JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht

Welfare of Horses: Discussion with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Chairman

On behalf of the committee I welcome the officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have Mr. Philip Carroll, assistant secretary, Mr. Martin Blake, deputy chief veterinary officer, Mr. Joe Shortall, principal officer, Mr. Denis Healy, veterinary medicines, Mr. Philip Kirwan, assistant principal officer, veterinary medicines, and Ms Bríd Farrell, assistant principal officer, animal health and welfare division.

Before I call the delegation to make its opening statement members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against a person by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call Mr. Carroll to make his opening statement.

Mr. Philip Carroll

I am grateful to the Chairman and members for the opportunity to address the committee.

With the Chairman's agreement, I propose to first describe the nature of my Department's role in horse welfare and where that fits with the roles and responsibilities of others. Second, I would like to address some specific issues that were discussed by the committee in March concerning horse identification. In this regard I will also refer to other related matters, the registration of premises and transfer of ownership. Finally, I would like to briefly respond to the issues surrounding withdrawal periods for certain veterinary medicines.

I want to start by saying a few words on the recent reporting of some horse welfare issues. It is important to acknowledge the great tradition of horse care among Irish people and the continuing high standards maintained by the majority of Irish horseowners. In the context of the number of horses in the country it is clear that only a small percentage of horses give rise to potential welfare concerns. From our ongoing meetings with representatives of the horse industry, welfare organisations and from meetings of the farm animal welfare advisory council, it is clear that there is an increase in the number of reported horse welfare problems throughout the country, including an increasing risk of the abandonment of horses. That does not mean there has been an increase in actual cases of animals at risk though it is fair to conclude that we all need to be more vigilant in protecting such animals. The small number of cases of cruelty and neglect that are coming to public notice is regrettable and unacceptable for a country with such a proud reputation concerning horses. We should acknowledge the continuing high standards being maintained by the majority of Irish horseowners and the great achievements of Irish horses in sporting events.

In dealing with horse welfare matters, the Department must adhere to the legal powers under which it is authorised. In so far as horses are concerned, the Department's legislative responsibility extends to farmed animals only. This legislation is enforced under the European Communities (Welfare of Farmed Animals) Regulations 2010. These regulations were recently updated. The legislation does not extend to animals used in competitions, shows, cultural or sporting events. When the Minister was transposing a number of European Council directives in 2008 dealing with farmed animals, the Department availed of the opportunity to tighten up the farmed animals regulations to ensure that there would be no ambiguity for Department inspectors when dealing with equines. Therefore, current legislation in this area applies to animals if normally bred or kept for the production of food, for the purpose of farming the land or for animal husbandry, and this includes horses in particular. Department officers must ensure that if they are intervening in a horse welfare or cruelty situation on the basis of the farmed animal regulations, they must be satisfied that the horse is being kept for farming purposes.

The main legislation in the State governing cruelty to horses is the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1965, which states that any person causing cruelty or unnecessary suffering to any animal shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of those Acts. The Control of Horses Act 1996 also provides an important basis for dealing with horse welfare issues. Local authorities have a critical role to play in this area and have extensive powers. The Act was introduced to address problems that were being caused by wandering horses, mainly in urban areas, and assigns to the local authorities the primary role for dealing with such horses. It provides for the seizure, detention and disposal of stray, unlicensed or unidentifiable horses and provides powers of enforcement for local authorities and the Garda Síochána, who may also compel owners to seek veterinary attention where animals are in pain, distress or in an acute state of neglect.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food provides around €2 million per annum to local authorities in respect of reimbursement of expenses under the Control of Horses Act 1996. In addition, some local authorities have received funding from the Department for horse projects to assist towards the provision of adequate facilities for housing horses, either because they are seized, or in order to prevent the keeping of horses in open or otherwise unsuitable areas.

It is clear from discussions that the problems faced on the welfare front vary greatly between local authorities. There is a particular variance between those problems faced in urban areas and the problems faced in more rural counties. At a recent meeting held with representatives of the county managers association, it was agreed to develop a protocol to improve implementation of the Control of Horses Act 1996 throughout the local authority areas. The protocol will look at those local authority areas where the Act has been working particularly well, with a view to incorporating some of the best practices in other areas.

Our veterinary staff throughout the country maintain a high level of co-operation with multiple agencies, including relevant local authority veterinary staff, the Garda, the ISPCA, private veterinary practitioners and other agencies. Reports of compromised equine welfare are routinely referred where appropriate, if the jurisdiction of responsibility lies elsewhere.

Mindful of the valuable work being carried out by welfare organisations across the animal welfare spectrum, and as a contribution towards the cost of their activities, the Department provided funding of €1.185 million to assist these organisations in their work in 2010. The Department has advised those welfare bodies with capacity to deal with larger animals to consider placing greater resources on promoting the welfare of horses in their areas.

Co-operation is also ongoing through the auspices of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council, FAWAC, and its early warning system. The objective of this system is to provide a framework within which farm animal welfare problems can be identified before they become critical or overwhelming, which in turn facilitates timely, effective and sensitive intervention or the provision of assistance by public agencies, neighbours, farming bodies and welfare groups. FAWAC has also been very active in the area of horse welfare through the ongoing work of the equine welfare liaison group. This group is comprised of representatives of the horse industry, including Veterinary Ireland, the UCD equine welfare group, welfare bodies, Horse Racing Ireland, Horse Sport Ireland and representatives of the Department. Following discussions at the most recent meeting of the council, a meeting was convened of the equine welfare liaison group in order to identify a single clear message to be given to all those involved with horses. FAWAC's advice is clear. In circumstances where a horse presents with severe welfare problems, the owner cannot be identified and the horse can no longer fulfil the purpose for which it was bred, then the horse should be humanely disposed of. Such action will help prevent the emergence of long-term and severe animal welfare problems.

There was considerable discussion at the March meeting of the committee on the issue of horse registration. It is a legal requirement under Commission Regulation No. 504/2008 that all horses must have an identification microchip inserted and a valid passport issued from an approved studbook or horse passport agency, with the details relating to the animal recorded on a database maintained by the passport issuing agency. The Department has engaged in consultation with industry representatives over the past few months concerning implementation of the registration process. In light of these consultations, the Minister has decided that the registration process will in future be completed by 31 December of the year of birth of the animal, or six months after its birth, whichever date occurs later. This means that some animals could be registered up to 12 months of age. The Minister will bring forward legislation to support the implementation of the relevant EU regulation shortly.

In addition, the Minister is about to embark on a consultation process with the industry on two other related matters. The first concerns a basic requirement in addressing any exotic animal health concern, which is to have an official register of premises on which animals are kept. Such registers are already in place in respect of all other farm animal species in Ireland, but no such register currently exists for horses. The second matter relates to the development of a system to notify and record the movement and transfer of ownership from one person responsible for the health and welfare of an equine animal to another, where the animal is transferred on a permanent basis. The current system is limited to maintaining records at the time the passport is first issued, which means that any investigation of an animal health or welfare nature relating to an equine animal may necessitate manual forward tracing from the time of first registration. This is a particular concern when ensuring and protecting the health and welfare of horses, given their relative longevity and potential for multiple transfer of ownership.

These proposals are designed to offer better protection to the animals and to the industry, ensuring robust systems are in place to address any animal health and welfare concerns and will be central to the continued success and international reputation of the Irish equine industry.

A final issue discussed at the March sitting of the committee was in respect of the administration to animals of certain veterinary medicines and the consequences that arise in some cases of such animals being excluded from the food chain. Though not generally consumed in Ireland, equidae are food producing animals which are identified by means of an identification document, namely, a passport. The passport also allows records to be kept of the administration of certain veterinary medicinal products. The passport permits the exclusion of individual equidae from the food chain in order to ensure that equidae destined for human consumption only receive medicinal treatments in accordance with community legislation on food safety. This exclusion is endorsed on the passport by the veterinary practitioner administering the medicine. It was suggested at the March meeting that a withdrawal period of six months should be sufficient in all cases.

The Department has played a significant role at EU level in securing special arrangements for horses, which have substantially alleviated problems of availability. These include recognition of the concept of food and non-food horses. The significance of this was to free an entire category of horse, the non-food horse, from restrictions relating to the protection of public health. We were successful, too, in securing an additional measure for food horses, apart from the normal range of authorised products under which access is available to a range so-called essential substances with a post-treatment withdrawal period of six months. One of the criteria for entry to this essential list is the absence of alternative arrangements. Unfortunately, phenylbutazone, which was mentioned at the last session of the committee, was not accepted by the European Commission as being eligible because of the availability of authorised alternatives. Committee members will agree that it is essential that we bear in mind that public health is the primary concern in our administration of regulations. We must also comply with EU regulations. In cases where there are no passports or where passports have been lost, we must be absolutely certain that no threat to public health exists.

Chairman

We will have to suspend for a vote in the Dáil.

Sitting suspended at 12 p.m. and resumed at 12.15. p.m.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Carroll to continue where he left off.

Mr. Philip Carroll

Members will agree that it is essential we bear in mind that public health is a primary concern in our administration of the regulations and that we must also comply with EU regulations. In cases where there are no passports or they have been lost, we must be absolutely certain that there is no threat to public health. That is why we have insisted on horses being excluded from the food chain in these cases. The authorities in the United Kingdom apply the same policy. While we will continue with our existing policy for the time being, we will examine this issue in consultation with the industry and welfare organisations to see if an alternative system under which appropriate health guarantees can be offered can be put in place. I emphasise, however, that in the administration of certain substances, lifetime removal from the food chain is a prerequisite under EU legislation. We must ensure, therefore, that such medicines were not administered during the pre-registration period. This is no different from the rules pertaining to the use of similar products in other food producing animals.

There was a suggestion at the meeting in March that in the case of third country imports the EU authorities applied less stringent measures. In this regard, the same rules and standards apply. Third countries exporting meat derived from equines are required to have in place a national residue plan that satisfies the requirements of Council Directive 96/23/EC. Live equidae exported to the European Union for food production are only permitted from third countries which have implemented a residue plan which gives guarantees equivalent to those required by the directive. Additionally, it is absolutely clear that equine meat must not be derived from animals which have been treated with substances prohibited from use in food producing animals in the Community. Third countries are audited by staff of the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office to verify compliance with the relevant regulations and its reports are published.

There is, undoubtedly, an increasing acceptance that horse slaughter represents a humane end point. In this context, there has also been a suggestion there is an insufficient number of slaughtering plants approved for equine slaughter. For the committee's information, there are five plants approved in Ireland, three approved by the Department in counties Kildare, Carlow and Kilkenny and two approved by local authorities in counties Limerick and Offaly. The Department will continue to work with all stakeholders in the best interests of horse welfare. The horse industry is of great economic value, especially in terms of the contribution horse racing and breeding make to local communities. It provides an impressive regional spread of jobs throughout rural Ireland and is a significant source of economic activity. The Department has a deep engagement with the equine sector through its responsibility for areas such as animal health and welfare and animal breeding, as well as the ongoing development of improved infrastructure for the equine sector generally. We will continue to engage actively with all stakeholders to ensure the continued protection of equine health and welfare. My colleagues and I will be pleased to respond to any questions or observations members may have.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome the delegation, which includes an impressive number of key officials in this area. Our time is being increasingly taken up with equine issues, having already had discussions to do with draught horses, the National Stud and now horse welfare. This is probably the most important issue.

Mr. Carroll said in his statement that only a small percentage of horses give rise to potential welfare concerns. I would like to believe that but I doubt it is the case. I invite him to take a train from Heuston Station and he will see on the outskirts of Dublin, for several miles, hundreds of horses in an emaciated state on either side of the tracks. I do not know who owns these animals but they are a visual representation of the problem that exists in Dublin and which is replicated throughout the country. If departmental officials had attended a horse fair that took place in my constituency some weeks ago, they would have seen very obvious horse welfare issues. Some of the horses on show there would have collapsed in a strong gale such was their emaciated condition. I accept it is not possible to put numbers on it, but I am convinced it is a more significant problem than the percentage indicated by Mr. Carroll would suggest. Will the delegates comment on that?

Regarding registration and passports, the issue is that the level of compliance is probably very low. I am sure many of the horses we see in poor condition are not registered and do not have passports. There is no traceability capacity on a par with that in regard to cattle, sheep and pigs where it is possible to make the owner account for the condition of the animal. Until we have an enforceable and traceable system of identification for horses, we will not be able to eliminate the problem. Will the delegates indicate the level of compliance with the law in respect of registrations and passports?

There are several voluntary bodies doing good work in this area but local authorities are starved of resources and unable to carry out their duties in this area. The knee-jerk reaction of Government when such issues are raised is that it provides the funding and the local authorities must do the work. The reality, however, is that local authorities are simply not in a position to do what is being asked of them in this area and in many other areas. That begs the question of whether adequate funding will be provided to allow them to carry out this work.

I instinctively rail against the idea that the taxpayer should fund a once-off slaughter of horses, because that would effectively offer a bailout to people who are indifferent to the welfare of their animals. However, this problem is very difficult to resolve because of the lack of traceability of ownership, so we may have to grasp the nettle in terms of a once-off scheme. That may be necessary in the absence of a thoroughly traceable identification system.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I welcome the departmental officials. It is not realistic to expect local authorities, in an economic downturn, to police the provisions of the Control of Horses Act 1996. They cannot be expected to look after wandering horses and to do what is necessary to ensure the welfare of horses is maintained. The problem is what could be described as the informal horse sector where people put horses onto land that may be perceived to be in public ownership. There is no chance these animals are microchipped. Local authority officials would have a difficult time seeking to identify the owners and even if they could find them and were to tell them that the law states they must have their animals microchipped, they would probably be laughed at.

I do not want to seem cynical but the notion of maintaining a protocol is unrealistic because the resources are not there to back it up. Notwithstanding the positive aspirations of the Department, the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council and the animal welfare groups, the situation remains that horses are being left to wander on public lands and there is no oversight in terms of how they are treated. It is very easy to discover the owner of a horse when that animal is on privately owned land. The problem arises in regard to the informal ownership structure that exists. It is not easy to police ownership of horses where they are kept on public lands.

How do we bridge the gap? Is it the case that we need to reach out to owners of horses in the larger metropolitan areas to ensure, in the first instance, that they are not ignorant of the law and that they are educated about animal welfare issues? The rate of abandonment of horses last winter because of the severe weather conditions was disgraceful. Is it time now to build relationships with these people? It seems that the people who own horses in the large conurbations are not part of any formal structure and that no one has approached them in regard to putting in place a structure to ensure they maintain their horses in a proper fashion. I am interested in the officials' views in this regard.

We are all aware of the implications of the Control of Horses Act, but it does not seem relevant to many horse owners in urban settings. There is possibly a large ignorance of the law in respect of the obligations of owners and, as I said, I wonder how we can bridge that gap. I am interested to hear whether there are ideas within the Department as to how that can be done and whether the political impetus is there to follow that through. We must do everything possible to ensure the welfare of horses in urban areas.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the delegates. Their attendance stems from the joint committee's discussion a number of months ago in which this problem was dealt with in a broad fashion and members highlighted a few issues. I trust the number of horses, both thoroughbred and non-thoroughbred, is at a record level. A great number of people became involved in horse racing for the first time during the Celtic tiger era during which a great number of syndicates were established and breeding was at an all-time record level. The consequences are now being dealt with in that there are simply too many racehorses in Ireland. One hears stories of racehorse trainers whose racehorse owners cannot pay their bills and are leaving racehorses in the stables. That is one side of the equation. On the other side of the equation, there is what Deputy Sherlock referred to as the unofficial owners of horses on unofficial lands. This problem has been at a consistent level in the past decade or so, but during the winter a problem arose, whereby animals were being starved in cases in which there was no claim of ownership. That is the reason for the delegates' attendance.

My first question is from a veterinary perspective. I discussed the issue informally with the delegates during the suspension. At the last meeting members expressed concern that as a result of the use of certain medicines, an animal, even an animal as young as a foal, was excluded on a permanent basis from the food chain. Members asked what was the reason for this and whether there was a way to deal with the problem. The delegates might address this.

I seek the delegates' views on a subject, on which no one has offered an answer. Eight or ten years ago my former Oireachtas colleague, Mrs. Avril Doyle, proposed the introduction of a slaughter scheme on a once-off basis. As she said, she was lucky to avoid being slaughtered herself because the public response was not palatable. Should the provision of an incentive to cull a certain number of horses be considered on a once-off basis? While such a policy obviously would have to emanate from higher up within the Department, everyone concedes the current record number of horses is not sustainable from the perspective of maintaining animal welfare. Do the delegates have ideas as to how this issue might be dealt with?

A lot of people who own horses, particularly among the Traveller community, will claim that an animal is owned by their brothers, sisters, uncles or aunts. These people are a scourge and the one about whom I was talking when I referred to horses being placed in cow plots. They have no land on which to make fodder for animals during the winter and when there is snow and severe frost, the animals have to try to eat frozen bushes. It simply does not stand up that officialdom cannot see that this is taking place. It appears as though someone who is getting money to do this work is turning a blind eye and not doing it.

My question to the departmental officials is whether the local authorities which receive a sum of money annually return such funds if they do not use it. Alternatively, do they use the money for something else such as a pet project? The departmental officials should find out whether this is the case. The local authorities are in receipt of €2 million which perhaps is not a huge sum when spread across the entire country. Perhaps one could spend such a sum in Dublin and surrounding counties, as well as cities such as Cork and Limerick. However, I appeal to the departmental officials to follow up on the matter to see whether the money is being used for the purposes for which it has been allocated. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Deputy Christy O'Sullivan is due to speak next. I understand Deputy Shortall also wishes to contribute.

Deputy Eamon Scanlon

Deputy O'Sullivan's suggestion is not a bad idea. The problem is that there is no traceability of horses. That is why we are in this situation. Horses are running wild everywhere. My area is no different than any other, in that it has people who, after getting into the horse business for one reason or another, have found themselves unable to keep or feed the animals. Those horses are being turned loose in certain areas.

The Deputy's suggestion of a one-off deal is not a bad idea, as it might tidy up a difficult problem. I do not know how else it could be addressed. The issue is one of traceability. This situation could not arise with cattle, but it can arise with horses because no one knows who owns a horse or where it comes from. Horses pose a danger on main and national roads. I have seen some accidents in my area, although the problem might not be as bad in others. I do not know the cost of slaughtering a horse or what value a horse has after being slaughtered. If it had not been fed, it would have little value. The idea is worth considering.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I am concerned about the scale of the problem of wandering and abandoned horses in the Dublin region. The problem afflicts my constituency and many others in Dublin. Significant horse welfare issues are involved. Every day, I see horses abandoned in different green spaces around my constituency. They are in a poor condition, not fed and are neglected. Sometimes they are tied up, other times they are wandering around. They pose a significant public safety danger on the roads. From time to time, we hear of roads closing during the morning because horses are on them. For many reasons, this problem needs to be tackled.

An ongoing problem is the damage done to the local environment in parks and green spaces. Residents are desperately trying to clean up their estates and provide nice flower beds and grassy areas, but these are being destroyed. Regularly, I receive complaints from football and other sporting clubs that go out to play on a pitch on a Saturday or Sunday morning only to discover it has been destroyed by wandering horses.

The problem in Dublin is widespread and it is difficult to understand why it is not being dealt with on any front, be it in terms of animal welfare, the environment or public safety. That it has been allowed to worsen recently is a disgrace. Money has been provided to local authorities to round up horses, something that is done from time to time, but unless the source of the problem is tackled, the campaign to bring the problem under control will be worthless. Nothing is being done to tackle the source, namely, the Smithfield horse fair, which is held on the first Sunday of every month. If one drives around Dublin city on that day, one will see children and teenagers riding and beating horses away from the fair to their estates. That the law is being breached across a range of fronts at the Smithfield market is clear. I do not know why action is not being taken to cut off the supply of horses. The law is being broken, as the horses in question are not microchipped and do not have passports. Horses are being sold to children, which is an offence in the first instance, and there is no indication that buyers are able to provide proper conditions for the horses, which is a requirement under the law.

The law is being broken on the first Sunday of every month in Smithfield, but it seems that no one is trying to do anything about it. The impetus for the city council's discussion on moving the fair has come from resident and business interests in the Smithfield area that want to be rid of the market. The council's legal advice is that it cannot close the market down and must instead move it to an alternative venue. The council cannot get agreement on this. It tried to move the fair to a couple of sites in my constituency, an idea that I vehemently opposed because we would only be moving the problem, not dealing with it.

The Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, DSPCA, has tried to enforce the law several times, but its people have been run out of the fair. Dangerous interests are involved in the supply of horses at the Smithfield fair and it seems that no one is prepared to challenge them. I do not know who is making money behind the scenes by breeding horses with which to supply sellers, but many people at Smithfield are making money by selling animals that are in a poor condition to people who are unable to provide for them. Rounding up horses is a waste of time. The people concerned will pay the fine to get them back. The following month they will buy more for very little in Smithfield market. Why will the Department not take action to enforce the law in the supply of horses from that market? That is the source of all the problems in the Dublin area.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I heard most of the presentation before leaving for a vote. I welcome Mr. Carroll and the other officials and thank them for giving us the opportunity to speak about the welfare of horses and the problems encountered in that regard. Mr. Ted Farrell who runs an abattoir in south Kilkenny made a presentation to us recently. He kills many horses on a weekly basis and has problems with certain aspects of the law, to which the delegates referred. We also heard from the famous Ted Walsh, the well known commentator and horse trainer. Mr. Farrell refuses to accept horses on a daily basis because they do not have passports. He says the rules and regulations in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and England are different and are being interpreted differently. He has sought clarification on this point. As mentioned by the departmental officials, all horses must be registered at six months of age to receive a passport. People come to Mr. Farrell with horses for slaughter, but he cannot accept them because they were not registered in time. That is an anomaly in the law. Under the same EU regulations, horses can be taken in Northern Ireland. Mr. Farrell is seeking flexibility in this regard. Horses that need to be accepted from an animal welfare point of view cannot be taken because of the rules and regulations in place. They must be relaxed. I, therefore, ask the departmental officials to re-examine the issue and consider how we can overcome the problem.

The other problem concerns the period of withdrawal after injections. I am a farmer and have bovine cattle. When we inject a cow or a calf, there is a withdrawal period specified on the bottle before the animal is allowed to be used for human consumption. The same system does not apply to horses. Following certain injections, horses are banned from ever entering the food chain. The trade is mainly with France; we do not eat horse meat in Ireland.

Mr. Farrell has asked for this matter to be examined and a withdrawal period after an animal is injected. In France and the United States the withdrawal periods are adhered to, following which horses can enter the food chain. Certain products may last a long time in the system and one would want to be a vet to understand what is involved. These are the issues raised by Mr. Farrell who says there are so many horses that there is a waiting list of weeks or months before horses can be brought in for slaughter. His abattoir is badly needed. He must export his horses to France to keep the system going.

Mr. Walsh talked about the welfare and control of horses. The delegates referred to the identification of horses, the registration of premises and the transfer of ownership as being important issues. Is the Minister drawing up new legislation in this regard? Will it solve the problem? Some of these points may have been made while I was not present. I refer to the welfare of horses that have been neglected because of the downturn in the economy. Things were great when the Celtic tiger was at its height but now people find they cannot handle horses which are being neglected. We must examine this problem.

Horses in the possessin of Travellers also present a problem. This is the responsibility of the local authorities rather than the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is an ongoing problem with horses owned by Travellers; they should have proper feed and accommodation for the winter months.

What are the new proposals to be presented by the Minister to alleviate the problems raised by Mr. Farrell and Mr. Walsh? The welfare of horses is the most important issue.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I apologise for missing the earlier part of the meeting.

Some 95% of the horse population is to be found in the sports and recreation sector. It has been mentioned how the downturn in the economy has had a profound effect on parts of the horse industry that heretofore have not presented a problem, including the sport horse sector which is regulated. I refer to the Show Jumping Association of Ireland, purebred breeds and thoroughbreds. There is, however, also a sector, to which Deputy Shortall alluded, which is totally unregulated. We can talk about it as a cottage industry, in which people trade all the time and are dependent on making a profit to buy feed and provide shelter for horses. That is where the welfare of animals becomes an issue. When trade ceases, people do not buy feed or provide shelter and horses can become emaciated, be in poor condition and poor health. We are trying to focus on these animals to take them out of the system.

The horse is the animal which is most infertile. One can breed one animal a year, with an 11 month gestation period. One is lucky to have two foals in a three year period. It would not that be difficult, therefore, to cull the breeding stock in order to reduce the problem. Officials should focus on this aspect.

The officials referred to the use of phenylbutazone, known as bute, being restricted. Does this apply to all animals in the food chain, including bovine animals and sheep, when it is administered as a painkiller?

I refer to the fallen animals scheme which is a barrier to the bringing of animals to be slaughtered and processed. It is not a question of whether they can be used in the manufacture of pet food or meat and bonemeal. Deputy Christy O'Sullivan alluded to the granting of an amnesty, whereby animals would be brought to a central point for slaughter rather than being confiscated. I am not suggesting people should be paid, but it should be seen as an animal welfare measure, not as a subsidy or a reward for mistreating an animal. I do not take great pleasure in suggesting people should be rewarded for treating an animal poorly, but if we can get them out of the system, we could go after breeding stock.

It is easier to deal with sport horses that have fallen through the system. I do not intend to use clichés, but those who owned 4x4s, a horsebox and a couple of horses in a paddock cannot afford anything anymore. Their horses have fallen through the system and are emaciated and abandoned. A once-off measure is needed purely as an animal welfare initiative. We must try to get these animals out of the system. I would like to see initiatives similar to the one introduced by South Dublin County Council, whereby it works with youngsters and teaches them how to look after and rear animals. An animal is not just for Christmas, it needs to be fed twice a day, cleaned and cared for. Such initiatives represent money well spent. The Chairman mentioned a figure of €2 million. Such initiatives will not solve the problem completely, as there will always be an animal welfare issue. People have consciences. They should not allow an animal to suffer. I farm and I am involved in keeping animals alive so that I can make money out of them. That is the difference between this and something that is a luxury; if I own a dinghy I can take it out of the harbour and I do not have to feed it or use it and it does not cost me anything, but if I have a horse it is a different matter. We should focus on some simple initiatives.

Chairman

I welcome Deputy Upton, a former member of the committee.

Deputy Mary Upton

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to speak on this. I want to address the problems with horses in urban areas, as outlined by Deputy Shortall. I will identify the type of problems of which I have become aware, particularly in recent months. These are very serious animal welfare problems, where animals — horses in particular — have been tortured and carcases have been left lying for several days in fields on the border of my constituency. I have been in touch with the Garda Síochána and the local authority and it has been raised in the House but nobody seems to have responsibility or the facility to deal with it. The outcome is that animals suffer and carcases lie around for days on end. It is not a myth or exaggeration. Somebody somewhere must take responsibility, face up to it and decide how it will be stopped. They are not even being dealt with on a case by case basis as they arise; they are left there and as far as I am aware the numbers are increasing.

We speak about passports, microchips and registration of premises. Forget it — it has nothing to do with this issue. It will never happen. In the Dublin area it comes back to Smithfield and it is down to the supply of horses in that area. I am told by people in my area that one can buy a horse there for €20. Nobody knows where the horses go; they are sold to young lads who have €20 and think it is a great idea to take a horse. It is then abandoned. It is getting to be a bigger and bigger problem because there seems to be more supply to the Smithfield market with no control. Nobody is taking any responsibility with regard to where these horses come from. Why can nobody identify the suppliers and bring them to book for what they are doing, which is pure and absolute animal neglect and torture? It has nothing to do with all of the controls that can be put in place; it comes back to identifying how the supply of horses to a totally inappropriate market can be controlled. Will the Department reflect on this and come up with some ideas on how it can be sorted out?

Chairman

I call Mr. Carroll and if any of his colleagues wish to come in they are welcome to do so. Plenty of questions have been asked.

Mr. Philip Carroll

Yes, and the common theme is concern for animal welfare. I would not want to suggest, as perhaps Deputy Creed may have read into my statement, that it is of little concern to us — quite the opposite. We are aware of the circumstances he outlined with reference to the train trip. We know there is a problem. We are anxious to deal with it but there are various types of problems. Deputy Doyle summed up the nature and structure of the industry and where the problem lies.

Deputy Creed spoke about registration and passports and how enforceable these can be. In some respects, perhaps this answers Deputy Upton's dismissal of registration as not being helpful to the circumstances she outlined. We were very much aware of the problem she mentioned although it not an area for which the Department is responsible. It is important for me to distinguish where our responsibilities lie. We have to do so for legal reasons when such matters go to court, as they always do. Registration further back the chain, before the supply to Smithfield and other markets takes place, will be extremely important in the future. It does not help at present not to have the registration in place. However, it will make a huge difference in the coming years.

We can attempt to deal with current welfare problems as best we can in agreements between ourselves, local authorities and the Garda Síochána, but we are attempting to deal with the problem through registration. Deputy Creed spoke about how enforceable this will be. It is fair to say there will be difficulties at certain levels in the horse industry. We know where they lie and it was mentioned by Deputy Sherlock that we need to look at the problem and its source and how we can move into the sensitive part of the industry that is causing us problems. UCD has been examining working with particular groups to see how we can inculcate a different culture on how horses should be looked after and how they might see the registration process as being beneficial.

Deputy Creed mentioned local authority funding. We provide approximately €2 million a year through overall framework funding on the basis of demands from local authorities and a process is involved in administering that funding. A large proportion of that funding in Dublin goes to the Dublin 3 local authority area and we are examining how to better target it. We have ideas which we are discussing with county managers. We have had discussions with the local authorities in Dublin and Limerick and we are looking at particular instances where animal welfare issues were raised. We are also looking at other county areas, for example Westmeath and Louth, which have particularly good systems in place. We want to see how we can use these to the benefit of all other areas.

Funding to local authorities could be better targeted and it is one of the issues we are discussing with regard to the protocol I mentioned in my statement. Deputy Sherlock asked whether it was realistic in a downturn that local authorities would be able to fund their obligations. I am not aware that local authorities have a particular difficulty with funding. If they do they have not yet brought it to our attention. If we can judiciously move around the current funding allocation and target it better, it will be more effective.

The question of access to animals in danger or at risk was also raised, particularly on land in public ownership. There is a sensitivity there. The case referred to by Deputy Upton involved a property that was possibly in private ownership but perhaps not; the ownership of the land was uncertain. Overall, primary responsibility is with the owner of the animal but with regard to a limited number of cases we recognise that the owners of animals themselves are not responsible. Ownership is important, both of the animal and of the land on which animals are seized. Inevitably, these cases end up in court, which is why I emphasised the importance of our legislative responsibilities.

The protocol I spoke about is not to do with simple things. It is not designed to be a distraction to meeting the core objectives. The protocol really is about targeting specific problems and using the benefits of one area to the benefit of all other areas.

Deputy Bradford mentioned slaughter policy, as did Deputies Scanlon and O'Sullivan. We have not given any consideration to a slaughter policy and it is not something we have looked at in any detail. We are aware that it has been suggested. The idea of a slaughter policy runs the risk of not targeting the particular at-risk animals, and there is also a risk that it can perpetuate the problem. Animals at risk can be cleared out in a particular year but that is no guarantee that the problem will be solved. It is something we are willing to look at but I am not sure it will necessarily help us.

The better initiatives are to start with the process of registration and work through that to the registration of premises, which we have discussed and which Deputy Aylward referred to. That can be continued by having a traceability system on the animal when it moves between premises. That is a beginning and in certain areas we must go further, involving the education process and trying to work through the ideas which UCD has formulated with local authorities.

The Chairman raised some issues concerning the money. I can provide detail on all the counties which received funding from the €2 million we provide. All the funding goes to animal welfare in the regions concerned and it is a matter for the local authorities to demand from us whatever amount they require within that overall level of funding.

Chairman

Is it possible for all committee members in the different areas to get a copy? If the information is sent to the clerk she will send them to the members.

Mr. Philip Carroll

That is not a problem. We can do the same in respect of the €1.13 million provided to the voluntary agencies throughout the country. We published that information earlier in the year in any event. The funding provided to those agencies reflects the work they do. We do not simply divide the number of agencies into the amount of money we have. We consider objectively what the agencies are doing and see how our contribution might assist them in the work they have.

I may have covered some of the points made by Deputy Doyle on registration. I am not sure the option of a type of amnesty does anything other than deal with the current problem this year and it may create greater difficulties into the future. I repeat that a registration process, starting at the beginning of the cycle, might help us in the longer term rather than just now.

I have probably answered the queries from Deputies O'Sullivan and Scanlon. It is the same issue and I agree that there is no excuse for neglect. There is a responsibility on the owners of the animals and there is, of course, an issue about ownership. It is a limited issue and with our new statutory instrument, which I hope will be published within the next few weeks and possibly within the next month, we will at least have set in place a formal legal basis for a registration process.

No, it will be the passport-issuing agencies. I probably dealt with the withdrawal period issue in my statement but to be clear, a different view was expressed at the earlier meeting by Mr. Ted Farrell with respect to a DG SANCO letter, which seemed to suggest to him that we were more onerous in our implementation of regulations than others. He went on to suggest that there was a different regime in place in Ireland and Europe than in respect of third country imports.

The Commission letter he referred to is quite clear. It indicates certain substances are banned and cannot be used. Once used on an animal, that animal cannot be allowed enter the food chain. That is quite clear and is current policy. The reason it exists is to protect public health and it applies to all species. Where there are substitutes for the type of products that can be used, there are withdrawal periods allowing the animals to go into the food chain after six months. I hope that answers the questions.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

We must acknowledge that there is an immediate problem and a longer term problem to which solutions will probably need to be found. The issues raised by Deputies Upton and Shortall are probably not confined entirely to Dublin city; other cities and urban areas are also affected, although perhaps not to the same extent. However, that is probably a slightly different problem to that experienced in rural areas.

Deputy Upton is correct in her comment about where the horses are bred. That is where we must get to. As Deputy Doyle said, the situation must be addressed fairly quickly or it will drag on for three, four or five years. Ultimately, registration will have to be introduced. What is the cost of properly registering an animal, ensuring it has the proper documentation and so on? At the moment this is not justified based on the value of the animal, which will be a major problem. Perhaps the witnesses could tell us the cost of the scheme they are proposing. I have figures in this regard and I would like to compare them.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

I have one more question. If animals are starving due to a lack of feed, are local authorities responsible for providing fodder for those animals? They are receiving €2 million per year. The animals are in a field with no grass and have nothing to eat, particularly because of the bad winter we had this year. Somebody should be responsible for providing fodder for those animals. It is very unfair to the poor animals to leave them to die of starvation, as Deputy Upton says is happening in her area. It is terrible that nobody is providing a bit of fodder for animals in that situation. Perhaps this is a question for the local authorities rather than Mr. Carroll, but the Department is providing money to the local authorities.

Mr. Philip Carroll

Yes, we are providing money to them, and within the moneys we provide there is scope for them to meet that obligation. In addition, the DSPCA, the ISPCA and other agencies around the country also provide such a service. We in the Department have not been found wanting and we can provide support, particularly for critical cases that are brought to our attention by those agencies. We have not been found wanting in the past and I do not suspect we will be found wanting in the future.

Deputy Aylward asked about microchipping. I gather compulsory microchipping came into effect on 1 July 2009, which is why there were incidents of lack of microchipping. That should be a problem of the past, one hopes, once we get the registration process up and running.

I referred to education programmes in the context of studies being undertaken in UCD, and I am aware of the Kilkenny project. That is the type of initiative that comes at the end of the process and deals to a large extent with problems such as those referred to by Deputies Shortall and Upton.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked about the cost of registration. I do not have precise figures but my understanding is that the overall cost of registration is less than €100.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

Per horse?

Mr. Philip Carroll

Yes. However, I do not have precise figures. We can clarify our information at a later point.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

What is the cost of a microchip for a horse? It is somewhere in the region of €25, I believe. Then there is the cost of calling out the veterinary surgeon, which is €50; then there is the cost of a passport. I do not know, but my information is that the cost is in the region of €120 to microchip and obtain proper documentation for a horse. That will be a major factor in the regulation of this business. We should be looking at trying to get it done on a one-off basis.

Deputy Bobby Aylward

The €100 will create a problem. We already have a problem with people not microchipping animals because of the cost, and having to pay €100 to register them will create a bigger problem. That is how I would see it from a welfare point of view.

Mr. Philip Carroll

The only answer I will give is that there are costs involved in every aspect of compliance. If dealing with a problem involves compliance requirements, there will be costs — this is true in all walks of life. I do not think we as a Department can be responsible for the costs associated with the registration process. The registration process is not entirely in the Department.

Chairman

On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. Carroll and his officials for their presentation and for answering our questions. As requested by Deputy Upton, we will consider inviting the Minister and his officials or the local authorities before the committee to talk about the situation.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.30 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 1 July 2010.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht - Wednesday, 30 Jun 2010

Welfare of Horses: Discussion with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

Mr. Philip Carroll

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 2010