Mr. Brendan McGrath:

I trust that the respiratory symptoms displayed by Senator Mary Ann O'Brien and me are not symptomatic of what my colleague discussed earlier. Deputy Ó Cuív, Deputy Heydon and Senator Mary Ann O'Brien all referred to the urban horse phenomenon. The question was asked whether horses in urban areas should be allowed. I concur that the short answer is "no". In an ideal world there should not be such horses, but it is a fact of life that there are. On my way here today I received a text with an image attached from a councillor who resides in a local authority estate. The photo showed three horses walking around his front lawn. That is neither acceptable nor desirable in a modern scenario and it causes untold problems for residents in such estates and adjoining areas. Deputy Ó Cuív asked if we know how many of the horses are Traveller horses. We do not know that figure but, anecdotally, in Galway city, a significant number of the urban horses are associated with the Traveller community.

As a consequence we have to deal with the underlying issues. There is a significant space to be occupied by urban horse and other horse projects generally throughout the country. The local government sector has collaborated on several initiatives, such as the Dunsink and Limerick Horse Project, which is a model of excellent practice. We have to take what we have learned from those projects, disseminate it and introduce it in some properly funded projects around the country. Those projects must be community-led and supported and have multi-sectoral involvement. Those are some facets of the learning that must be disseminated. They have to be bottom up. They will not succeed if they are top down. We advocate and support those projects and the sector as a whole has said it will willingly commit to, and get involved with, projects that are brought forward.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine announced a fund last year and invited applications and several local authorities expressed an interest in that, including Galway City Council. Local authorities have land banks. We have access to land that the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, and other agencies have. It is possible to bring forward planned, structured, multi-stakeholder plans, involving all the agencies, the Garda, education and training boards, Tús, the local government sector, the Traveller support agencies and so on. That enables us to deal with some of the issues Deputy Ó Cuív spoke about, in terms of having a controlled response and reducing the criminality, which enables us to go after the horses that are utterly illegal and outside the scheme. The sector would welcome a structured, funded approach and a stream of funding. That stream needs to continue because we will achieve nothing if we operate on an ad hocor an non-integrated way. We need to break the cycle. In our submission we spoke about research. We understand many of the anecdotal reasons underlying the keeping of urban horses but we need to back those up with evidence. That does not need to be a very lengthy exercise. If the Department led out on it, the other partners in the sector could contribute to it. Let us for once and for all determine the best way to break that cycle.

Deputy Martin Ferris talked about harness racing and Senator Mary Ann O’Brien talked about sulky racing. I presume the reference to harness racing refers to organised, structured racing, like that in Dundalk. Sulky racing is often a problem on public roads. The local government sector regularly gets complaints from concerned motorists and landowners about sulky racing. Generally, it comes under road traffic legislation. It is problematic and difficult to deal with. One local authority has specifically adopted by-laws but to date the response has been under road traffic legislation. We certainly concur with Deputy Martin Ferris and others who spoke today that traceability and responsibility are key to this.

Deputy Penrose spoke about the transfer of resources. We have made the case that what we recoup from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is not sufficient to refund the local government sector. It is costing the sector a significant sum of money. We have told our colleagues in the Department that the current approach needs to be more structured and formalised. There is no service level agreement, SLA, with the Department but there should be one between the local government sector and the Department. That would enable a more structured approach. Scanners are a routine piece of equipment and our veterinary officers have them.

Part of the reason that seizures cost between €800 and €1,100 per horse is that there are significant problems. It is no exception that in many cases we must engage other stakeholders, particularly the gardaí, to help us in round-up and collection of horses. That tells a story in its own right. Seizing horses often has to be planned for out of hours, early in the day, and cannot be publicised. One of the speakers told of how difficult it is to retrieve a single injured horse and the amount of resources that took. It is difficult to try to go into certain environments to collect horses where we are not welcome and where there are significant health and safety concerns. As employers we have other legal obligations in respect of the safety, health and welfare at work legislation. That is why it is so costly.

We generally have to engage contractors to assist us in the work. We are tendering for that. There are a very limited number of contractors in the business. That is a significant problem, which reflects the cost to us. Speaking anecdotally, in Galway City Council 84% of the money that I, as chief executive, will spend this year is collected locally. It comes largely now out of property tax or rates. I am accountable to the councillors for the money I spend. Over the past three and a half years Galway City Council has spent a net €260,000 collecting urban horses which could be better spent elsewhere if we had a fundamentally different approach.

Deputy Penrose asked another question, which is not, I understand, specifically related to the work the committee is doing, about the proposed veterinary shared service. At its simplest, it is not proposed as part of that to remove from any county or city the existing veterinary officer. It refers to putting in place a regional chief veterinary officer to facilitate a coordinated approach and involves enabling vets at the extremities of counties to go over the boundary if a premises requires a food safety inspection. Instead of a vet having to travel the entire length or width of a county, a vet from a neighbouring county can cross over. That is the kind of practical arrangement being discussed. There is no proposal whatsoever to remove a vet from any county; it is quite the opposite. Part and parcel of the change is to strengthen the veterinary service at local government level. That is the response for Deputy Penrose in his absence.

I concur with Deputy Heydon’s comment that prevention is better than the cure, which goes back to research and the urban and rural horse projects.

The resource issue does not determine spot checks. Our response at local government level has tended to be largely reactive. The local authority sector has lost more than 30% of staffing resources across the organisations, down from a high of 37,000 to 26,750. That varies between 20% and 30% across every authority. Our responses are sometimes reactive rather than proactive when resources are squeezed and we are under pressure on the housing or transport front, or whatever. Squeezed resources mean we have to tailor our action accordingly. That is a practical problem that we try to deal with daily.

We were asked about the level of legislative intervention. It is the view of the local authority sector that generally the suite of legislation is adequate and robust. I refer the committee to our submission of February of this year, where as an appendix we highlighted several technical and procedural changes that we would recommend for the legislation. If they were corrected, with the suite of legislation that exists, they would go a long way to dealing with some of the lacunae or vacuums we encounter. We also stress that we require multi-stakeholder involvement, and there must be a more structured approach. It is very important for us that we have a service level agreement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We heard the point about the appointment of authorised officers. We hope the current arrangement that the Department has with the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, ISPCA, and the Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, DSPCA, could be more structured with the local government sector, which would go some way towards addressing some of the lacunae. I think that answers Deputy Heydon’s questions.

I hope I have answered Senator Mary Ann O’Brien’s questions about the legislation, sulky racing and the scanners. That brings me to Deputy Naughten’s questions. Typically, between 10% and 12% of the horses we seize are microchipped - or, to put it another way, close to 90% are not. Based on the figures we produced, we seized close to 5,000 animals in 2014. The numbers so far in 2015 suggest the total will be in or around the same level. We were not consulted about the change to the statutory instrument. The changes emerged as news to many of my veterinary colleagues within the local government sector.

I hope that answers the questions.