I move amendment No. 32:
In page 21, subsection (2) (b), line 3, after "horses" to insert "including fees".
SECTION 38.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 21, subsection (2) (e), to delete lines 18 to 22 and substitute the following:
"detained—
(i) fails to pay any fees specified in bye-laws made under this subsection, or
(ii) fails to produce, where appropriate, a horse licence for the time being in force in respect of the horse granted by that local authority or another relevant local authority if the horse is kept in a control area declared by that authority or the other authority, or
(iii) fails to remove the horse.".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 38, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 39 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 23, before section 45, but in Part III, to insert the following new section:
"45.—(1) Local authorities, where possible, are empowered to provide suitable land for use by privately owned horses provided that the owners of such horses are members of a group recognised for the purpose by the local authority, and are approved by licence as being suitable to have the use of such land.
(2) Each licence is to be reviewed on an annual basis.
(3) No licence will be issued to any group who are engaged in commercial equine activities.".
There are differences in the problem of wandering horses in Ireland in that the source of the problem in Dublin is different from that in the country. In Dublin, it is mostly related to the settled community. The problem in the rest of the country is almost exclusively because of wandering animals owned by the travelling community. There is a difference. When I drafted my Private Members' Bill, I did it from my perspective and the problems I encountered in the past. I admit I was not entirely au fait with the problems in Dublin. This amendment I now propose was not in my Private Members’ Bill.
I visited the Fettercairn horse project in Tallaght, with which I am sure Deputy Walsh is acquainted, to see what they were doing. They have built their own compound and have about 30 horses catering for the needs of young people in the area, who are looking after the animals. There is some ground attached owned by the county council and it is being used by the Fettercairn horse project to tether their animals and leave them graze and so on.
I did not want to reach the situation in framing this amendment that the onus would be pushed on to local authorities to provide green fields for all wandering horses. That would not be feasible. I also do not think anyone could afford to do it. That is why the provisions in my amendment do not stitch into legislation that they must do something in this area. I am concerned that there is a need for this, particularly in Dublin, and this section refers to Dublin more than any place else in Ireland. On Second Stage, Fettercairn was mentioned and the Cherry Orchard project in Dublin, which I have not seen, and I know there are others ones as well. Around Ireland, if there is a problem with recreational areas for people, a community centre is usually built. While there is a need for this as well in Dublin, there is also a need for some provision to be made for these responsible people to take their animals off the streets and put them in a controlled environment.
There is a great love of horses among certain sections of the community in Dublin and the people I have seen are teaching young people how to look after the animals properly. It reminded me, on hearing the way the project worked, of the boy scouts. One or two people started it off. As they passed the expertise on to older teenagers and those in their 20s they became leaders and took other people under their control. The whole project fans out like that. They are a very responsible group of people and have identified the horses themselves, going ahead of the legislation. They have put microchip implants in these horses. This is not a fly-by-night organisation but a responsible group of people. There should be a mechanism whereby groups like this could be approved but only those who are genuine and looking after the welfare of horses. The local authority would examine each application on its merits, issue a licence to the various projects and review them on an annual basis. I also suggested that a licence would not be issued to any group engaged in commercial equine activity. That is because in my area a member of the travelling community has a stallion which is servicing animals from all over the country. We do not want this and that is why I included that provision in my amendment.
There is also a social aspect. It helps to keep young people off the streets and shows that the State is interested in them. It was very pleasant for me to see young people involved in an activity in which they are interested. In too many instances we do not provide recreational facilities for them and this is an area in which we could at least encourage people to do something.
I understand the project referred to by Deputy Kenneally. It is in Fettercairn and he is correct: it is a very interesting project. The people involved are responsible and the project is well run. It is a good idea but I have reservations about the project that do not reflect on the intentions and purpose of those running it.
If one allows horses to be kept in urban areas in the numbers expected, one is going back on the purpose of this Bill. There is no room, unfortunately, in urban areas for horses. It is not possible to keep them in urban areas and give them the behavioural activities, like roaming, they want. When we start to do that we open the door slightly for the reintroduction of horses to urban areas. I understand why Deputy Kenneally is proposing it and I do not wish to cast any aspersion on the project. However, relative to the overall problem in the area and south County Dublin generally, as well as the very good project mentioned, on balance we should go for the permanent removal of horses from urban areas. If this is to be dealt with, it would be far better to do so under by-laws. If the members of a local authority consider this type of project, it should be done at that level rather than in the Bill. When it is in the Bill it is a signal to people that there is a second opinion being voiced and that there is room for horses in an urban area. We can examine some of the possibilities.
If the responsible people in Fettercairn were unable to continue with their project what would happen to the remaining horses? The project would have to end and the horses removed. Some of the horses are owned by local people and instead of keeping them in houses they will be kept in an open space but if there was interference with or vandalism in the project, horses would be wandering around Fettercairn because of sabotage against the project. The very problem that we are trying to deal with would be released on to the street again and the project, which is a good one, would be the means of causing distress and danger to people. The by-laws are the way to address this if necessary but not the Bill. There are arguments that young people are not joyriding, etc., because they have horses available to them but I think it is best if this is not addressed in the Bill. If it needs to be addressed it should be done at local authority level by those elected at that level. The wrong signals will go out if we put this into the Bill.
On Second Stage I made my views on this matter very clear. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister for bringing it forward on the basis of the enormous damage done to local open spaces and the homes of those living beside where horses were kept, and the tremendous cruelty involved. Seventy-five to 80 horses have died in the Dublin area since Christmas. That said, I recognise the deep interest of a significant number of northside children in equestrian matters. There is a genuine love of horses there. As one or two Deputies said, it should be possible to cultivate that equestrian interest for working class children as well as middle class children in our administering of this problem. Therefore, I have some sympathy for the amendment put down by Deputy Kenneally. "Where possible" would be the significant area.
Deputy Walsh's point is well taken also in that it seems the location of such facilities would be critical. For example, my constituency marks the boundary of Dublin city for much of its length. There seems to be a lot of ground available within the northern boundary of the city and those would be suitable areas. I appeal to private horse owners and equestrian interests on my side of the city to consider providing facilities with the local authorities and local community interests. One of my predecessors in the Coolock area, Mr. C. J. Haughey, has a very large establishment that breeds horses. It is not very far from the boundary of the Coolock area and it would be interesting if people like him put a certain amount of land at the disposal of the equestrian interests.
What about Conor Cruise O'Brien?
I am not sure if he has that much land but certainly there is a possibility that people in the private equestrian business, within a few miles of the city, might be interested in encouraging that interest in equestrian matters among young working class children. That is an area that the local authority could work in with the equestrian interests to provide. As far as the amendment would take cognisance of that, I would be supportive of it.
I was a little taken aback that Deputy Walsh saw no place for horse projects. Perhaps I misinterpreted what he said. Presumably it means that former Taoiseach Mr. Haughey's operation in Kinsealy will be outlawed or does it mean that there is no place for working class people to have horses?
He is in a rural area.
The areas outside Cherry Orchard are as rural as Kinsealy and they have wide open spaces there. Dublin Corporation's action plan for the area provides for such a facility, so will the corporation be told that will not be allowed?
While I agree with the thrust of the Bill — that is, if horses are to be kept in urban areas they must be maintained in a responsible and caring manner — there must be some concession to the significant number of people who are part of a long tradition of horse ownership in Dublin. Some families in working class areas have owned horses for generations, for economic as well as other reasons. It is not right to take a hard line and prevent them owning horses unless they are wealthy enough to have a paddock beyond the city limits.
There must be a middle ground and Deputy Kenneally's amendment provides it, as do the similar proposals from Dublin Corporation and from communities like Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard. It at least provides and opportunity for young people with a genuine interest in caring for horses, rather than catering for those who ride them for a macho image. This amendment should be written into the Bill because this type of concession and commitment should be in the legislation. If it is not, the Bill will be seen as a heavy handed way to round up horses in working class areas only, as those people cannot afford to have a paddock in their estate.
It would be wrong if the message went out from this committee that status in life should be the governing factor in deciding whether a child could be interested in horses. There are numerous pony clubs all over the country and in this city which are available to children from any background who have a genuine interest in horses. This is marvellous to see and these people are doing excellent work. A pony cannot be kept in a back garden because it is cruel. I appreciate Deputy Walsh's concern about the development in this Bill but these people are doing excellent work and if a local authority sees that they have facilities, it can bring in a by-law to allow them to continue their work. We cannot legislate at this level to provide that this can take place all over the country. That would defeat our purpose in debating this Bill, which was to protect ponies and horses, while giving those with a genuine interest in horses an opportunity to cultivate it. Unfortunately there are also a few people who abuse horses.
I support the spirit of this amendment and I agree with Deputy Gregory that, while this legislation deals with control, which is important, there is a positive element to the "equine culture" which has developed in problem areas of the city. It is appalling that the bulk of the wandering horses are concentrated in areas of great deprivation. In my constituency, a task force reported some years ago on crime and disorder in Clondalkin. There is massive drug abuse in the two local parishes — there are about 300 regular heroin users among the teenage population alone. No one stands over the dereliction and destruction of open spaces, the damage done to householders or some of the treatment the animals receive but if younger people in such an area show a genuine interest in the development of horses, there must be some way to channel their energies. Anything which provides a spark of hope should be encouraged and this is why I support the spirit of this amendment.
The horse goes a long way back in our national history. The Minister must consider finding a few sites in the city and bringing the local authorities and FÁS together to start these projects, because they are positive and could lead to better things for these areas. I understand Deputy Walsh's view, having had telephone calls at odd hours of the night from irate householders about horses wandering through their areas — very often horses are not kept in these areas. We should look at this again because, as Deputy Gregory said, we are sending a negative signal if we consider this only in terms of control and this Bill will be viewed as a repressive measure in many parts of the city. It would be good if, in tandem with the full implementation of this measure, the Minister considered the option of creating two or three corrals around the city. There are plenty of sites in the local authority land banks.
In Castleknock?
I have no problem with that but there is not much land left in Castleknock. Labour is engaged in rezoning a lot of land behind the hospital at present. I have never been a member of a local authority in Dublin so I have a good record on rezoning.
There are many areas in the corporation and county council land banks which could be made available. It would be up to the Minister to knock heads together, because when a number of these bodies are acting separately it is hard to get a focus on this issue.
The equine industry is powerful and it appears to have made the Bill more difficult to draft. It is also totally tax free — a recent issue of a business magazine reported on the vast amounts of money made in the equestrian industry on a tax free basis, courtesy of my famous predecessor Mr. C. J. Haughey. Is there no way that the equestrian industry — of which we have a by-product in the Dublin area — could be asked to provide resources towards helping urban children who are interested in and love horses?
Mr. Haughey's love of horses is well known and his contribution to the industry has been substantial.
A number of Deputies raised interesting points and I agree with the spirit of most contributions. I am convinced of the need for a response from local authorities and this Bill will encourage that. I am generally in agreement with promoting any activities in disadvantaged areas which would keep young people out of trouble; this is the spirit of what Deputy Kenneally is trying to include in the Bill. However, the Bill is regulatory and concerns control, it is not developmental legislation. The amendment is developmental in its nature and for that reason I must reject it.
However, in my discussions with local authorities, not only in Dublin but throughout the country, I will advise and encourage them to consider providing facilities for these young people and to meet the demand for equestrian pursuits. I regard it as positive if young people become involved in properly controlled and regulated equestrian facilities. While this Bill deals with control of horses, I agree with Deputy Gregory that there is an obvious need in the most disadvantaged parts of Dublin for a response from local authorities — supported by Government, one hopes — to take into consideration the huge demand in these areas. I have to reject the amendment, but I accept the spirit of it. Hopefully, local authorities will respond to the demand without having to put it into legislation.
I welcome the support of most speakers, except, unfortunately, the Minister and Deputy Eamon Walsh. I am amazed to hear the Minister say that, because this Bill is regulatory and not developmental we cannot include a provision like this. In being developmental and bringing forward this amendment, I am trying to put something good in the Bill. Deputy Walsh said these matters should be controlled by county council by-laws; the council would vet applicants and issue a licence. I am not sure if the legislation as it is framed allows for this to be done by by-law without this amendment. This amendment is not tying anyone's hands. It gives the local authorities a little push and gives them power to provide land for suitable projects.
I cannot accept that a project cannot be allowed because it might be sabotaged. If we were to follow that through to its logical conclusion, we should not have pubs because people might go there and get drunk. We have to do something for people with a genuine interest. There are 1,065 horses in the greater Dublin area at the moment. This could be reduced because the number of people with access to licences to operate suitable projects will be restricted. I am disappointed the Minister cannot accept the amendment. He said he hoped to be as supportive as possible of everything I was putting forward but he has not accepted any amendment put forward today.
I have outlined the reasons I am rejecting this amendment. I believe local authorities will respond in the fashion referred to in Deputy Kenneally's amendment as there will be pressure put on them by local representatives. I cannot see any reason we should include the provision in this Bill which is not developmental but regulatory. The fact that there are projects up and running is in a way a response to this Bill. Those projects have nothing to fear from this Bill. There will be a positive response towards the provision of equestrian facilities for young people in council areas. I cannot see any room for it in the Bill.
The Minister said projects have nothing to fear from the Bill. I am afraid the opposite is the case because I know that people involved in the Fettercairn project are afraid that, as soon as this Bill becomes law, the local authority will move in and take the land they are currently using. We all know it is impossible for local authorities to regulate horses — if this Bill goes through as it is framed, horses used by such projects will be classed as wandering horses and the local authority will be able to move against them. A project such as Fettercairn has much to fear from this legislation.
The real problem was outlined by my colleague Deputy Boylan when he said a horse or pony cannot be kept in a backyard. Space is needed. That is the kernel of the problem and it is where the difficulty arises. I once filmed a horse drinking a pint in a pub in Offaly; I did not go as far as interviewing the animal. He took his pint just like anyone else at the counter.
I appreciate the purpose of the amendment, but I do not think it fits into a Bill of this nature. I do not think the fact that the amendment is not included in the Bill will inhibit what Deputy Kenneally is seeking. The Minister is approaching the serious problem of regulating the difficulties that exist, particularly in Dublin. I notice the problem does not exist in my own area — there are no wild horses in counties Sligo or Leitrim. I would like to see a community development and a push from local representatives to get what Deputy Kenneally is seeking in his amendment arising from this Bill and the changes that are made. It does not advance his cause to have this provision in the Bill. The Minister has a specific target and I do not think it should be departed from in this Bill.
The last point Deputy Kenneally made is the one that needs to be watched — that property available now and used for this purpose is not taken away suddenly and used for other purposes. I reluctantly oppose, not the spirit of the amendment but the actual amendment being incorporated in this Bill.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I intend to withdraw the amendment at this point with leave to reintroduce it. I would like to look at the wording again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 45 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Report of Select Committee.
I propose the following draft report:
The Select Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto. The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.
Report agreed to.
Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.
I thank all my colleagues and the spokespersons for the various parties not alone for their contribution to this Bill but also to the record number of Bills which have gone through this committee over the past year, and particularly over the last six months. Nearly half of the total finance of the last budget was dealt with by this committee in the Estimates. We have had an extensive and interesting debate on most of the Bills. There have been some difficult ones but we always got through them in a reasonable time. I thank the Clerk to the Committee, her colleagues and all the staff of the Houses who have co-operated with me during this session. I also thank our convenors, Deputy Hugh Byrne and Deputy Sheehan. We will resuming to deal with the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill, 1996. I understand that Bill will not be available until the second or third week of September. As this is the last meeting of the current session, we have dealt with all the business sent to us by the Government Chief Whip's office.
I thank the Chairman and his staff for facilitating us through the passage of this Bill. I thank all the Deputies for their contributions and the serious way they approached this Bill. I may not have accepted the amendments Deputy Kenneally put down today, but there was an implied acceptance as regards some of them in the amendments I put down. A number of suggestions made by Deputy Kenneally on Committee Stage and in the discussions in this committee before this Bill was published were taken on board. I found the discussions with all Deputies helpful. My officials and I are listening carefully to the proposals made. If there is any way I can improve this Bill before it becomes law, I certainly will. If I get good proposals I will take them on board because this is a matter which concerns all of us. It is not political as such but it is important.
I wish to be associated with the previous remarks. I thank the Chairman, the Clerk to the Committee and the staff for their help putting this Bill through Committee Stage, I also thank the Minister and his officials for their help and all who contributed here. We are all trying to do what is best and we want to get the best legislation on the Statute Book.
I congratulate the Minister on producing an important and detailed Bill. He has taken a great deal into consideration at every stage — in the initial consultations in the preparation of the heads of the Bill and today and I am sure he will continue this good work when dealing with the remaining Stages. He has done much work and he and his officials should be congratulated on dealing with legislation which is important for the part of the city I represent, as well as for many other areas. I am sure everybody has an interest in this to a certain extent. I pay tribute to the Chairman for the way he dealt with this difficult and complicated Bill. He has succeeded in getting it debated in a reasonable time. Everybody who has contributed has done so to the best of their ability and for the right reasons. Even through we may not have agreed on certain issues, the intention was to make sure this legislation worked. I thank the Chairman for his co-operation in everything I had to contribute. I was not a member of this committee and I thank the committee for facilitating my participation in the debate of this Bill which concerns my constituency.
Deputy Harney took this Bill for my party on Second Stage and I am sitting in for her today. On her behalf and on mine I would like to be associated with the remarks and expressions of appreciation to the Chairman and his staff and the Minister and his staff. The Minister has initiated this Bill which deals with a complex social issue in urban areas. It is of extreme importance that the Bill works. We also know of the dangers that exist because of the inability of the authorities to deal with this urban problem. I hope that when the Bill is passed by both Houses it will receive the necessary resources to ensure it is successfully implemented. I know it has the support of the Minister and I hope it will not be because of any lack on his part that it will not be implemented.
I thank everyone of their kind remarks. I also welcome Deputy Lenihan to the committee. I did not have the opportunity to do so earlier on. I found some difficulty in referring to Brian Lenihan, having been associated with his late father. I appreciate the contribution his son made here today. I wish everyone an enjoyable holiday and safe journey home.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.05 p.m.