HIGHWAYS (STRAYING ANIMALS) (Hansard, 9 February 1966)

§ Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-west)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the payment of compensation for injury or damage caused by animals straying on the highway. How many more lives of innocent people are to be sacrificed, how many thousands are to suffer serious damage to health and to limb, how many breadwinners are to be taken from their families for ever, or for protracted periods, as a result of injuries received through animals straying on the highways before an Act of this nature is passed?

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) introduced a Bill many years ago, and I have introduced Bills on a number of occasions to deal with this problem, but without success. The problem is a serious one, and I propose to persevere in an attempt to provide a solution until an appropriate Act is passed to this effect.

Since my last attempt, the case for such an Act has continued to be demonstrated by the growing number of accidents caused by the straying of animals. In November last year, Mr. G. J. Lewis published a document entitled, "Stock Trespass and Straying in the Townships of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire", an area which I am sure is well known to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the chapter headed "Road Accidents", he says: Straying stock are a constant source of danger to motorists on the heavily trafficked highways of Glamorgan and Monmouth. This is yet a further reason why all resources should be brought to bear to combat straying. With the co-operation of County, Borough and City Constabularies it is possible to give below accident figures for the year 1962". and he sets them out. I propose to quote some of the more glaring and serious examples which support my case.

In Glamorganshire, in Gelligaer there were 81 accidents involving sheep. In Merthyr Tydvil there were 121. In Neath there were 90. In Rhondda there were 292. In Ogmore and Garw there were 98. In Penybont there were 116. In Cardiff there were 10 accidents involving horses. In Gower there were 22 accidents involving sheep, and 20 involving horses. In Monmouthshire, in Tredegar 571 there were 54 accidents involving sheep. In Abertillery there were 43, and in Nantyglo and Blaina there were 35. In Glamorgan there was a total of 1,105 accidents due to sheep straying, and in Monmouth a total of 229, with 15 accidents arising through straying horses.

I do not know why we live in this peculiar world which pays no regard to accidents of that nature. Learned judges, time after time, have categorically emphasised the need for remedying the law, but no notice has been taken of their request. I have quoted from their judgments on previous occasions, and I venture now to repeat the words of one judge which describe the situation in very clear and unambiguous terms. Lord Greene, then Master of the Rolls, said: The rule appears to be ill-adapted to modern conditions. A farmer who allows his cow to stray through a gap in his hedge on to his neighbour's land, where it consumes a few cauliflowers, is liable in damages to his neighbour, but if, through a similar gap in the hedge, it strays on to the road and causes the overturning of a motor omnibus, with death or injury to 30 or 40 people, he is under no liability at all. It is a question of a cauliflower compared with possible death or injury to 30 or 40 people. The learned judge went on to say: I scarcely think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs in the 20th century. Nor do I, and nor would any intelligent person.

It has been said in this House that the law requires remedying, and yet when attempts have been made to remedy it obstructions have been put in the way. The question is becoming more and more serious every day. The learned judge continued: If it should prove not to be open to the House of Lords to deal with the rule, the attention of the legislature might be directed to considering the whole position with a view to ensuring the safety of His Majesty's subjects when they are lawfully using the highway. Time after time hon. Members have tried to bring this matter to the attention of the House, but no one has taken any notice of them. For some reason or other there is a reluctance on the part of the powers that be, whoever they are, to deal with this position. It is a scandalous thing, because accidents occur day after day.

The matter has been brought to the attention of the public, and some time ago 572 I had a deputation from hundreds of people on this issue. Clergymen and goodness knows who else have protested—all to no avail. The judge continued: On any view we think it desirable that the rule should be modified to meet modern conditions of traffic where a road runs through enclosed country. It is remarkable that, whereas Section 25 of the Highway Act, 1864, imposes a penalty on the owner of cattle found straying on or lying about any highway or across any part thereof or by the sides thereof except on such parts of any highway as pass over any common or waste or unenclosed land' the law gives no remedy to a person who is injured as a consequence. As already stated, we think liability should depend on negligence, and accordingly recommend that an occupier should be under a duty to take reasonable care that cattle or poultry lawfully on land in his occupation do not escape there-from on to the highway, and that the occupier should be responsible for all damage caused to persons or chattels (damage to realty being already covered by the action of cattle trespass) by cattle or poultry which escape owing to a breach of that duty whether or not acting in accordance with their ordinary nature. I should have thought that anybody examining the position would come to exactly the same conclusion as the learned judge.

The law at present is that there is no obligation on the owner or occupier of a field adjacent to the highway to maintain a fence on the border of the highway. This is an opinion given by a lawyer in my own constituency with which I entirely agree. This is founded on ancient social conditions and is in no way related or liable to be qualified by such matters as the level of fields or highways, the nature of highways or the amount of traffic on the highway, save in the case of animals fierce by nature. There is no general duty on the owner of domestic animals to prevent them from straying on the highway and thus causing risk of accidents to the users of the highway.

As there is no liability to have a fence, liability does not arise if a fence is not properly maintained or a gate not properly closed. This is an invitation to animals to stray and an invitation for damage to be done. In an age like ours, when traffic is so heavy, it is a ridiculous invitation and one which should be prevented. A person should have a duty to prevent it. It is high time that a Bill of this nature was introduced, accepted by the authorities and allowed to pass.