The Right Questions Were Missing. So Let's Ask Them.

On 4 November 2025, a symposium was held at a respected Irish estate exploring the role of horses in human health. Billed as an “all-island, collaborative” initiative, it aimed to connect the growing field of equine-assisted services with stakeholders from public health, education, and justice. With support from national sporting and service bodies, and attended by senior representatives from the HSE, HSC, and several large service providers, the event could have been a landmark for the sector.

But many never knew it was happening.

Only one public announcement appeared in the lead-up to the event - just four days before - with no information about how practitioners or organisations could apply, attend, or contribute. In a field where trust, safety, and professional recognition are still evolving, that absence of visibility felt more than just an oversight. It felt like a signal.

A Growing Field, A Narrow Door

The use of horses in therapeutic and educational contexts is not new - but it is growing, both in scope and in seriousness. From trauma-informed care to disability support, from emotional regulation to social development, equine-assisted services are increasingly being recognised for their unique contribution to human wellbeing.

Across Ireland and internationally, practitioners are working to align with formal standards, evidence-based frameworks, and regulatory oversight. Registers such as the PSA-recognised AAHEP exist to uphold public safety, ethics, and consistency across this diverse sector - spanning equine, animal, and horticultural-assisted services.

So when a national symposium claims to bring the sector together, but only a small, handpicked circle is included, the omission speaks volumes. Especially when the event is supported by public institutions - and when personal networks, rather than open calls, appear to have shaped who got a seat at the table.

Behind Closed Gates

Reports from those close to the event confirm that invitations were distributed selectively. Certain organisations contacted past pupils and associates, extending invites to state agency representatives known to them. Some were allowed to speak, other allowed to attend. And many - including qualified practitioners from across the island - were never contacted at all.

At the same time, accreditation didn’t seem to be the guiding principle for participation. Practitioners affiliated with nationally recognised bodies were excluded entirely, while others with less formal oversight were given a platform.

The messaging around the event only deepens the questions. It has since been described as one where practitioners were not central. But images and posts from the day show that several were present - some even leading discussions. This wasn’t a neutral omission. It was selective inclusion.

Why It Matters

This isn't about sour grapes or sector politics. It’s about process, and what it says about the future of a profession that sits at the intersection of care, safety, education, and ethics.

When events of this scale - especially those with state involvement - are shaped by informal networks rather than transparent criteria, three key concerns emerge:

• Transparency and accountability: Who decided who was included? What governance or oversight was in place? When public resources are involved, so too is the public’s right to know.
• Fair access and competition: Prioritising existing relationships over formal accreditation may breach the spirit - if not the letter - of public procurement principles, particularly in a niche but rapidly formalising field.
• Public safety and professional standards: Excluding practitioners from nationally regulated registers reduces the visibility of evidence-based, safe, and accountable practice. That carries real-world consequences, particularly for vulnerable service users.

The Questions We Need to Ask

Rather than casting blame, this is an opportunity to open up the right dialogue - one that goes beyond individual events and into the structures we’re building as a sector:

• Why were so many organisations - particularly those meeting recognised standards - not invited?
• What criteria determined participation, and who had the authority to make those decisions?
• How do we ensure that public involvement in niche or developing sectors comes with responsibility to be open, fair, and inclusive?
• What protocols should be in place to guarantee that events claiming national relevance are representative of the national landscape?

Because this is not just about one symposium. It’s about what we signal when we host closed conversations in open fields.

A Call, Not a Confrontation

There are skilled practitioners, established providers, and national registers ready to contribute meaningfully to this conversation - many of whom were not in the room on 4th November. Their absence wasn’t inevitable. It was the result of choices. And going forward, those choices need to be examined, not repeated.

Equine-assisted services are built on connection, safety, and the careful balancing of human and animal wellbeing. If the sector itself doesn’t reflect those same values - transparency, fairness, mutual respect - then we risk undermining the very work we’re trying to elevate.

This isn’t a complaint. It’s a challenge. And a quiet but necessary one:

Let’s ensure that the next time the sector gathers, the door is wide open, the process is visible, and the question is not “who was there?” - but “how did we make sure everyone had a chance to be?”