other parts of the country and pay a lot of money to get their horses released from pounds. There has been a working relationship between certain bodies in the county and it has operated in other counties also. It is only a haphazard system, however, and has never operated properly.

This Bill will give powers to the Garda and the local authority to deal effectively with the problem. I hope the Minister will take on board the ideas and amendments as the Bill progresses through the House. The Minister should ensure, above all, that finances are available to deal with the problem.

The traditional role of those involved with horses should be maintained under strict control. If necessary, they should be forced to adopt a responsible attitude, failing which they should be dealt with effectively under this Bill. They should be made to suffer the consequences whether that involves removing their horses, imposing fines or not allowing them to have horses for a number of years.

I welcome the Bill which represents a major effort to deal with the problem. Deputy Kenneally, Deputy De Rossa — before he was a Minister — and others have tried to deal with it. It was always going to be difficult, from an equality and legislative point of view, to avoid isolating one section of the community just because they had horses. For that reason, the Bill has to deal with horses owned by all sections of the community. I hope the Minister will heed the suggestions and ideas raised in this House. We will then have a Bill which, at last, will deal effectively and efficiently with the problems we have experienced.

Ms Shortall

I welcome the introduction, at long last, of this legislation. I share the exasperation of my colleagues, Deputy Broughan and Deputy Gregory, at the long delay in introducing it. Much of the delay was caused by the fact that this is an urban issue affecting working class areas, primarily in Dublin. For that reason the legislation has not been given the priority it deserves. Like so many other issues affecting working class areas of Dublin, there simply is not the political interest in this House to handle it with the urgency it requires.

This issue should have been dealt with five years ago when proposals were made by my constituency colleague, Deputy De Rossa. I do not see why his fine proposals could not have been adopted then. Worthwhile proposals were also put forward by Deputy Kenneally, but for a number of reasons action on them was delayed. It is regrettable that such delay occurred because if we had put our minds to dealing with this problem five years ago it could have been managed more easily. The difficulty now is that the problem is out of control. It is a huge problem in urban working class areas around the country.

Since coming to the House at the end of 1992 I have found it difficult to draw attention to this issue which greatly affects my constituents. The main difficulty has been in trying to get people to understand the nature of the problem. Rural based Deputies, and Ministers in particular, simply did not understand it. The view taken in the beginning was that this related to travellers' horses because there is a problem with them in rural areas. There was, however, a striking failure to grasp the problem because of the kind of areas it affects. It is regrettable that the difficulties of working class areas seem to receive such little attention and legislative priority.

I find it incredible that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry is dealing with this. That causes its own problems because it is an urban issue and there is a failure on the part of those dealing with agricultural matters to understand it. I welcome, however, the eventual publication of this Bill and this debate. This is only the start. I am concerned that even after the enactment of this legislation and its enforcement by local authorities through by-laws and regulations, much work will remain to be done.

Given that we now have the legislation, the Minister should ensure that it will be enacted as quickly as possible. The Minister should continue to monitor it with local authorities as well as giving it the urgent attention it requires. If local authorities are not given the opportunity to long-finger it, we should quickly see changes.

All of us who represent urban areas are aware of the problems that have been caused by wandering horses. Our primary concern must be the extraordinary cruelty inflicted on many horses by people who do not understand the animals and who know very little about the work required to keep them properly. Many of the horses are bought in poor condition and are kept in entirely unsuitable surroundings. Apart from the question of cruelty, there is the issue of safety. We have had a number of accidents in Dublin and many more are waiting to happen because unsupervised horses have access to busy roads.

Such horses also pose a danger to young children who are at risk when playing on open green spaces. In addition, wandering horses have caused huge problems in communities where people are trying to improve the environment through tidy district competitions and other efforts. People try to take a pride in their local areas but their efforts are being undermined in this way.

Debate adjourned.