§ The Attorney-GeneralI beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 25, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "fourteen".
§ Mr. SpeakerI think it will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 25, leave out "twenty-one" and insert "three".
§ The Attorney-GeneralWe had much discussion on this matter in Committee. The Amendment deals with the period which should elapse after a person has seized and impounded an animal which has trespassed on his land before he shall be entitled to sell it to recoup the damage done by it. The purpose of the Bill is to abolish the old principle of distress damage feasant, and it provides that livestock which have strayed may be detained, and then, provided that the police, and the owner, if he can be identified, are notified within 48 hours, the livestock may be retained until there is tendered to the owner of the land an amount sufficient to make good the damage, or in the Bill as it stands, after 21 days the owner of the land may sell the animal so that he may recoup the loss which he has sustained.
The Goddard Committee, which considered this matter in 1952, proposed that the right to detain should extend only to 14 days. However, submissions were put to the last Government that that was too short a time, and when they introduced an Animals Bill they made the period 21 days. Having heard what was said in Committee, I undertook to consider whether 21 days was too long in the light of the conflicting interests of the parties concerned. Those who sustain 601 the damage naturally feel both resentment and a desire to recoup the loss which they have suffered, so they wish to keep the livestock for as short a time as reasonable. The owner of the animal, on the other hand, being prepared to pay for the damage caused, wishes to have the animal back.
Having considered the balance of these matters, I have come to the conclusion that 14 days would be right in the circumstances, and not the 21 days originally proposed in this Bill and the Bill introduced by the last Government.
The period of three days proposed in Amendment No. 4 would be far too short. There would be only one day between, as it were, the day of the duty to inform the police and try to identify the owner and the day on which there could be a sale. It has been said that it is possible in certain circumstances to keep the animal, if one can catch it, but I submit that a period of 14 days is the right period.
I appreciate that there is a conflict of interest. It is in order to make a general rule which will cover the whole country and is not particular to any area that we have to arrive at a reasonable and rational balance between the conflicting interests. The Amendment reduces the period from 21 days to 14 days. I must advise the House that the period of three days is far too short.
§ Mr. Neil McBride (Swansea, East)The Attorney-General has based his argument on the premise that life is lived entirely in rural areas. He has forgotten the conditions that are to be found in highly urbanised areas. The Amendment may make the position marginally better; the right hon. and learned Gentleman may say that he is cutting one-third off the period; but it will hardly be any better for the unfortunate ratepayers in urban areas, such as the great Welsh city that I represent. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman translated his argument to the background of the urban areas he would see how fallacious it was.
The Amendment hardly helps solve the problem of the detention of animals causing damage. How is a ratepayer to detain an animal successfully? What would be an effective method of detention? In Committee it was suggested 602 that the animal could be tied to a post. In the ordinary course of events it would have to be the garden gatepost. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in Committee, said:
we are legislating here for the whole community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 16th March, 1971, c. 21.]I submit that he has forgotten a large part of the community. The maintenance of an animal for 14 days is sufficient of a problem for a farmer; how much greater would it be for the urban dweller? My constituents are sustaining considerable financial loss from the depredations of herds of animals which are roaming loose.I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the point that I made in Committee on 16th March. The Attorney-General's argument might apply to agricultural areas, but not to a city area such as Swansea, where I live. We would have been better advised to provide for a shorter period of detention, since the impounding and care of animals in these days can be carried out, if at all, only by local authorities, whose powers under the Bill, even with the Amendment, remain as sketchy as ever.
I submit that the purely rural aspect of the Bill has influenced the right hon. and learned Gentleman, making him entirely forgetful of the situation in the urban areas. The Attorney-General's argument in favour of his Amendment and his rejection of Amendment No. 14 indicates that he is not obeying the rules of logic. His argument stands on its head.
I submit that Amendment No. 4 is more sensible. It would be welcomed by local authorities, especially in my part of the country.
§ Amendment agreed to.