HC Deb 04 July 1967 vol 749 cc1634-40
Dr. Dickson Mabon

I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 36, line 30, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert: (1) No person shall, being the occupier of any field or enclosure through which there is a public right of way, permit any bull to be at large in such field or enclosure: Provided that this section shall not apply to any bull which—

  1. (a) does not exceed the age of 10 months; or
  2. (b) is not of a recognised dairy breed and is at large in any field or enclosure in which cows or heifers are also at large.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) was not exaggerating when he said in Committee that I would emerge from it a wiser man, at least in matters of agriculture. I readily concede that that is so. Certainly we have had some interesting vignettes of life on a farm in East Lothian—I do not include Primrose Wood.

I made it clear in Committee that I was willing to accept any reasonable Amendment to the Clause, and I paid tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) for his solo constructive efforts. The Amendment is the fruit of many hours of discussion between officials of the Scottish Development Department and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and representatives of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.

I am glad to say that the N.F.U., given the need which the Government see for a provision of this nature has, with one minor reservation, accepted the terms of the Amendment as reasonable in all the circumstances. It has made it very plain that it strongly prefers the Amendment to any suggestion that local authorities should be empowered to make by-laws to control the pasturing of bulls on rights of way, and it is plain that a Clause in the Bill has the merit of securing uniformity in the law.

I also think that the Amendment takes account of all the points of substance, quite apart from the welcome suggestions of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, which arose in Committee.

The N.F.U.'s reservation relates to our decision to reduce the age limit from 12 to 10 months. The Clause as drafted puts it at 12 months, but, as I have said, I have been learning fast about matters agricultural, and I am now convinced that 10 months is preferable. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West told us in Committee, and as my agricultural advisors have confirmed, a dairy bull of 11 months can be highly dangerous.

By law, bulls are required to be licensed at 10 months, notice having been given 28 days before. It is, therefore, an age which can readily be proved. Also, its choice as the licensing age is a fair indication that a bull of 10 months has at least reached his first maturity. I think that it is fair that we should ensure that he will not be awaiting unsuspecting members of the public on a public right of way.

The N.F.U. has asked whether, for the purposes of the Clause, an open hill is a field or an enclosure. The interpretation of statutes is a matter for the courts, but it is certainly not the Government's intention that "field or enclosure" should be construed to include open hill land. I am advised that the wording of the Clause is satisfactory on this point.

I think that we have now produced a workable Clause which incorporates the substance of the Study Group 9 recommendation without doing any damage to farming. I therefore commend the Amendment, on which we have worked hard and long, to the House.

Mr. James Davidson

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks, but I cannot think that the Amendment makes many improvements to the Clause. I still think that the Amendment which I tabled in Committee is possibly slightly better, but I shall not argue the point.

I agree that it is exceedingly difficult to frame an Amendment of this nature that takes into account all possibilities. However, it would be possible, under its terms, for a farmer who allowed an 11-month-old Aberdeen Angus bull to run with half a dozen bullocks or stots in a field adjacent to a right of way to be liable to a fine of £50, while a neighbouring farmer who allowed a dangerous dog to roam near a public right of way could not be liable to any penalties.

I therefore cannot regard the Amendment as perfect, but perhaps it is as near perfect as we can expect in the circumstances.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

I wonder whether the Minister would widen the Amendment to say, "running with any cattle". This is not a throwback to what we debated in the middle of last night, which, in any case, does not apply to Scotland, but I think that it is plain that if the bull is out, and running with cows and heifers which are not in season, it might equally well be running with a bunch of stirks. I do not see why it should not be possible to use the words "running with any cattle" so as to meet the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson).

Mr. Rankin

I do not know very much about bulls, but perhaps my hon. Friend could tell me whether the term "any bull" includes a scrub bull. I have seen scrub bulls, and it seems to me that they are very harmless creatures, hardly entitled to be excluded from the common run of animals as any bull would be under the Amendment. I do not see that it is necessary to take special measures against them. If they are still to be found, as I think they are, they should be specifically excluded. If a scrub bull were amongst a crowd of cows or heifers, it would hardly be recognised as a bull.

Mr. Stodart

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) have made the good practical point that the Minister might well substitute the word "cattle" for "cows". That would be perfectly feasible.

As the Minister said, it was originally the intention that no bull over 12 months could be kept in any field through which a right of way passed. I can remember saying in Committee that the three points for discussion were the question of what an enclosure was; the question of the bull's age; and the question of victimising him.

Under the Amendment, any bull under the age of 10 months can run in any field on his own. A beef bull with a couple of cows or heifers can be of any age. He will not he able to get away from women of his own kind without being debarred from seeing any woman at all. He will have a very rough time. The dairy bull over the age of 10 months will be restricted, no matter how polygamous he may be by instinct. He will not be allowed out at all.

I am not convinced of the value of the Amendment, in that it implies that a beef bull, provided that he has feminine company, is unattracted to the red rags with which the public is supposed to enrage him, provided that he has two cows or heifers with him. I think that some bulls with tempers are just as likely to lose them whether they have cows with them or not. In any case, some cows have worse tempers than bulls, but they will he allowed to run in a field with a right of way. Therefore, I think that the Amendment is a piece of window-dressing.

But the Minister has tried his best to help. It was a very difficult Clause to draft. Because of that, we did not put down any constructive Amendments. Our only Amendment was the thoroughly destructive one of leaving out the Clause altogether.

7.0 p.m.

However, as I explained to the hon. Gentleman, the field was so large and the time for discussion of the Bill so short that by the time we had gone through ages and types and kinds of bull—cows, heifers, stots or stirks—we could have taken un a great deal of time, and although it would have been the greatest good fun to have had the hon. Gentleman really knowing all about agriculture and bovine law, we felt that our responsibility was such that we ought not so to do. There is also the point that the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in persuading the N.F.U., and that is a remarkable achievement.

But the most important thing that the Minister said—I attach great importance to it—was his assurance about enclosures as applied to hill country, the fact that, although it would be for the courts in due course to interpret the Statute, it is the view of the Government—it would certainly be our view—that this should not be applied to hill country, where I suppose land is technically an enclosure although the enclosures may be miles back and apart from one another.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I have been in the least crabby or grudging about this. He has done something considerable in getting agreement on the content of the Clause from the N.F.U. However, from the practical point of view I still think that the Amendment has many flaws.

Mr. MacArthur

I am a little worried when reading the new subsection, as I was when I read the original Bill, to see the word "permit". Will the Minister of State tell us what this means? The intent of the subsection is clear, that farmers must be careful about where they put their bulls and must not permit a bull to be at large in a field or enclosure through which a public right of way passes.

But what is the position if the bull breaks out of the field or enclosure and thus finds itself on the piece of land through which a right of way passes? In a situation of that kind, clearly the farmer has not "permitted" the bull to break out of the field. The bull has decided, for one reason or another, to break out of the field itself. The farmer may have taken every reasonable precaution to restrain it and to retain it in the field or enclosure.

What would be the situation if the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), off to his heritage in the hills, were to stop and wave a red tie at a bull in a field and this in some way provoked the bull to retaliatory action? The bull might think it necessary, or more likely expedient, to speed the hon. Member on his way, and in doing this could break out of the field or enclosure and interfere with the hon. Gentleman on the public right of way. I think that there is a point here for clarification.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I think one might say that there are two points in the Clause and a lot of bull in between. The hon. Gentleman's illustration is a matter of legal argument. I do not think that it would come within the Clause. However, if the bull did damage to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) I think that the farmer would be open to civil damages against him under the Occupiers' Liability (Scotland) Act, 1960. But I speak entirely "off the cuff". In these circumstances, I do not think that Clause 44 would apply at all were the farmer in breach of Statute, and I think he would be fined. I cannot remember all the circumstances, but I do not think these matters arise.

With regard to dogs, byelaws can be made by local authorities to deal with other animals. The reason why we have chosen in Statute to take bulls is that the Countryside Study Group originally put this to us and we thought that we ought to do it. When I put it to the N.F.U. that the alternative to deleting Clause 44—at the time not knowing all about scrub bulls, dairy bulls, beef bulls and the rest, I thought the best thing was to chuck the Clause out altogether—was to have power by byelaws to control the pasturing of bulls, the N.F.U. made its decision absolutely clear and was in no doubt that it was against the idea of variable byelaws in different parts of the country and preferred a clean-cut Clause dealing with the pasturing of bulls. That is why we reached such an agreement with the N.F.U.

I do not deny that from an agricultural point of view there may be variants of this, though my mind boggles at the thought of another long discussion about the possibilities of running with cattle, scrub bulls, and so on. Incidentally, I am told that beef bulls and dual purpose bulls are very much less dangerous than dairy breeds. I bow to the experts in these matters, not knowing much about it myself.

At the moment, I commend the Amendment to the House as one agreed between the N.F.U. in Scotland and the Government. If in another place or in some other way we can come to some other arrangement, by all means let us do it, but it will have to be a constructive suggestion. I shall bear in mind the points mentioned in the debate, and we will see how we get on when the matter is discussed elsewhere, where there will be many farmers wanting to put their point of view. I am obliged to the House for agreeing that this is a fair attempt to get an agreement acceptable to most of the people involved.

Amendment agreed to.