Mr. Brendan McGrath:

We have provided a presentation that summarises the key points for members. Our statement is a summary of two detailed submissions we have made to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on 27 April 2014 and 25 February 2015. We acknowledge that this is a very complex area of activity and it is very important, as the horse is very important to the status of Ireland both nationally and internationally. We understand completely that there are reputational issues arising from horse welfare.

The role of local authorities relates largely to the implementation of the Control of Horses Act 1996. In this context, the problem of stray and unwanted horses has become particularly pronounced in the post-Celtic tiger period. Regrettably, the number of horses seized and euthanised in recent years speaks for itself, rising from 2,936 in 2011 to a current high, as of 2014, of 4,923. Sadly, included in the above is an increasing number of dead horses, which clearly heightens animal welfare concerns, and some of these instances have featured in the media. In addition, there is a perception on the part of some members of the public, as well as animal welfare groups, that local authorities are wilfully putting down horses and dogs that could be rehomed elsewhere. This is not the case. There is also some evidence to suggest that the sector is being used as a rather expensive disposal service. Many of the horses seized are in poor condition and few are microchipped.

The main reason for such seizures arise from public safety concerns. There are obvious dangers associated with unsupervised horses in public areas and, in particular, straying on public roads. This task is carried out by impounding contractors, following a number of tender competitions. The costs involved are considerable and cover such aspects as call-out, seizure, transport, delivery, microchipping, veterinary inspections, etc. The spectrum of costs will generally range from €500 to €1,100 per equine. The problem arises in particular in urban and peri-urban areas. There is also evidence to suggest that there can be links with criminality. Until recent years, costs were recouped in full from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. However, the level of subvention has been gradually eroded to the extent that much of the cost is now borne by the local government sector.

In truth, local authorities do not have the sufficient professional and technical resources to deal with the increasing incidence of horse welfare issues.

It is noted that, consequent to the passing of the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is the primary Department with responsibility for all aspects of animal health. It also has the capacity, particularly with agricultural welfare officers, to deal with such matters. However, addressing welfare issues in certain urban areas can be very challenging. We should bear in mind that ensuring animal welfare can be a particularly labour-intensive activity in the context of investigations, veterinary interventions, follow-up inspections, etc. Council staff respond to welfare issues from time to time, but the broader role of the local government sector in terms of the Animal Health and Welfare Act needs to be better defined. Most local authorities have one permanent veterinary officer whose primary duties which take more than 90% of the time relate to a service level agreement with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Dog control represents another significant duty.

Despite vigorous enforcement of the Control of Horses Act, it is clear that the problem of stray or unwanted horses, as well as associated welfare issues, have not abated, despite all efforts, and it seems that the problem is growing. Also, we should bear in mind the considerable expenditure incurred to date. It is the strong view of the County and City Managers Association that there should be a greater focus on the fundamental causes rather than the symptoms of the problem. In this context, it would be particularly worthwhile to carry out independent research rather than rely fully on an anecdotal approach to the matter. In all likelihood, the reasons relate to a combination of the following factors: cultural or status issues attaching to horse ownership; indiscriminate breeding or a refusal to castrate stallions; supplying the food chain, an activity which is now highly regulated; the breeding lifespan; development lands and adverse possession; a culture of carelessness; anticipation of a national cull and association with potential criminality. There may be other reasons also. Current arrangements are far too reactive and a more considered and collaborative approach is required. In turn, this would likely involve smarter use of legislative interventions, possible introduction of a voluntary surrender scheme, new initiatives in the area of education and awareness, as well as an enhanced role for the voluntary sector.

There are a range of stakeholders involved, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the local authority sector, the Garda, the Irish and Dublin societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, other welfare groups, representatives of horse owners, the farming community and, possibly, NAMA. In this context, our association wishes to emphasise the importance of a collaborative and co-ordinated approach, as no one entity is able to deal fully with the overall problem, having regard, in particular, to different roles and responsibilities assigned to the various agencies under legislation. There is also a need for a rigorous assessment of current arrangements, better analysis of the extent of the problem and some innovative thinking in addressing the complex issues involved. Our association, being representative of the local authority sector, is wholeheartedly willing to participate in this process.

In the past two years or so the County and City Managers Association has been engaging actively both at a national and strategic level, as well as locally, with key stakeholders. In this context, we have provided copies of two submissions, dated 27 April 2014 and 25 February 2015, for the Department in the context of the ongoing review of the Control of Horses Act. These documents are drawn, in particular, from interaction with the Department, the Garda and local groups, and summarise the position of the local government sector. In addition, our association would be more than pleased to offer further assistance both to the Department and the joint committee. We hope the committee will find the accompanying presentation helpful.

Specifically, with regard to the four areas of interest to the joint committee, I will set out our summary position. The first is the policy on horse welfare and how it is implemented. The local authority sector does not have a specific policy on horse welfare as the primary focus has always been on control. However, horses dealt with under the Control of Horses Act are frequently welfare-compromised. The local authorities have focused on their specific duties relating to control, dealing mainly with nuisance, stray and unwanted horses and, therefore, will mainly encounter welfare issues by default. The Department, typically, deals with animals in a farm environment, whereas local authorities have more experience of operating in an urban environment which, regrettably, is where much of the abuse takes place. The animal charities and other welfare groups do, however, often become involved with welfare matters in the urban setting, which is to be welcomed, provided it is properly structured. The Department has formalised this arrangement, to some extent, by entering into a service level agreement with the Irish and Dublin societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

The second aspect is legislative underpinning.

Key legislation in this area includes (a) thePounds (Provision and Maintenance) Act 1935, as amended, (b) the Control of Horses Act 1996, sections 33 and 37, (c) the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013, (d) the European Union (Identification of Equidae) Regulations 2014 and the Control Of Places Where Horses Are Kept Regulations 2014. The chief executive of each local authority may authorise staff in accordance with the legislation listed at (a), (b) (c) and (d).

The third aspect is how taxpayers' money is spent. Depending on the number of horses seized in a given year, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine annual subvention will range between €2 million and €3 million, with individual local authorities covering the balance. Seizing and impounding horses are time consuming and resource intensive tasks. It is a high risk activity that often requires Garda assistance. Overall costs will vary from €500 to €1,100 per horse, with the Department granting a maximum subvention of €375 per equine, leaving a substantial deficit to be made up by the local authority sector. Most local authorities use contractors for the purposes of seizing horses and providing pound facilities. A national tender is being formulated, although there are a limited number of contractors entering the market. This relates to a number of factors, including, in particular, the skills required to deal with fractious horses, potentially volatile owners, as well as the requirement to provide secure pounds for the mandatory holding periods. There are also significant health and safety risks and, accordingly, insurance can be very costly.

The fourth aspect is proposals for improvement. The following approaches should be prioritised: address the causes rather than symptoms of the problem; vigorous enforcement, which could involve, for example, a task force for each county or area made up of the local authorities, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Garda to target groups of horses in unsuitable settings such as urban lands, etc. to ensure enforcement of all the new regulations; greater recourse to local by-laws, particularly the designation of exclusion zones; and review of the Control of Horses Act, as outlined in the CCMA submission. In this context, attached to our most recent submission was a series of recommendations to the Department for consideration in the event of future legislative changes.

On the Animal Health and Welfare Act, there is a need for a service level agreement between the Department and the local authority sector to complement arrangements between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the ISPCA and the DSPCA. In this regard, each entity would be clear regarding its roles and responsibilities to avoid duplication or omission. Current arrangements between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and local authorities in terms of cross-compliance on environmental issues might be cited as a very worthwhile precedent.