FARMER, LEIGHTERTON (BULL LICENCE) (Hansard, 11 July 1966)

§ Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

I welcome the opportunity to refer to the case of Mr. Butler, who lives at Hillside Farm, Leighterton, in my constituency. I am sorry that the lateness of the House condemns the Minister to stay here yet a little longer, but I am glad that he has at least had better luck than I have had today and caught the eye of the Chair no less than twice, and to judge by his last speech, he appears to be in genial mood.

The hon. Gentleman knows about this case, and we have been in correspondence about it. Nevertheless, I thought it necessary to bring the matter before the House because my constituent labours under a sense of grievance which is to a large extent justified, and a point of principle arises. Mr. Butler has been in his farm at Leighterton since 1926. For 40 years he has been a member of the British Friesian Society. He is a specialist breeder of those animals, and is very highly regarded as one of the most successful in the country.

His farm lies on the top of the Cotswold Hills and is very much exposed to the weather. In order, so to speak, to take advantage of these conditions, which others might regard as natural deficiencies, Mr. Butler has turned his activities to concentrate on breeding a very hardy race of Friesians. This is work in which he believes in principle, quite apart from its being dictated by the circumstances of his farm.

Mr. Butler has been outstandingly successful, but the beasts he raises grow more slowly than they would on farms less exposed to a hard climate, and they develop rather late. For that reason, there have on several occasions been differences between Mr. Butler and the Ministry of Agriculture on whether bulls which he has bred are fit for license. On two occasions in the not so recent past there have been these differences over bulls which the licensing officers have in the first instance turned down on the 1177 ground that they were too small. On each occasion, Mr. Butler appealed to a referee, as is provided by the Act, and on each occasion the referee decided in his favour. When the bulls were mature they turned out to be outstandingly successful, highly rated by the Milk Marketing Board and very valuable to Mr. Butler and those who use them.

I admit that Mr. Butler is a man who expresses himself with some freedom and has a nice flow of language. He is a vigorous character, and he was annoyed when his two bulls had these aspersions cast upon them. He now admits that he may have said things to the licensing officer which he subsequently regretted. At all events, there was a certain feeling at least on Mr. Butler's part that the licensing officers may not have been entirely fair to him, and it may be that the strength of his language in some way had made them feel that he was treating them rather hardly.

It was in these circumstances that he submitted, in December 1962, a bull called Westonbirt Maryson for licensing, it then being 11 months old, one month older than necessary for testing. Along came the licensing officer, the same licensing officer with whom Mr. Butler had previously had dealings, and he rejected the bull. Mr. Butler appealed to a referee. Directly after that there came the cold spell which we all remember in the early days of 1963, which was notably worse in the Cotswolds than in any other part of England. The snow lay for six weeks. It was so deep as to cover all the walls of Mr. Butler's farm completely from sight. On no fewer than six nights the frost was more than 40 degrees. All the water mains were frozen. There was no flowing water at all, and it was astonishing that Mr. Butler did not lose more beasts than he did. In fact, only one died during this period, but all of them suffered severely, particularly from dehydration because of the lack of moisture. The bull Westonbirt Maryson, which was not very old at the time, suffered very severely because of the terrible conditions.

The referee came to see the bull as soon as the thaw occurred, in February. It is not surprising that from the referee's point of view he should come then because there was a certain urgency in 1178 licensing the bull, which had at that time reached an age which made it necessary for the licensing to be done quickly. On the other hand, the referee saw the bull at a time when it had very nearly expired as a consequence of the weather to which it had been exposed.

In the event, the referee rejected the bull and did not pass it for licensing. Mr. Butler protested about the weather and the conditions in which it had left the bull, and he tells me that in reply the referee said that he was not allowed to take the weather into consideration. I do not know if there is any misunderstanding there, but it may be that the referee had in mind something to do with the timing of the licensing. If he said that and meant it, then in any sense it would be untrue, because he is entitled to take everything into consideration. If it was an excuse, then it was a poor one.

Under these circumstances, this decision was definitely unfair to Mr. Butler and would not have happened but for the previous history between Mr. Butler and the personalities concerned. Not enough allowance was made, firstly, for the type of bull which Mr. Butler was breeding—a late maturing bull—and secondly no allowance was made for the exceptional weather, the likes of which has not been seen in this century before and which I very much hope will not be seen again in our part of the world. The result of having to slaughter the bull was a substantial financial loss to Mr. Butler, who protested as long as he could and had to be summoned before the matter was disposed of.

The loss was about £300 to £440, the progeny and the disruption of the breeding plans which Mr. Butler carefully makes. From previous correspondence with the Minister, for which I am grateful, I am told that as legislation stands there is no possibility of the Minister doing anything for Mr. Butler. He cannot be reimbursed for the loss he has suffered. I would suggest to the Minister that the value of this debate would be if he could review very closely the system whereby these bulls are licensed. I think, and the Tetbury branch of the N.F.U. thinks the same, because it has passed a resolution to this effect, that the farmer should have a right to agree to the personality of the 1179 referee. At present he does not have that right.

Very great care is taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to bring a referee not personally connected too closely with the farmer or owner concerned. Nevertheless one knows that in the hierarchy of organisations the views of certain members of the hierarchy are naturally passed on, and it may be that the reputation of Mr. Butler as an awkward customer had gone before him. At all events, this case went wrong. The bull is dead and Mr. Butler suffered financial loss which cannot be reimbursed. The machinery should be looked at.

It is very difficult in a subjective matter such as this, when one man's opinion as to whether a bull is good is set against another, for the aggrieved person to prove that any wrong has taken place in the way in which the selection was made.

The Minister may say that if Mr. Butler thinks that he has been done in the eye his remedy is in the courts. It is very difficult to prove a negative in the courts. I am not casting aspersions against the veracity or rectitude of the licensing referees in this matter, but if I wish to do so I would find it extremely difficult. It is always open to a referee in a subjective matter such as this to come to a conclusion, perhaps without realising that he is being unfair, which is not based upon the facts, as they ought to be examined. I do believe that this system ought to be looked at again. The damage to Mr. Butler has been considerable, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able tonight to say that the system will be reconsidered in the near future.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries, and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for having raised this subject tonight of the case of Mr. Butler's bull, and I am glad for this opportunity to answer. The hon. Member has taken an interest in this matter, judging from the dates of the letters, for more than eighteen months, and I should like to explain the action which we have taken. First, however, I should like also to explain briefly the bull licensing arrangements and the way in which they operate.

1180 The licensing of bulls was introduced more than thirty years ago under the terms of the Improvement of Livestock Act, 1931. Its purpose has been to improve the quality of our national herd by preventing the use, as breeding animals, of inferior bulls. It is an offence under that Act to keep any bull more than ten months old except under a licence or permit issued by my right hon. Friend or, in Scotland, by the Secretary of State. The procedure is that the owner, or his agent, applies to the Ministry for a licence, and the bull is then examined by one of our livestock husbandry advisers; that is, by an officer of the National Agricultural Advisory Service who has specialist knowledge and experience of livestock. The Minister has power to refuse a licence, but only on certain specified grounds.

If there are no grounds for refusing a licence, then one is issued. If, however, a licence is refused, the owner has a statutory right of appeal and a referee is chosen by the Minister from a list of persons nominated; in the case of a pedigree animal by the appropriate breed society or, in the case of a non-pedigree bull, by the National Farmers' Union. If the rejection was on veterinary grounds, the referee is chosen from among nominees of the British Veterinary Association.

The inspecting officer has no hand in the choice of a referee, nor any knowledge of who will be appointed in any particular case. The referee inspects the bull and makes his recommendation to the Minister that a licence should be granted or refused. The Minister is bound under the Act of 1931 to abide by the referee's decision and if the recommendation is against granting a licence, then the bull must be castrated or slaughtered within fourteen days. If the owner refuses either course, then he is liable to proceedings under the Act. I should emphasise the owner's right of appeal to a referee who is entirely independent of the Minister, and the fact that the referee's decision is final. These are important safeguards for farmers and breeders.

There are, naturally, complaints from time to time about the way in which the system works in individual cases, and it would be surprising if a breeder was not disappointed if a highly prized bull 1181 is rejected. Yet, the number of complaints is not large, remembering that some 13,000 bulls are examined each year, nearly a thousand, on average, being rejected. I think we can claim that the system is fair and reasonable and it is accepted by the industry as a whole as serving a most useful purpose in helping to improve our livestock.

I should like now to turn to Mr. Butler's case. I would say, first, that from all the investigations we have made, I am perfectly convinced that Mr. Butler. although he believes in calling a spade a spade, can be assured by the hon. Member for Stroud that our officer was not influenced in any way by any action of Mr. Butler or by any remarks which Mr. Butler may have made.

This bull, Westonbirt Maryson, was a pedigree Friesian bull, born in January, 1962. In December of that year Mr. Butler applied for a licence on behalf of his son-in-law and daughter, Mr. and Mrs. Holland, who owned the bull. The bull was inspected—and here I do not think that the hon. Gentleman got his facts quite right, but if he examines them he will find that I am giving a true report of how things went—and our Livestock Husbandry Adviser deferred a decision on it because it showed inadequate growth.

He inspected it again in February, so it was not until the second inspection by our Livestock Adviser that the licence was refused because, in the words of the Act, he bull appeared to be of inferior conformation and likely to beget inferior progeny. That was the reason for the licence being refused, not because it was badly brought out.

Mr. Butler appealed against the decision, and a referee from a panel nominated by the British Friesian Cattle Society was nominated. He looked at the hull a month later. The hon. Gentleman laid stress on the fact that there had been a hard winter. We all agree that it is often difficult to give stock the best attention under these conditions, particularly if Mr. Butler was accustomed to rearing his stock out of doors. Nevertheless, one would have thought that having been told that the inspector did not want to give a decision because of its inadequate growth, and having been given three months' grace, Mr. Butler would have 1182 found a little extra food for this bull if it was as valuable as he said it was to ensure its extra growth to a decent size.

The referee recommended that the refusal to grant a licence should be confirmed, and the procedure then was that a notice was served on Mr. Butler, into whose ownership the bull had passed from his son-in-law and daughter, requiring him to have the bull slaughtered or castrated. He failed to comply with the notice, and he was prosecuted by the Ministry at Tetbury Magistrates' Court in September, 1963. He was found guilty and fined, and shortly after that he had the bull slaughtered.

Over the past three years Mr. Butler has been in correspondence with the Department, both directly and through the, hon. Gentleman who has raised his case. I appreciate that he feels strongly about it, and I am sorry that he should feel that justice has not been done, but I think that I have showed fairly clearly that the procedure as laid down in the Statute was followed, and from my examination of the case I am satisfied that it was properly and impartially handled.

As I said earlier, the Livestock Adviser deferred a decision on the bull until it was 13 months old, which is three months beyond the licensing age, to give it every chance to develop, and the referee saw it a month later than that. I merely emphasise that if I had the chance that Mr. Butler had, and if I saw that the bull was not big enough, I would have done something about it during that time. It is very rarely that a bull is given so long a period in which to justify itself before a final decision is taken on the issue of a licence.

In his correspondence with us Mr. Butler has argued that the condition of the bull at the time when it was rejected had been adversely affected by the exceptionally severe weather conditions in the hard winter, but when the bull was first seen, in December, the bad weather had not set in, and when it was inspected in February, 1963, our Livestock Husbandry Adviser took into account the effect of the weather conditions from which Mr. Butler's bulls were not the only ones to suffer.

The hon. Gentleman made a plea through me to the Minister and the Ministry for some system whereby farmers can be reimbursed for the loss of a bull that 1183 is rejected. There is nothing in any legislation to do this, and I do not think that it is necessary. Anybody who takes up a breeding programme must be prepared—this is part of the game—that a bull will sometimes not be any use. We could not possibly put this in or we would be faced with continual claims. That is not what the scheme is for.

I can add nothing more usefully to this case. We are sorry about Mr. Butler's feelings and sympathise with him and understand his disappointment. But I am satisfied that the case was properly handled and has been given great consideration over the months. I have here a small file of the correspondence on the subject. After all, given the referee's 1184 recommendation, the Minister had no alternative but to require the animal to be slaughtered or castrated. As regards the licensing system generally, I am satisfied that it continues to serve a useful purpose and I believe that this is the view of very many livestock farmers and breeders.

I hope that Mr. Butler will ultimately forget about this bull and have no more severe winters. I have emphasised that there was no bias by our officer and I hope that Mr. Butler will forget about the incident and that his breeding programme will not be unduly upset.