CONTROL OF STRAY AND OTHER ANIMALS ON PUBLIC ROADS (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Ancram
I beg to move amendment No. 178, in page 63, line 33, leave out `public'.

The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to take the following:
Amendment No. 179, in page 63, line 34, after `countryside', insert `or on account of damage to fences or dykes'. Government amendments Nos. 180 to 183 and 235.

§ Mr. Ancram
We have reconsidered clause 96 in the light of comments from the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and have decided that it would be desirable to make three changes, to which the amendments give effect.
First, since the straying of an animal is a safety hazard which should be prevented on any road, the clause will no longer be confined to public roads.
Secondly, again bearing in mind the need to secure safety on the roads, the police will be given the same powers under the clause as roads authorities have—in the same way as they have been given dual powers on the removal of builders' skips and other hazards.
Finally, it is proposed to reinstate a provision, which existed in the previous relevant legislation, making it an offence to allow an animal to stray on to a road. It appears that the mere existence of such an offence is likely to have a salutary effect on those responsible for animals, but to ensure that nobody is unjustly convicted through no fault of his own—I hope that this appeals to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—the amendments make it a defence to prove that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the animal straying. These changes are all proposed in the interests of safety and I trust that they will be accepted.

§ Sir Hector Monro
I am worried that there is a strong possibility in the countryside, especially in arable areas where there are fences everywhere, of a fence being broken. My hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that bulls sometimes look lovingly over the road at heifers or cows in season and break fences, thus getting on the road and allowing other stock to get. on the road. That is quite normal in the countryside and must be expected. It would be wrong if such an accident happened, the beast was whipped away in a police van, sold in the market the next day and the bill for doing so was sent to the farmer. I accept that amendment No. 178 goes some way to meet my point, but the Bill as drafted is harder on farmers than the present law. Today, the accidental straying of livestock on to the road is regarded as an accident, and if somebody runs into a cow, that is just too bad.

§ Mr. Maxton
Dreadful.

§ Sir Hector Monro
I hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) rumbling, but what would he do if a cow broke out of a field in the middle of the night and he knew nothing about it? People driving in the countryside expect to see livestock on the road. They are aware of that possibility and await the occurrence. I fear that we are changing the law for no good reason.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
On Second Reading I drew attention to the problems— indeed, to the impossibility of the situation that existed — at Glenshee and spoke of the difficulty of trying to catch the sheep, and so on. I therefore welcome amendment No. 183, particularly as I can speak from personal experience.
My children's ponies were found on the roadway some miles from our home. My daughters had, as always, put the lock on the gate, but some vandals had destroyed the lock and let the ponies out on to the road. One could reasonably have said that my children had taken reasonable precautions to protect their ponies. Under the clause as it was originally drafted they could have been charged—being the owner of the property, I suppose that I would have been charged — with not properly taking care of the ponies, when, as I have explained, we had taken all reasonable precautions.

§ Mr. Ancram
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) for his welcome of amendment No. 183.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) must realise that his amendment No. 179 would prevent a local roads authority from seizing and detaining stock where that stock had escaped from a field the fences of which were damaged, no matter if the damaged fences had been known to the fanner for a substantial time. That would make it impossible for the local roads authority, or the police, to deal with a large majority of straying animal cases. His proposal would also be unacceptable because of the safety hazard. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his amendment.
However, my hon. Friend has, in my view, made out a case in the circumstances where a farmer was not aware of the damage and where this might be regarded as a harsh measure to take against him. I shall consider that and refer to it again on Report.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 180, in page 63, line 35, at end insert `or by a constable; and the person so leaving an animal or allowing it so to stray commits an offence.'. No. 181, in page 63, line 38, after 'authority', insert `, or as the case may be from the police authority,'. No. 182, in page 63, line 40, after 'authority', insert `or as the case may be police authority'. No. 183, in page 64, line 4, at end insert `or as the case may be police authority. (4A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above, it shall be a defence for a person accused of allowing an animal to stray onto a road to prove that he took all reasonable steps to prevent such straying.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

§ Mr. Maxton
I found the callous attitude towards road users, as opposed to animals, expressed by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) astonishing. Whereas we expect, as we drive in the countryside, that 419 hedges, fences and gates will be in good order, he claims that we should be prepared, on rounding every corner, to find a cow standing in the middle of the road.