Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Department and the local authorities for their comprehensive presentations and for providing their excellent submissions prior to the meeting to give us an opportunity to review them. This used to be a predominantly urban issue but in the decade or so since the downturn it has become more prevalent in rural areas. That is part of the problem. I broadly agree with the points made by Deputy Cahill. State and semi-State agencies have a serious duty and obligation to ensure that any lands or premises under their control or owned by them are managed and grazed properly and appropriately. Every occupier's land must be clearly identified and a full account must be made of all animals grazed on the land. This should be submitted to the local authority or to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or to both.

I was a member of Westmeath County Council when this Act was passed. There were several problems. I got a bit cheesed off because the Department simply sent instructions to the local authority. It never sent a shilling. There were no resources, just an instruction to get on with it. At that time, there was no rate in place at local authority level and the responsibility was simply devolved. A responsibility without resources is an absolute disaster for a local authority. I am sure the local authorities will recall this. In the 1990s and the 2000s there was not a shilling available. That is a lacuna. That was obviously a political decision. Mr. Murphy knows very well that it is very easy to sidestep that, but it is a political responsibility. However, as a senior official within the Department, it is important that he knows that and I think he does.

Another big problem in this area is the splintering of responsibilities. One cannot implement anything by giving Willie Penrose one responsibility and another responsibility each to Charlie McConalogue, Marcella Corcoran Kennedy and Martin Kenny. That is a recipe for not getting the job done. There must be an umbrella body to deal with this. This was going on in 1997. I remember it well. That is more than 22 years ago. If we live for another 20 years we will still be talking about it. Let us be clear. Let us stop being a talking shop. People out there are fed up with talking shops. Let us put our heads together. Nobody should recoil and run off to the Attorney General for advice just because one of us suggests something. Let us take a practical view. I agree with the broad thrust of what Mr. Mahon and the county managers say. They are right. The Act is 22 years old and life has evolved. Things have changed and it is not fit for purpose. The key point is that we must allocate money to ensure that the objectives are achieved, realised and implemented. How could we expect otherwise, particularly in the last ten years when local authorities have not been able to do the things they are meant to do, that is, their mandatory responsibilities in this regard?

Very often local authorities are in a reactive phase. They hear about a problem and race out to address it. As far as I know from Westmeath, Longford and those areas they only have one veterinary person. That person's primary responsibility is dealing with the food chain. They are used to dealing with abattoirs and things like that. I remember it quite well. They have big responsibilities in those areas. Those people then have to race out to deal with horses and everything else. This is a huge area. I do not blame anybody or at least I do not blame officials. We at the political level have nicely sidestepped this.

What represents a danger to the public or a nuisance? The Act has been challenged three or four times. Issues have arisen as a result of those challenges. I know an awful lot of stuff is going on in the Department. It is dealing with Brexit and the Common Agricultural Policy. The last thing officials want to hear is that they have another responsibility. However, the Control of Horses Act 1996 and all the legislation on animals must be immediately reviewed, amended to be fit for purpose and codified. That is very important. We must also recognise the interaction and intervention of various animal charities. They also have played a big role and things would be even worse without them. We must compliment them for their active intervention at various times in the last several years.

Deputy Cahill is right. Microchipping may be mandatory now but that is more honoured in the breach than the observance. I do not want to trespass onto any recent developments but one can see that the Department is concerned with various issues related to the food chain. There is always a danger of horses entering the food chain illegally. Full traceability is essential. We have it for other animals. I accept that it is not easy to implement with large animals which live a lot longer and have different breeds. I understand that. I do not say this will be easy. I refer also to the registration of holdings and things like that. The same level of scrutiny does not appear to be applied to horses in that regard. There are little things we can do. There is recognition in the Greyhound Racing Act 2019 of the important role of rehoming. It is recognised in statute. Members will remember that the Minister had to go back and rejig it. The same thing must be done with horses.

There is only a two-liner on this in the greyhound legislation. The same thing has to happen in regard to horses as it is important in the longer term. Many activities occur outside the farm or in a non-farm environment - on the side of the road rather than inside a farm gate. That is a big difference and a challenge.

The bodies and associations involved with rehoming should be recognised in any future legislation and should get appropriate recompense to ensure they deal with that. Rehoming of horses is well down the food chain in comparison with greyhounds, on which we have heard presentations in the committee, whereas we have never heard from anyone in regard to the rehoming of horses. The departmental officials might say we should not have to do that, and they would be right in a utopian or theoretical society. We are where we are, however, and we have to deal with that.

Education is extremely important. Education in secondary schools should be widened. We are talking about the curriculum being changed at junior certificate level to deal with climate change as a subject over 30 or 40 hours, which is important. However, the welfare of animals is another important area, and it includes all animals. Not everybody is going to study agricultural science. This is also important for those who are non-farmers. Generally, we all started agricultural science because we had an interest in farming and had perhaps come from some sort of farming background. However, this is important and should be progressed. Young people take up causes now, as we can see, and I believe it is important to do this. I know there are significant costs involved and that has to be dealt with.

The Department referred to the Irish Harness Racing Association's activities and it recognises the association in its presentation, but that is as far as it goes. It does damn all else, notwithstanding the urging and prompting from this committee. The association receives no annual funding, although it has made numerous presentations, including one a few days ago. The Department seems to regard organisations like this as poor relations when they are doing their best to contribute. The Department knows the areas in which this association is working, yet it receives no annual funding. Various items of legislation have excluded the association, and I know all about the allocation of funds under the greyhound legislation and the various other Acts we have passed in these Houses. We devote between €83 million and €84 million to dogs and horses, with something like €16 million of that specifically for dogs. Surely to God we could give €1 million, €1.5 million or even €2 million to the members of that association. Their role is important and, to be fair, Mr. Blake and Mr. Murphy have recognised this. However, we have basically excluded them. On the basis of equity, and to recognise the good they are doing, which is clearly recognised in the Department's contribution, surely they deserve some annual subvention or grant. I believe this would repay itself one hundredfold.

I know about the Traveller programme in Longford and the work that is going on in that regard, and I know about the race programme, which are all excellent initiatives and very positive offshoots. I want to recognise all the good things. I want to make suggestions in a constructive way because it is easy to come in and condemn. There may be a number of ways in which we can break through in this area. The problem is a huge number of stakeholders and groups are involved and, as a first port of call, we depend upon the local authorities to solve this problem, very often alone. That is not going to work. It needs a cross-agency and stakeholder process, and it needs somebody to lead that and to take responsibility.

Deputy Cahill is correct that any time one contacts local authorities, the Garda or other agencies, they react very well, but it is a firefighting operation and is reactive, rather than being proactive. We need an agency that is in control. It is no use setting up talking shops. Unless we give adequate financial resources to those agencies, we will be back here in five or seven years' time talking about the very same thing, although I will not be here. I thank the witnesses for their contribution, which was very worthwhile and very informative.