HC Deb 11 February 1908 vol 183 cc1541-2
MR. RENDALL (Gloucestershire, Thornbury)

I beg to ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to the conviction of Mr. James Rich, of Rodbourne, Malmesbury, a well-known Wiltshire farmer, for allowing 208 sheep to be removed from Castle Douglas, in Scotland, to Wiltshire without having them dipped in accordance with the recent Sheep Dipping Regulations; whether he is aware that the chairman of the bench stated that Mr. Rich was liable to a fine of £1,000, according to the Sheep Dipping Regulations; and whether he will take steps to obtain such information from practical farmers, with a view to making these regulations a proper safeguard instead of an arbitrary restriction and danger to traders.


The Board have been informed by the Clerk to the Wiltshire County Council that Mr. Rich was convicted for having removed 308 Scotch sheep from his farm in Wiltshire without having dipped them twice in accordance with the provisions of the Wiltshire Sheep Scab Regulations of 1905. These Regulations are made in pursuance of Article 9 of the Sheep Scab Order of 1905, which was issued by the Board as the result of the recommendations made by the Departmental Committee on sheep-dipping after hearing the evidence of farmers and others possessing a practical knowledge of the subject. The Board have no information as to any statement made by the Chairman of the Bench.

MR. LEIP JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)

asked whether many experienced farmers were not of opinion that salving sheep, though a more costly and difficult process than dipping, was a better safeguard against sheep scab; and whether, therefore, farmers who wished to salve their sheep instead of dipping them, might not be allowed to do so.


said he was aware there were some farmers who held that opinion, but on the other hand the medical officers of the Board held the contrary view.

Forward to