BULLS AND PUBLIC PATHS BILL (Hansard, 10 April 1973)

§ Mr. David Clark (Colne Valley)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to forbid the pasturing of bulls aged 12 months and over at large in fields and enclosures containing public rights of way. There is obviously—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Hon. and right hon. Members wanting to conduct conversations will please do so outside the Chamber. Mr. David Clark.

§ Mr. Clark
There is obviously a certain comedy about bulls chasing people. However it is a comic aspect which can sometimes have extremely serious consequences. In introducing the Bill, I should like to remind the House that four people in 1971, the last year for which I have figures, were killed by bulls and that a further 59 people were fairly seriously 1139 injured by them. Bulls are extremely dangerous animals. With the Bill I seek to contain this danger, especially as it affects people on public highways, namely, public footpaths.
There is considerable confusion about the law on the subject and rationalisation is now called for. There is a statutory provision of this nature in Scotland which I believe should be extended to England and Wales. In this thesis I have the support of the Gosling Committee, which was set up by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government and which reported in 1968. In paragraph 60 the Report recommended that the pasturing of bulls over 12 months old at large in any field through which there is a public footpath should be prohibited". Unfortunately that recommendation was never acted upon, probably because there was no imminent pressure at the time. However, over the past 18 months pressures have developed which constitute and introduce a sense of urgency in the situation. The situation is that the Home Office in times past very wisely sent round a model byelaw to all county councils asking them to introduce a bye-law which would stop bulls being pastured in fields where there were public footpaths. All the county councils except two in Wales accepted this byelaw, with certain modifications. That was the position only about 18 months ago. Since that time there has been a spate of activity in various county councils to get these byelaws rescinded. At least five counties are currently actively in the process of changing their byelaws as far apart as Staffordshire and Dorset.
An examination shows that this is not mere coincidence but part of a calculated campaign to bring pressure to bear to change the byelaws. The reason put forward is that the country is in need of beef and one way to get more beef would be to rescind these byelaws. That is a spurious argument. We have a duty in Parliament to protect the majority of the population from these pressures. I maintain that for two basic reasons. Public footpaths have been deemed by this House to be public rights of way. They are not traditional rights, they are statutory rights, and if anyone tries to block the footpath by barbed wire the landowner is hauled before a court and action follows. I submit that the presence of 1140 a bull in a field where there is a public path is as much a deterrent as any barbed wire.
All this is happening at a period in out history when we are trying to relieve urban pressure and encourage people to use the countryside for their leisure in a responsible manner.
The other point I feel that it is necessary to advance in support of the Bill is that bulls are extremely dangerous. Certain theories are often advanced to suggest that certain bulls are safe. These theories, I submit, are far from being foolproof. It is thought that a dehorned bull is not dangerous. In 1971 a dehorned bull killed a farmworker in Lancashire. It is further argued that the beef-breed bull is less dangerous than the milk-breed bull. In 1971 in Northumberland a farmer was killed by an Aberdeen Angus, which is a beef-breed bull. The third point often made is that bulls grazing with cows and heifers are quite safe. They may be safer, but they are never safe, as was shown, again in 1971.
In seeking leave to introduce the Bill I have concentrated a great deal on the danger. I have in my possession a letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food dated 26th March in which it comments on bulls in this way: The only safe action that anyone can take when a bull charges is to run for the nearest refuge. It is certainly true that a bull can run faster than most human beings but once a bull has caught you he will knock you down however large a stick you are carrying, and injuries that could well be fatal will result. Bulls are always a potential danger and it is advisable to treat them with extreme caution. That is a definitive statement from the Ministry and a correct one.
I also have the backing of dwellers in rural areas and of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. In a letter to me on 30th March the union says that it backs the Bill. The writer of the letter says that he and his colleagues go further and … regard it as urgently necessary in view of what appears to be a concerted effort on the part of the NFU to effect a change in the byelaws which, in my Union's view, would not only constitute a danger to the user of the countryside, especially children, but would also be detrimental to the environment… I submit that this Bill is necessary. I suggest that the byelaws which we have 1141 are sensible byelaws I submit that we should retain the present situation. It is our duty to protect the balance in the countryside. I beg leave to introduce this Bill to do just that.

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the right hon. Member want to oppose the Bill?

§ Mr. Ramsden
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am against this Bill. I do not intend to divide the House but I am against it because although there is some truth in what the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) says about the danger of bulls, if the problem is properly handled I do not think there is a case for legislation.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Countryside Bill, which was promoted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It contained a clause along the lines of the hon. Member's proposal but the clause was withdrawn with the assent of Ministers of the Labour Party, on mature consideration and after consultations with the interests concerned.
I cannot remember whether I omitted to say that I am the owner of a bull which from time to time ranges in pastures traversed by footpaths.
Despite the reasonableness of the hon. Member's case, I do not think there is a case for legislation.