Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [Lords]

HC Deb 24 January 1983 vol 35 cc710-35

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House may ask why the hon. Member for Devizes has successfully caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, to introduce this Bill. Normally, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton)) would have introduced the Bill, but he has been struck down by reason of his service in the Government Whips' office. As the House knows, although Whips are silent in the Chamber, they are allowed to speak outside. So it was that one day my hon. Friend's eye fell upon me, all unsuspecting as I was, and as I am always willing to please a Whip—who in this case is much bigger than me—I accepted his invitation to introduce the Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend and its promoters.

I declare a remote interest in that I try to ride horses and I am a member of the British Horse Society. Thus it is not impossible that I might wish to ride on Epsom or Walton downs. Secondly, I have had a minute interest in three horses that might have been Derby horses but were not. That is common to most racehorse owners. It is worth mentioning in passing that while the Derby, which is our greatest flat race, is involved intimately with this Bill, at this time in British racing history the future of our most famous steeplechase is at risk. Unless those who are appealing for money to save the Grand National are successful, we shall see no more Grand Nationals. It is probably out of order to make an appeal from these Benches, but I hope that those who are appealing will achieve great success.

The purpose of the Bill, which is promoted by Epsom and Ewell borough council, is to re-enact with amendments and additions the provisions of the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act 1936, except those provisions that have become redundant. The 1936 Act will cease to have effect shortly by reason of section 262(9) of the Local Government Act 1972—the details of which will be at the finger tips of all hon. Members. This Bill seeks to regulate the various rights and interests over Epsom and Walton downs and to update the provisions of the 1936 Act.

The downs cover an area of some 600 acres. Epsom downs and a small portion of Walton downs are the propery of Metropolitan and Country Racecourse Management and Holding Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Horserace Levy Betting Board, subject to a lease in favour of United Racecourses Ltd. The remainder of Walton downs is owned by Mr. Stanley Wootton, who resides in Australia. He was the owner in 1936 and his part of Walton downs is subject to a lease in favour of the levy board.

Before the passing of the 1936 Act, the downs were the subject of conflicting rights and interests. There were the interests of the Epsom Grand Stand Association Ltd., which has become United Racecourses Ltd., and of the owner, which lay in the use of the downs for horse racing and training. The public also had certain rights of access to the downs for air and exercise under section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The purpose and achievement of the 1936 Act was threefold. First, it set up a body of conservators with the duty of preserving the downs in their natural state of beauty and with power to make byelaws for the control of the downs. Secondly, the Act continued the rights of the public to air and exercise on the downs since section 193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 ceased to apply to the downs when common rights were extinguished by the 1936 Act. Thirdly, the Act defined the rights of the Epsom Grand Stand Association and of the owner over parts of the downs essential to the continuance of the racing industry and to safeguard other users.

The downs have been famous for horse racing for centuries. The Derby has been held there for more than 200 years and it continues to attract hundreds of thousands of visitors from all over the world and many television viewers. It is probably still the most important flat race in the world, being a major test of horse breeding and stamina and of a trainer's skill. The 1936 Act provides for the maintenance of the training gallops on the downs at the expense of the trainers. Race horse training is a flourishing and important industry in the borough of Epsom and Ewell. Racing provides employment for several hundreds of people in the area.

If the 1936 Act were to lapse, which would be the effect of rejecting this Bill, the position would revert to pre-1936 days, but the downs would not become a common again. The conservators would cease to exist and the public would lose the statutory rights that they now enjoy. Obviously that cannot be seriously contemplated and the rights of the public should not be so prejudiced. To secure the protection of those legitimate interests, the council, with the support of the conservators, United Racecourses Ltd. and the Horserace Betting Levy Board, decided to promote the Bill. Before the Bill was drafted, a working party was set up in 1980 to report on the terms of the Bill to replace the 1936 Act. Extensive consultations were carried out, and, despite conflicting rights and interests, wide agreement was reached. Following consultation and debate, the council, which represents to the best of its ability the interests of the general public, announced the provision in this Bill of a fair compromise among the users of the downs.

The terms of the 1936 Act relating to horse riding were not clear. Therefore, at the request of riders, a provision was included in this Bill to give them statutory rights to ride on extensive areas of the downs.

For the protection of the public, and to prevent danger and damage on the training gallops, the riders would have to keep to the areas and rides referred to in the Bill. Those areas and rides have been extended, at the expense of the training gallops and of the remaining public using the downs for recreation, in an attempt to meet the demands of local riders and were further extended in the other place. A petition against the Bill from the British Horse Society and the Epsom Riders Protection Association, which I believe was formed in 1981, was laid before the House of Lords. The Bill now provides an inalienable legal right which did not exist in the 1936 Act, to ride on the designated areas and rides, which are set out on maps.

The promoters have also given a number of undertakings, including one to set up a consultative committee of representatives of the conservators, United Racecourses Ltd., the Epsom and Walton Downs Training Ground Management Board, the Epsom Riders Protection Association and the British Horse Society for the purpose of consultation on the future management and control of the tracks, rides, paths and areas for what is termed hack riding.

The only petition to be placed before this House has been that of the Epsom Riders Protection Association. The British Horse Society has not petitioned because I believe that its members consider that a reasonable compromise has now been achieved. It is important, however, to note that the promoters have undertaken to seek further amendments to the Bill to provide that riding on the downs, where hack riding is not permitted, or is permitted only at certain times, should be an offence only under a byelaw confirmed by the Home Secretary. It is proposed that those amendments should be submitted to the Committee to which the Bill will be referred if it is given a Second Reading. The Bill will then be most carefully considered in Committee, and both the promoters and the petitioners will have an opportunity to explain their different attitudes—if they are different—to the various parts of the Bill, and, of course, evidence can be called.

The promoters hope that the Bill will be read a Second time so that they may be allowed to put forward their case in Committee in the usual way. I strongly support them in their endeavours.

7.13 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Stockport, North)

I do not at this stage want to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but I hope that the promoters will be able to go further than has been suggested by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) towards meeting the fears and worries of various groups about the Bill. Therefore, I have put my name to the blocking motion that the Bill be read six months hence to ensure a short debate this evening. I hope that there will be no need for the matter to be debated again in the House and that the problems that have been mentioned will be met by the promoters before Report.

Many people have asked why I am concerned with a Bill which deals with a part of the country that I do not represent. I have always taken an interest in questions of rights of way and access, and it is on those grounds that I am concerned about the Bill.

I have no great enthusiasm for horses, whether for racing them or riding them. When I go out walking, I often find that they are a positive nuisance because of the way in which they wear out or damage footpaths. People who have had to clamber over mud that has been created by horses on footpaths may well have some lack of sympathy for them. That is one of the specific problems raised by the Bill. By suggesting that horses should keep to far more firmly defined areas, certain paths or tracks may become even more impassable and difficult for joint use between people who want to ride over them and people who want to walk on them.

I agree with most of the description of the history of the matter that has been given by the hon. Member for Devizes, but I suggest that the promoters could have done one simple thing if they wanted to avoid controversy. They could have promoted a simple enabling Bill to reconstitute the Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Act 1936, taking into account the local government changes. It would have taken very little time and effort to get it through the House. Indeed, I believe that the Government should have done it. They could have taken all the local government provisions that existed before the local government reorganisation of 1974 and introduced a simple enabling Bill to extend the provisions to the new authorities. This House has spent far too much time in going back over local government Bills whose duty and need were created merely by local government reorganisation.

The Bill goes considerably further than was strictly necessary. If it had been necessary simply to re-enact the 1936 measure, that could have been done fairly easily. I am well aware that there were several proposals in the Epsom area for inquiries into the way in which the downs were being managed. Many groups have suggested that the 1936 Act was not working particularly well but, as I understand it, the 1966 report on the downs and the council committee report of 1972 decided in the end that on balance the existing form of management and the existing way in which the different conflicts of interest were resolved were fair. In view of that evidence, it would have been better for the promoters of the Bill simply to re-enact the 1936 Act rather than to establish a new set of rules and to alter and vary the balance between the conflicting interests that want to use the downs.

The first area of conflict arises over the interpretation of the 1936 Act as to who has the right of access to air and to exercise on the downs. Is it merely people on foot or is it also people who are hacking? I believe that the clear interpretation of the 1936 Act is that the right of access was there for everyone, and that the right exists over virtually the whole of the area. As hack riders and others are sensible people, a division of the area on realistic grounds has operated over the years and has been fairly effective until relatively recently. The hack riders restricted themselves and kept well clear of the area that can be described as the gallops.

It is unfortunate that the spirit which existed for such a long time could not be re-established. If the promoters had been a little more diplomatic and skilful on occasions, they could have re-established that measure of cooperation, and many of the problems that have been put to me—and, I believe, to many other people—over the past few months would not have had to be voiced in this House.

It is suggested that most local groups were involved in discussions about the preparation of the Bill and that it had the consent of almost everyone. Judging by the correspondence that I have received, that is not the case. There is considerable conflict, some of which is real but some stemming from the fact that, although the workable compromise seemed to be running satisfactorily, once one group of people saw the working compromise threatened from one direction they began to dig in their heels and demand that the letter of the 1936 Act be observed rather than the spirit in which it has operated for a long time. Certainly, from my discussions with the Epsom Riders Protection Association, it seems that they are reasonable people who are asking for reasonable provisions.

I have been surprised by the number of people who have lobbied me saying that I should not take up the time of the House with a discussion of the matter and that the whole issue could easily be settled in favour of the racing lobby. I shall not describe to the House the type of pressures that people have tried to exert but, on the whole, those pressures have been totally counter-productive. Whereas I was in a little doubt about some of the issues before, the way in which some people have suggested to me that I should take no further interest in the Bill and allow it to proceed shows that they are keen to bulldoze it through the House quickly.

If one reads the reports of the proceedings in the other place, one can fully appreciate some of the fears that have been voiced. One noble Lord suggested that the Derby itself would be at risk if the Bill was not passed. Anyone who has read those proceedings could feel that the racing lobby has pressed its case hard and perhaps did not ensure that the fairest of hearings and considerations were given to the matter. I suggest to those who feel strongly about it and feel that there may be a risk to the racing interests that they should be pressing the promoters to achieve a compromise with the groups concerned rather than spending their time pressuring me and other hon. Members to allow the measure to be passed quickly.

I recognise that the local council is in some difficulty. It would have been nice to have considered it as a totally neutral body in the preparation of the Bill and in the difficulty of trying to reconcile the conflicting interests. It is not a totally neutral body. One or two people have written to me suggesting—I am sure unfairly—that the council is more concerned about its box in the grandstand than in trying to hold the ring between the different conflicting interests. I recognise that the council has to consider the jobs involved. The racing industry has lobbied hard about the number of jobs involved in the training establishments and the number of jobs involved on racing days. That is an important consideration for any local council, but I suggest that the local council should have looked a little more closely at the number of jobs involved in the riding stables, for hacking horses and the tuition of young people. Perhaps the council could have been a little more neutral in its consideration.

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, whereas one can hack virtually anywhere, one can train racehorses and race only on that particular stretch of land?

Mr. Bennett

I accept that the racecourse is important for the promotion of all the races and, in particular, the Derby. No one would dispute that. But the case for all the trainers using that particular area of land is not quite so overwhelming, because, as I understand it, there are other private areas within the vicinity of some of the stables used by some of the trainers. Therefore, it is not essential that they use those areas. I am certain that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who knows far more about these matters than I do, is aware that in other parts of the country there are many other opportunities for training horses. For most of those living in that area there is some limit on the distance that they can go or their children can go if they want to enjoy horse riding. In Stockport, there are certain areas which are over-used by young riders because they cannot get out further to areas which may not be used so much because of expense, difficulties with transport, and so on. It is a matter of balance as to how large an area should be for training.

I am also under the impression that the number of horses being trained in the area has dramatically fallen since 1936 when, I am told, more than 1,000 horses were being trained. Now the figure is down to between 300 and 400. I do not know a great deal about the racing industry. Perhaps the training is now much more vigorous and scientific than it was then and that therefore the amount of space required has increased. The figures therefore may not be a perfect guide, but they suggest that there has been some decline. Therefore, it should be possible to try to marry the two sets of interests—the legitimate interests of those who want to train horses and the rights of individuals to go on to the downs for their own pleasure of simply riding a horse.

There is still an opportunity for the council and the promoters to get together with the protection association and to reach an agreement before the Bill even reaches Committee. If, as I am continually told by those who are keen to see the Bill rushed through, the matter is urgent, there is a quick and simple way for the promoters to proceed—they should get agreement from all interests. If they achieve agreement, they can go to Committee with the petition withdrawn and an agreed set of amendments. There may have to be short Committee proceedings while the Government Departments make their representations, although my understanding is that Departments do not have many observations to make about the Bill and that therefore the Bill could go through Committee quickly. With controversy out of the way, the Bill could return to the Floor of the House for Report and Third Reading without further delay.

My guess is that, if the promoters followed that course, they would have their Bill by early March. Therefore, if the matter is urgent, that would be a sensible way for the promoters to proceed. If, on the other hand, they are not prepared to try to meet the legitimate rights of individuals in the area, they may well delay their Bill considerably. If the petition has to be heard by the Committee, and it is heard in the detail in which petitions are normally heard—some of those who present the arguments on such petitions, particularly on occasion councils, seem to enjoy arguing at length—the proceedings in Committee may take a considerable time. If at the end of that there is still dissatisfaction, the Bill will have to return to the Floor of the House for Third Reading and for amendments to be tabled and debated, which, again, can take a considerable time. It is a cumbersome process which takes time and costs money.

I should have hoped that the promoters could meet the legitimate views of those who are unhappy about the Bill and thus avoid that long and cumbersome process, particularly if, as it is continually rumoured, there might be an early election which could interrupt that fairly long process.

The riders' protection association believes that the areas designated in the Bill for hack riding are inadequate and too restricted. The maps of the areas available under the 1936 Act and those proposed in the Bill show that the total area has been greatly reduced. It has been suggested that the riders have 40 miles of routes, but those are generally routeways or pathways rather than open areas.

If riders are restricted to using the same small pathways all the time, those routes will become worn fairly quickly and problems will arise over preserving the routes and closing them for resurfacing. Previously riders were free to spread out over a much wider area. It could be argued that in those circumstances damage would be spread over a wider area, but it could also be claimed that less damage was done and natural regeneration was easier. I am told that more damage has been caused to the downs by excavations and the all-weather rides for the training of horses than by hack riders.

Hack riders are also worried about the fact that two or three maps showing designated areas will he put in legislation. We know the present number of horses being trained in the area and the number of hack riders on the downs, but those numbers may vary considerably over the next 10 or 15 years. More people may wish to hack over the area and there may be fewer horses trained in the area. In addition, some trainers may prefer to use private training areas rather than the downs. It has been put to me that it would be better for such matters to be dealt with in local byelaws than in an Act.

The riders' protection association tells me that five sixths of the area that riders were entitled to use will be lost and that much of the natural beauty of the area has been reduced. Many wild flowers and shrubs that were features of the area have disappeared, not because of the hacking on the downs but because of the training of horses and the use of the racecourse.

It should be possible for the promoters to ease the fears of the riders and to reach agreement with them in the next day or two. The minimum requirements include a proper route along the south side of Walton downs, which must be considerably wider than is currently proposed—perhaps going back to the width provided in the 1936 Act—and riders not being restricted to narrow routes that will be difficult to negotiate at most times. That could be best achieved by reverting to the wording of the 1936 Act which provided rights for walkers and riders. There could then be local negotiations on byelaws to serve the interests of trainers, the racecourse and local hack riders. Such byelaws could be varied from time to time as needs changed. The removal of the right of access on foot or horseback will make it much harder for those who wish to press the rights of hack riders to negotiate on their behalf.

One clause includes the right to close the 40 miles of rides for reseeding. The Bill should be tightened up to make it clear that, as at present, if an area has to be regrassed an alternative route ought to be made available. There may be occasions when that is not possible, but there ought to be a presumption that if a designated route has to be closed alternatives should be provided.

The riders' protection association and others are worried about the proposals to increase the number of race meetings at Epsom. Most people who attend sports meetings thoroughly enjoy themselves, but there are sometimes problems for those living near sports grounds and racecourses. I get the impression that the Epsom course is no exception.

A major problem is the time taken in preparing for a race meeting and clearing up afterwards. At present, there are nine days of racing a year, but the Bill proposes a possible extension to 16 days. I suspect that most people would not object to such an extension, but if there are to be 10 days of preparation and 10 days of clearing up for each meeting, many of the areas designated in the Bill will be restricted for large parts of the year. It ought to be possible for those 10-day periods to be reduced. I understand that it is not proposed to move immediately from nine days to 16 days, but I understand the legitimate fears of local people.

It would be fairly easy for the promoters to give an undertaking that if they press for extra days the preparation and clearing-up time will be reduced, along with the restrictions on hack riders and other groups. I have received a number of letters about the restoration of the downs after race meetings. People have tripped over holes left after the removal of pegs used in temporary structures at Epsom.

I have also received a letter about third party liability of hack riders and horse trainers. I do not think that there should be any problem about that. Most riders are members of their national association and have insurance cover and any race horse trainer will have third party liability because of the nature of his trade. It is not one that I should want to press.

I hope that the promoters will make it clear that they wish to change all the penalties from criminal offences to byelaw offences. I understand that the hon. Member for Devizes received an undertaking along those lines, but that in correspondence later the promoters suggested that they were changing only one of the provisions, not both. I hope that that misunderstanding can be cleared up.

I should not like to see a measure such as this held up or delayed in any way. It is important that the promoters get together in urgent discussions with the petitioners to ensure that any differences of view can be resolved. I do not believe that they cannot be resolved because I am under the impression that the Epsom Riders Protection Association is made up of reasonable people and that the promoters could get their point across so that there might be better management of the area in the interests of the trainers, the racing fraternity and the people of the area, not only those who wish to hack but the far larger majority who wish to walk. I hope that the Bill will not have to come back to the House for us to argue over a further stage because of failure to reach agreement between all the interested parties.

7.42 pm

Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate)

Like the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I am glad that the House has a chance to discuss the Bill before it goes further. I certainly supported the hon. Member in his efforts to block the Bill to ensure that such a debate could take place.

Perhaps I should explain my constituents' interest in this measure. It could be divided into two. First, there is a ward in my constituency lying to the east of the downs, and thus to the east of the racecourse, which is, not surprisingly, called Tattenhams ward. Whatever goes on on the downs, whether of a racing nature or anything else, has a direct effect upon the lives of the people in that ward. Secondly, throughout my constituency there are many more who use the downs for recreational purposes, whether on horseback or on foot.

I am sure that we are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) for explaining in his introductory speech the conflicting interests that occur. These conflicts are not necessarily simple to define. We have, understandably, heard a good deal of a conflict between the horse racing industry and the public as a whole. It is fair to say as well that there is a conflict within the public interest. There is often a conflict between those who use the downs for their recreation on horseback and those who go on the downs on foot.

We have heard of a number of hazardous episodes reported in the local press over recent years, where horse riders have come dangerously close to families who are picknicking or walking on the downs. I can tell hon. Members that my constituency mailbag on this issue divides fairly evenly between hack riders complaining about the activities of conservators and the Epsom and Ewell borough council, and members of the public on foot—the pedestrian public—complaining about the activities of the hack riders. There are a number of facets to the conflict here.

It is also worth mentioning in this context that it is not entirely sensible to argue that the problem could be met simply by enabling legislation to renew the 1936 Act. The recreational use being made of this area is now far heavier than it was in those days. Far more people drive out from London and from the different parts of my constituency to the downs for recreational purposes at the weekend. At the same time, there has been an expansion in the popularity of hack riding. The public demands being put on the downs are now far greater than they were only a few years ago.

The bodies that have endeavoured to represent the interests of local residents in the process of formulating new legislation are the residents' associations, and I include among these the Tattenhams residents' association drawn from the ward that I have described. It will be within the knowledge of most hon. Members that that residents' association joined with others outside my constituency, associations that are similarly affected by whatever goes on on the downs, into a joint committee that met through 1980ߝ81 to draw up and define their requirements.

The representatives of that joint committee got together with the working party described by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes in the middle of 1981 and a compromise between those interests was worked out. The compromise covered agreement on such matters as car parking, the erection and removal of temporary stands, the fencing of enclosures and the protection of residents close to the racecourse. A great deal of work was put into that by representatives of residents' associations.

I am now finding considerable hostility expressed from those quarters to making many more compromises in the process of getting the Bill on the statute book. As one of them put it to me in a letter that I received just before Christmas, Our Joint Committee went to considerable trouble to achieve the best possible provisions in the new Bill so as to equally serve all interests. This meant making concessions at times which must not be jeopardized by one minority seeking to obtain a disproportionate advantage for only their activity. That is the view that is coming fairly strongly from the residents' association.

As the hon. Member for Stockport, North fairly told the House, there are problems remaining concerning the hack riders. One particular objection was that any offences in the Bill, as put before another place, brought down the wrath of the criminal law upon offenders, which was seen as a disproportionate penalty or legal sanction to be applied. I am sure that we shall be interested to see the form that the concession on this point takes when the Bill goes before a Committee.

The hon. Member for Stockport, North has stated in some detail, and therefore I shall not repeat it, that the Epsom Riders Protection Association is not satisfied with the Bill and the degree of access that is allowed to it under the proposed measure, and wishes to pursue the matter further. Thereby, it finds itself unfortunately in conflict, not only with the promoters of the Bill, but with the representatives of local residents associations, too.

At this juncture, it may be said, without prejudging the issue, that the correspondence that I received before the Bill came before the House demonstrates that among hack riders and members of the Epsom Riders Protection Association there is a very strong feeling that a certain vendetta has been waged against them by the conservators over a period of time under the 1936 Act, and there is a feeling among them that the provisions of the 1936 Act have been bent on certain occasions to their disadvantage. Such a feeling in those circumstances hardly creates the most friendly atmosphere for the amicable discussion of the proposed provisions of a new measure which, nevertheless, I believe to be necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes was correct to point to the hazardous situation that we would face if the 1936 Act were allowed to lapse without being replaced by some further legislation.

Understandably, the argument has been in terms of the conflict involving hack riders, but there are other provisions in the Bill which are of great importance to some of my constituents. I refer especially to clause 16, which covers the gipsy caravans which arrive in very large numbers for the annual Derby meeting.

Very soon after I was elected to the House in 1974, I discovered that this was a matter of considerable aggravation for my constituents living in the area not far from and adjacent to the racecourse. These caravans are not the picturesque conveyances which might have come to the downs meeting in years gone past but large and luxurious mobile homes often needing to be towed by heavy lorries, and often bringing noisy, heavy generating equipment with them. Increasing numbers of such caravans were coming each year. They were causing considerable aggravation for local residents, and the presence of caravans dotted round the downs in an uncontrolled way also inhibited their freedom to use the downs for recreational purposes. Over the years since, efforts have been made through the gipsy authorities to reduce the numbers arriving, and we thought that those efforts were achieving some success until 1981, when a record number of caravans came for the Derby meeting. There were some 347 in all. Furthermore, they arrive not just for the Derby meeting but a considerable time beforehand, and they stay for some time afterwards.

My constituents living locally will welcome the provisions in clause 16, which have been worked out in consultation with the National Gypsy Council, for a properly constituted site for such caravans and for power to require the removal of caravans that are not situated within that designated area. I offer that as at least one example of the reason why local residents require fresh legislation. The 1936 Act was not adequate to meet their needs in this respect.

This argument has been a long and painful business for many of us. I should like to think that the difficulties can be resolved before the Bill goes before a Committee, as did the hon. Member for Stockport, North, though I have my doubts. One of the reasons why I was happy to promise my support in blocking the Second Reading of this measure before Christmas was that that allowed additional time for the promoters' and the petitioners' agents to meet to see whether some agreement could be reached. Unhappily, it appears to have been impossible, so I imagine there is no alternative now but for these issues to go before a Committee. We hope that they will be resolved there.

I join other hon. Members in hoping that the Committee will succeed in reconciling the conflicts which remain over the measure so that we can get an Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill on the statute book in the interests of the public as a whole.

7.55 pm

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Unlike the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I am totally in favour of this measure. I should very much like to see it enacted sooner than later, and I agree with the hon. Members in hoping that it will not go before a Select Committee.

It is crucial to remember that the very reason for Epsom's prosperity and existence is horse racing. We have 600 acres of downs. We have fairly co-operative trainers. But it is important to remember that Epsom is about training race horses. Race horses are trained and spectacles are put on which attract people, to the great financial benefit of the surrounding district. Inevitably, considerable annoyance is caused to people who live nearby. But that is common to every event anywhere. It is common to every theatrical performance, every jamboree and every concert. I am sure that our neighbours in Westminster infinitely prefer it when the House is not sitting. I am surprised that we have not had a petition asking us to have shorter sittings and to stop banging car doors at night.

Racing and Epsom are synonimous. If there is as much room for hacking, let those hacks hack where there is space and where they do not interfere with valuable bloodstock in the very limited space provided on which race horses may gallop. The hon. Member for Stockport, North had some sort of idea that horses could race anywhere and that hacks could hack anywhere. He suggested that there were trainers who did not need the gallops on the downs. I agree that there are, but they belong to the up-market branch of racing. The small trainer has no chance to buy land on which to race his horses. He needs the facility of the downs and he needs the security of those gallops. It is exceedingly dangerous for a race horse to be unleashed on a 1¼-mile gallop and find people walking, hacking or flying model aeroplanes there.

It is right that precedence should be given to race horses. Trainers are very good. They do not train horses in the afternoons, but they would not expect the hacks to churn up the gallops any more than a race horse should be allowed to train on ground which was not suited to it.

A faint elitism has crept into the debate, as though hacks were Socialist and racing was somehow Conservative or up-market. It is quite wrong to suggest that. It costs £10 an hour to hack. I am not sure that it is not the hacks that are the elite and the race horses that are the working part of Epsom.

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Will the hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that in my constituency at least there will be far more support for the stable boys and the horses than for the young girls and hacks?

Mr. Freud

I am glad to hear that. As the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) declared an interest, I suppose that I, too, should declare an interest in that I have owned horses for many years, I have ridden horses, and if I were younger and thinner and a better jockey I should still be riding horses, and I would hope very much to ride at Epsom. However, that is unlikely.

I want to see Epsom to go on as an amenity, first, so that trainers can train their horses safely, apart from the provision of other facilities on the racecourse. Secondly, I ask that consideration be given to those who hack and those who walk and those who fly model aeroplanes and those who make love in the dark, and those gipsies who have their caravans there, because that is all part and parcel of the Epsom as we know and love it. I hope that the Bill will be given a speedy passage through the House.

8.1 pm

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane)

I hope that it will help the House if I make a brief intervention now to give the Government's views and to applaud the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) introduced the Bill. I must emphasise that the Bill is a private Bill, promoted jointly by Epsom and Ewell borough council and United Racecourses Ltd. They are the leaseholder and operator of the Epsom downs racecourse. It is important to understand the background, because the Bill repeals and re-enacts, with amendments, an existing regulation Act of 1936, which would otherwise have lapsed at the end of 1984 as a result of section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Bill contains a wide range of provisions concerning regulation of the use of the downs, and under the 1936 Act and the Bill the downs are controlled by a body of conservators composed of representatives of the borough council, United Racecourses Ltd., and the owner of part of the downs. I make it clear that I have a dual interest—not only as spokesman on behalf of the Government, but as a near neighbour of my hon. Friends the Members for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner). In fact, the downs form one of the high parts of the boundary between our constituencies. Certainly it is a most important part of the region for our respective constituents, so all of us have a detailed interest in this important lung for the people who live on the outskirts of London and on the threshold of Surrey.

What has been said by hon. Members on both sides echoes the fact that we acknowledge the traditions and the vital importance of Epsom downs for horse racing, the training of race horses, and horse racing generally, as well as being a focal point for a host of varied recreation and leisure pursuits. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that the Derby is the focal point of the flat racing season, and I admired his customary eloquence and resourcefulness in managing to get in an important reference to the Grand National, which is held in an area which is diametrically opposed to ours, the north-west of England. I echo his assessment that that important steeplechase should be preserved to form part of "Great Britain Ltd.," and I hope that all those who are involved will acknowledge that.

All of the activities that now take place on Epsom downs must help the local economy, and between them they provide immense pleasure for many thousands of people. The downs are a valuable asset to the area, and they are an international focal point on Derby day. At that time of the year they are a sight that is never to be forgotten.

However, the House should understand that the varied nature of the pressures on the downs must bring its problems. I am sure that the conservators are right in wanting to continue and improve the regulation of the downs in a way that reconciles the interests of the various users. I congratulate them on bringing forward a comprehensive Bill which is uncontroversial to such a large extent.

If there is a slightly controversial area, it is the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred when he spoke of the anxiety of his constituents—and, to a certain extent, the anxiety that my constituents would express—about the problems of controlling gipsy caravans. I am glad that he noted that the Government, too, echoed the concern that the promoters' proposals should not set a precedent for powers in excess of those normally available to local authorities once their areas achieved designation under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.

Following discussions with the promoters, however, we are now persuaded that in the special circumstances surrounding the Derby meeting at Epsom, a measure of special control is justified, and the Bill as amended in another place includes powers to deal speedily with any problems caused by the haphazard parking of caravans on the downs outside the official caravan site area on which my hon. Friend touched. However, we did not feel able to condone extensive powers to deal with other lesser problems such as compliance with site conditions. The Committee in another place reflected the Government's view by curtailing the powers originally proposed in that Bill.

I said that a number of the measures were largely uncontroversial, but I recognise the inherent concern expressed on behalf of horse riders. A number of hon. Members have spoken this evening and many have written to me on this matter, and I appreciate and respect their feelings. Naturally, horse riders seek as much freedom as possible to continue to ride across the downs. Nevertheless, it is not for me on behalf of the Government to judge whether the conservators' proposals for controlling hack riding are justified. If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, I believe that the conservators will be required to demonstrate to the Committee the justification for the proposals. I am sure that many people who are deeply worried about this matter will welcome the assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes gave in his opening remarks. Equally, the Epsom Riders Protection Association, which petitioned against the Bill, together with the conservators will have an opportunity to present their case to the Committee. I am confident, and I think it echoes the sentiments of Members on both sides, that the Committee will give a hearing to both sides. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading so that the issues may be fully discussed in Committee.

8.6 pm

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

I welcome the Bill and commend it to my right hon. and hon. Friends. In saying that, I entirely agree with the course taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), enabling us to have a rare debate on sporting matters and related conservation matters, to which the House should give much more time. For that reason alone I am glad that he has provided us with an opportunity to listen to the discussions and arguments, although I do not share my hon. Friend's views on many points, as will emerge in my speech.

First, the Derby is affected. My hon. Friend said that it was not affected by the Bill. It is affected, and it is affected for the good. That is one reason why I support the Bill. The Derby is one of the great sporting festivals of this nation. The Minister said, and I took the same view when I was in office, that the great sporting festivals of our country are to be cherished, supported and improved. We all feel well, not just because we back the winner, but because the British put on these great sporting occasions as only they can do. That is a source of great national pleasure and pride. It is important to make that point.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

May I say, in defence of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), that I am sure he would agree that the Derby has in no sense been threatened in recent years. There is no threat to the Derby whatsoever, and in that sense his hon. Friend was quite right.

Mr. Howell

I hope that I have made it quite clear, and I shall enlarge my views in a moment. The Derby will be affected for the better as a result of the Bill. I agree that my hon. Friend is not trying to do anything that would impede the continuance of the Derby as one of the great national sporting occasions. I know that to be the case. One or two tributes should be paid to people involved in the long history of the matter. Now that the Bill tries to reconcile different interests, tribute should be paid to Mr. Stanley Wootton, a noted trainer, who, in a most remarkable gesture, made much of this land available for all time on a 999-year lease at a peppercorn rent. It would be wrong if hon. Members failed to express their appreciation of that wonderful gesture. It was the action of someone who wished to leave a heritage for future generations.

I was interested to receive a letter from the mayor of Epsom and Ewell, one of the few Labour mayors in that borough's history. I think that he is, in fact, the third Labour mayor, on which he should be congratulated. One of his most illustrious predecessors was a colleague, Mr. Chuter Ede, who, I recall, discussed these matters with me. This shows how long back into history these issues go, as well as revealing my age. It was Mr. Chuter Ede who proposed that action should be taken to close the downs on certain occasions and to introduce regulations in the interest of racing, of which he was a keen follower. These matters were pursued during my time as Minister by two distinguished chairmen of the Horserace Betting Levy Board, Lord Wigg and Lord Plummer. Both have been concerned to obtain the support of the House for the type of proposals contained in the Bill.

Why do I say that the Bill enhances the prospects of the Derby? There has been mention of gipsies. Ministers within the Department of the Environment are never far removed from the gipsy problem, as the Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) and I know. I congratulate the local authority and the conservators on managing to achieve a sensible agreement with the National Gypsy Council. That is a most remarkable achievement. It is a credit to the local authority, the conservators and the gypsy council that the problem can apparently be resolved by providing a site for at least 200 caravans with the proper facilities that are so desperately needed. This must benefit local inhabitants and everyone else.

The second reason that the Bill is important is that it takes powers on race days to restrict access and improve facilities along a strip of land following the course from Tattenham Corner to the finish. That is years overdue. One sees from the grandstand, especially on Derby day, disgraceful scenes of ladies having to queue up for totally inadequate public conveniences. It is shocking that one of our great sporting events provides such appalling facilities for the public. I understand that the Bill proposes to take action to remedy that matter. It has to be remembered that 100,000 people are present on Derby day. It is right that they should have adequate and proper facilities. I understand from my talks with the promoters that improved facilities on this strip of land is one of the main objectives. That will be welcomed by everyone in sport, not least by those who are so inconvenienced by lack of elementary civilised amenities.

I wish now to deal with some of the difficulties that seem to have arisen. I share the general view that these difficulties can probably be explored at greater length in Committee. If, however, one studies the proceedings that have taken place in the other place, it will be seen that considerable progress has already been made. It would be wrong to suggest that hon. Members should start discussions and arguments de novo. We are doing no such thing. As the second Chamber to receive the Bill, we should acknowledge concessions that have already been made without in any way seeking to prevent the objectors, in this case, the Epsom Riders Protection Association, from pursuing their points. I understand that the British Horse Society—several hon. Members are among its supporters—have now dropped an objection that was raised in the other place. This suggests that considerable concessions have been obtained, at any rate, to the society's satisfaction.

For the first time, all these miles of rides are hallowed in statute. About 80 acres out of a total of 600 acres are allocated for riding, associated with 12 miles of rides. That provision is no small contribution to the leisure activities of the horse riders, whom many hon. Members support.

Mr. Greenway

The council of the British Horse Society, on which I am a serving member, stood on an objection to the provisions in the Bill which would make trespass on the downs in areas not assigned to hack riders a criminal offence. The council stated that if the promoters withdrew that provision it would withdraw its objection to the Bill. That is how matters stand. I shall have something more to say if I am successful in catching Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.

Mr. Howell

That is a matter, I am sure, that can be discussed in Committee. I have tried to inform myself about the situation. We are talking, I understand, of an offence that would be dealt with in the same court and would be subject to the same fine. The question is whether it would be an offence against the byelaw or an offence against the Act. The effect on the offender would be the same in either case. I can understand that some people should think it better that the offence should be dealt with by means of a byelaw. The issue should be pursued in Committee.

I am critical of the manner in which the Epsom Riders Protection Association has shaped its objections. Its letter seems to suggest that the Bill is concerned with the gain of the racing industry. It says: Unfortunately, the Council have backed a small industry. This is not a small industry. It is an industry that attracts the active involvement and interest of millions of people who want a sensible, honest and honourable flutter once or twice a year. It is therefore wrong for the letter to use the description that it does. It is unfortunate that the association has drafted its objection in those terms. As the House has heard, 100,000 people turn up on the major occasion. Many thousands turn up when there is no racing at all to enjoy picnicking or walking on the downs. All our life in sport is spent in reconciling conflicting interests. In this case, there are conflicting interests to be resolved between horse riders and picnickers on bank holidays and other days when people wish to visit the downs.

Racing is a major industry. It is one of our great successes and ought not to be described as it was in that letter. There has been reference to the commercial interests of racing, as if there were no other commercial interests operating on the downs. Most of the riders represent a commercial interest in one way or another. There is a commercial interest in providing and housing horses. Horse trainers pay £130 a year for each horse that uses the downs, whereas—I am not suggesting that they should pay anything—all ordinary horse riders pay nothing for access.

We must remember also that the horse riders are not limited to Epsom downs, as are the horse trainers. Small horse trainers must have gallops over Epsom downs, whereas hack riders have a considerable amount of ground available in the near proximity, for example, Headley heath, Banstead common and Epsom common and the acres of open space now known as Mole valley. That is all additional space, which is available to those people who wish to ride horses.

Specific differences exist in relation to the width of the horse rides. We know that they should be adequate and that ground suffers if people trample over the same ground all the time. I am advised that most of the horse rides go over the golf course. We have spent a great deal of time talking about the interests of the racing fraternity and horse riders, but we must consider also the interests of the golfers.

I am told that the golf club would object strongly to an unduly wide access road going across the golf course. As a golfer of little performance, I believe that anything that increases hazards for ordinary golfers is something that the House should look at with suspicion. So far as I can see, that would arise here.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Has there been any problem during the past five years between hack riders and golfers? As I understand it, that has not been a major problem.

Mr. Howell

One of the differences that still remains is the width of the ride. I am told that the Epsom Riders Protection Association wishes to provide rides of 20 metres wide for the horses. That is about the width of a cricket pitch and the golfers say that that is far too wide for any one of the rides across the golf course. That problem can no doubt be examined in Committee. If those facts are accurate, I have a great deal of sympathy for the golfers and their interests vis a vis trainers and horse riders, and it is something that the House must consider.

Mr. Bennett

On that part of the golf course, custom and practice, which have been observed effectively, are that riders never stray on to the fairways, but have been able to ride over much of the rest of the course without causing any problems. That is what they want to continue. They do not want to encroach on to the golf course because of their wish to protect the interests of both the golfers and themselves.

Mr. Howell

That does not coincide with the information that I have been given. I have been told that there have been some difficulties, but that on the whole they have been solved with good will. If the 12 miles of rides are to be 20 metres wide, there would be considerable difficulties for the golfers. It is a point that needs to be looked at in Committee but that point should be made now.

Mr. Greenway

I know that the right hon. Gentleman shows great good will in these matters. If he supports a view that 20 metres is too wide, what is an adequate width?

Mr. Howell

I should not like to answer that. One of the points to be looked at in Committee is the surface upon which horses are ridden at certain critical points near the golf course. I am told that there are about 100 riders continually ploughing up one small area. One point that ought to be investigated is whether a rather more suitable surface should be provided, which would mean that 20 metres would not be needed. Horses could use a narrower ride if there were a proper surface. That is the sort of give-and-take solution that I should have thought reasonable.

Another point about which there may be some difference is the desire of some riders to remove the restriction that they cannot gallop before 12 noon. That brings us to a matter of considerable importance. Those of us who have an interest in racing know that a highly trained racehorse is a delicate animal. One therefore has to have regard to proper control at all times. I should have thought that it was wrong for hack riders to be on the downs when they are being used for training. Hack riders should not go on to land that has not yet been galloped on but which will be galloped on within the next day or two or week or two. Those of us who have been to Epsom downs to see the training know that there is a sensible system of giving the trainers an extra yard or two of new ground each day. If the hack riders go on to the new land before it has been used by the race horses considerable damage may be done.

This is a good measure to have reached the House. For many years many people have tried to legislate sensibly for the racing industry, which is of great importance and interest to the country. They have done it in discussions with diverse bodies such as consumers, the local authority, the National Gypsy Council, golfers, model aircraft fliers and people representing conservation and amenity interests. Despite the great conflicts that exist, a commendable Bill has been brought before us. I am pleased that concessions were made in another place. I hope that in Committee, which is the right place, there can be further discussions to reach as much agreement as is possible. However, at the end of the day I have not the slightest doubt that it is in the national sporting interest for the Bill to be put on the statute book.

8.29 pm

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

I shall be brief, because the arguments have been well canvassed. I, like many hon. Members, have had to read a great many Bills, but I have seldom seen a better drafted, more comprehensive and better presented Bill. One must thank United Racecourses Ltd., the Horserace Betting Levy Board, the conservators, Epsom and Ewell borough council, and the eminent solicitors, Messrs. Sharpe, Pritchard & Co.—indeed, all those associated with the production and promotion of the Bill, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) for the way in which he has presented the Bill to the House this evening.

One matter that has been touched upon but not dealt with fully is the problem that arises from the fact that the Epsom downs are not only a national but an international institution. Last year I had the pleasure of shepherding 200 American tourists there in three large buses. I had a drink with them and told them something about the downs. I am happy to say that I had been given the winner, so I gave it to them as well, which made me all the more popular. People come from all over the world, not just for the Derby, but to use Epsom downs in many ways.

Clause 11 deals with byelaws and is extraordinarily well drawn, as is the one about the gipsies. They need to be effectively controlled and to do that is a difficult task, as has been said. Immeasurable trouble has been taken to see that everybody's interests are considered fairly. United Racecourses Ltd. is beginning to make considerable improvements at Epsom. It is right that it should take the power to have 16 days racing.

Some years ago I was a member, and had been for a good many years, of the Epsom racecourse. At one time I had a box there, although I cannot afford one any longer. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) will be there at the right moment to enable us to have a box during the Epsom meeting. I do not think that he has a box, but, as the Member of Parliament for Epsom and Ewell, I hope that he has certain privileges on that occasion, and rightly so too.

We need more racing days. Therefore, I hope that the trainers and those associated with Epsom will expand somewhat in the years ahead, despite a slight falling off in the past. I hope that Mr. Neligan and those associated with him will be able to ensure that the number of racing days is increased.

Clause 10 allows the conservators to consider the use of the downs for any recreational purposes that are thought proper. There is a specific provision that the downs cannot be so used for more than five days in any one year and that not more than 25 hectares of the downs shall be set apart for the holding of any such event. Both here and at Liverpool, for the Grand National, it is necessary to ensure that the fullest and most effective use is made of the land for recreation for the enjoyment of the public.

Nowadays, all those involved with racecourses are trying to find ways to make effective use of the courses when they are not being used for racing. I hope that greater use will be made of them. Nevertheless, the byelaws set down careful controls. In this modern age, unlike the days of 1936, one wants effective regulations to ensure that there is effective control over not only the racecourse but the full 600 acres.

It has been said that golfers have a golf course on the downs. They are entitled to their golfing under conditions that are reasonable and effective.

It is right that those who want to hack should be able to do so, but they must recognise that it is far better to set an area apart for them at times that are suitable than to give them the opportunity to roam at large. That would be most unsatisfactory.

There must be effective control over camping, caravanning and the selling, hawking and hiring of commodities. In the last century there used to be many pornographic shows on Epsom downs on Derby day and others. There were all types of tenting and hawking, and little control. Many criminal offences were perpetrated. Happily, there is now effective control over that major international event.

I hope that the Bill will pass through the House without any great difficulty. It is a measure of the success of the sponsor and promoters that, with the exception of hacking, they have managed to achieve the support of local people as well as the general public. There is no need to make trespassing a criminal offence. Substantial fines can be quite sufficient. I give a warm blessing to the Bill and hope that it will become law soon, without any great opposition.

8.36 pm

Mr. John Ryman (Blyth)

I had not intended to speak, but I have to say that I strongly support the Bill. Without covering the ground that has been covered by hon. Members on both sides of the House, I should like to draw attention to the parlous state of British racing. The industry is unhealthy and needs every conceivable aid that is available, both from the House and from the Government.

In foreign racing, the prizes are much higher than in Britain and they have the benefit of our bloodstock expertise. As the Rothschild commission reported to the House some years go, the prospects for British racing are poor and every effort must be made to help the industry.

I join in the congratulations offered to the sponsor and promoters, because the Bill will help the racing industry. The fundamental problem is that it needs more money. If one visits British racecourses and notices the condition of some of them, especially the smaller ones, it is as plain as a pikestaff that, unless there is an injection of capital, racecourses will deteriorate further. Unless there are financial incentives for people to take a greater interest in racing, the industry's future is not good.

Much has been said about trainers. The cost of training racehorses has now become so exorbitantly high that few people can afford it. Therefore, if trainers require the facilities that the Bill provides, those provisions should be approved.

I understand the points that have been made on behalf of hacking riders. They have been vastly exaggerated. Some poor points have been made on their behalf. I am all in favour of hack riders, and horses, and strongly favour anything that helps riders, horses or the industry. Some ridiculous arguments have been made on behalf of the Epsom Riders Protection Association. I can only assume that the hon. Members who made them have done so with their tongues in their cheeks. No doubt the Committee will consider the arguments in detail at the appropriate time.

Nobody wants to obstruct the Bill. It makes an important contribution to British horse racing. However, I am appalled by the timing. Tonight we had a debate on regional unemployment which could last only three hours. We have spent almost two hours discussing this Bill which, important though it is, cannot be compared with the problems of unemployment. Perhaps we have taken up too much time discussing the Bill's detailed provisions.

I commend the Bill to the House. I hope that the petitioners and objectors, on further reflection, will agree that reasonable objections can be met in due course so that they need not be pressed now. It is important that the House should be seen to support the racing industry. The Bill provides a means of support and I commend it.

8.40 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

I do not oppose the interests of race horse owners or anybody else connected with them. The House will know of my strong support for racing. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) for explaining how trespass may be dealt with in the Bill and for his new suggestion that it could be covered by the imposition of heavy fines. Perhaps we can consider that, even at this late stage.

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) spoke eloquently from the Opposition Front Bench. He said that 20m is a sufficiently wide space for a group of hack riders or a single hack rider to manage. The problem might be more difficult if the 20m strip goes across a golf course or other awkward area, although I concede that there may be a case for telescoping a strip for short spaces.

I am a fully qualified riding instructor and for many years I have taught children and adults to ride. I know that one must be careful when going from a wide ride to a narrow ride because it can lead to problems. We must remember that horses are not machines. They are not motor cycles. They can suddenly do the unpredictable. They can take off and gallop away from a ride, whether it is 20m or 50m, for no reason. I have such incidents in mind when I consider how trespass is dealt with in the Bill.

I have a life-long interest in horses and riders, but I have always been most interested in the disabled child or the underdog who has no chance to ride because of his birthright. I refer to children in inner London schools and deprived children. I am most interested in protecting their rights. In doing that, one cannot allow the rights of ordinary hack riders to be eroded because the two are interdependent. I have taken children from deprived areas or homes to ride on the downs. That has brought them new insights into life and undreamt of happiness. Access to the downs and to the countryside is of the greatest importance to those individuals.

I declare two interests. I occasionally ride race horses and enjoy it, be it on the flat or over hurdles or fences. I am light enough to do that. Within the past three years I have raised about £6,000 for charity having ridden twice the length of Exmoor—30 miles—on quite a difficult horse and survived.

My second interest is that I am an unpaid nationally elected member of the council of the British Horse Society. I know exactly what has transpired in council meetings on this issue. There has been no council meeting since that at which the council stated that it would oppose the Bill in its present form unless the clauses making trespass on the downs a criminal offence were removed in favour of byelaws dealing with trespass. I want to be certain before I leave the Chamber that that will be faithfully done, as I am in some doubt about that following the behaviour of the promoters.

The access point is of the greatest importance. People living in cities need access to the countryside and they must have it. This is what national parks are all about. In my view, people living within an area containing a facility such as Epsom and Walton downs have a natural right of access to it. The determination of people to limit access or, as when this Bill was first produced, to deny it altogether must be considered carefully.

Reference has been made to heavy pressure having been brought to bear in connection with the Bill. A certain amount of pressure has been put upon me not to oppose the Bill, and I do not oppose it in its broad principles. I am unhappy about some of the pressure to which I have been subjected, and I shall deal with that later. I regret that the public is losing access to 80 per cent. of the downs, but I accept that.

I want to read a letter that I received from the Epsom Riders Protection Association. That body has been referred to many times. I shall read not one of its general letters but one addressed specifically to me. Before the Bill came up for Second Reading on the first occasion I told the promoters that if they persisted in including clauses that made trespass a criminal offence, I would oppose the Bill. They replied that they were willing to remove all clauses that regarded trespass as a criminal offence and to deal with the matter under byelaws. That was late on the day that the Bill was to be read a Second time.

Although the Bill had been in prospect many months—this is what I mean by heavy pressure—the promoters did not appear here until the eleventh hour. Having received their assurance, I went to the Private Bill Office and asked "What value is the assurance of the promoters when they promise that they will redraw the Bill and recommend to the Committee considering it that trespass will not be dealt with under any clause as a criminal offence but will be dealt with under byelaws?" The Clerks to the House advised me that it would be more than it would be worth to go back on that assurance. Professionally, it would not be done in any circumstances. With that assurance, I returned to those gentlemen and said "I shall withdraw my opposition and support your Bill because you have given me your word. That is good enough."

I was therefore surprised to receive from the Epsom Riders Protection Association a letter dated 14 January which stated: Dear Mr. Greenway, Epsom Downs Bill. Yesterday I received from the Promoters' agents a copy of the proposed redrafting relating to your objection to the criminal offence provision in the Bill. We have today met the Promoters and voiced our concern that although subsection (3) of Clause 15 has been deleted and is now dealt with under the byelaw provisions for Clause 11, there still remains a criminal offence provision in Clause 15 for contravention of subsection (4)(a). This criminal offence is now drafted in subsection (5). It is our contention that this should not be a criminal offence and should be dealt with under byelaw provisions of Clause 11. The Promoters did not give the impression of being prepared to re-draft this at the meeting this morning and as we consider it to be equally as onerous as the offence previously under subsection (3) now deleted perhaps you would be prepared to support us again in this? Yours sincerely, T. Staplehurst. In all equity, I give Mr. Staplehurst and his friends my support. I feel that I may have been seriously let down. I hope that the Minister, with whom I had a 30-second conversation before the debate, will be able to reassure me. If not, I shall oppose the Bill.

Mr. Ryman

The hon. Gentleman is obviously troubled about whether the sanction should be by way of the creation of a criminal offence or by breach of a byelaw. Is not he making a lot of fuss about nothing? Surely the procedure for enforcing the sanction is exactly the same, in that the person offending will appear at a magistrates court, and if convicted will be fined.

Mr. Greenway

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not a lawyer, but I am voicing an objection made by people who have taken legal advice. I am doing so honourably and honestly. Whether this will make any difference in the end is not essential to the point. If that is so, why do the promoters appear to have gone back on their word?

The promoters appear to have gone back on their word, but I hope that that is not so. As I came into the Chamber just after the debate started, I received a letter from the town clerk and chief executive of Epsom and Ewell objecting to a letter from me in which I pointed out what the Private Bill Office had said about being assured that the promoters would not go back on their word. I said I hoped that that was the case. This letter has come on top of all sorts of other pressures. For example, there was a meeting on the day that the Bill was due for Second Reading, and that only a few minutes before the measure was due to come before the House. A letter was placed in my hand as I walked into the Chamber. I am not happy about that. The Epsom Riders Protection Association may have reason to feel exasperated at the way in which it has been dealt with.

I have made my point strongly and firmly. I shall be happy to take back all that I have said if the Minister can assure me that the promoters do not intend to make trespass a criminal offence and that this will be dealt with under byelaws, even though the technical point made by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) may be perfectly valid. That is what I and the British Horse Society council asked for. We said that we would settle for no less, and that remains our position.

8.54 pm

Mr. John Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) said that horses are not machines or motor cycles. The horses that I back and the cars that I drive have one thing in common: they suddenly stop before they get to their destinations. I support horse riders too, but I principally support those who ride race horses. The debate has polarised between riders of race horses and other horse riders, but that is not the issue. It is between those who ride and train and obtain their employment through race horses and those who are hacking. Possibly the hon. Member for Ealing, North is used to supporting hacks. We see many before us tonight, but I strongly support the Bill because it supports horse racing.

Having said that, I would feel as sore as the hon. Member for Ealing, North if I were to be twisted in the way that he seems to believe that he has been. I cannot understand why, a few weeks ago, the promoters did not agree to a byelaws compromise.

In the minds of ordinary people there is a difference between being brought before the beaks on a charge of breach of a byelaw or a breach of a statute. To lawyers that may seem nonsense, but the distinction appears to matter to the people concerned. They would prefer to be dealt with under the byelaws. When I asked at another meeting why the promoters would not make a concession to avoid much kerfuffle in the House, I was told that it was because the Home Office might make difficulties about making the byelaws. If the Home Office will not make the byelaws, what right has the Minister to commend the legislation to the House?

I understand that the Home Office is sensitive because of byelaws that were made—which got a friend of mine in Birmingham into much trouble—about the control of dogs in parks. I understand that, but is the Home Office prepared to make the necessary byelaws? If the answer is "No", what value has the Minister's support? If the answer is "Yes", why do the promoters not compromise?

In opposing the hacks and supporting the race horses, I support the Bill, but I shall also support amendments that will provide a satisfactory solution for those who wish to be charged under the byelaws rather than statutes.

8.58 pm

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor (Basildon)

I had not intended to speak and I shall be brief in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and some of my constituents who have raised points similar to those expressed by him.

I should feel uneasy about supporting the Bill if contravention of the rules contained in it were to be made a criminal offence. Would my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) reassure me about the provision in clause 15(5) about a horse that might bolt? Will he consider the defence of reasonable excuse to have been triggered in the case of a horse bolting in such circumstances? With that brief comment, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's reply.

9 pm

Mr. Charles Morrison

With the leave of the House, I shall say a few words in an attempt to sum up this interesting debate that has drawn to it several experts on racing and others, such as the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who have attempted constantly to look after the interests of ramblers and riders.

I am especially grateful for the wholehearted and unequivocal support of my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport, whose intervention was, as always, wise and helpful. I was also grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) whose knowledge of sport is paralleled only by that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I was grateful for the full-blooded support of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), whose compliments on the drafting of the Bill are much appreciated. I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman), who drew attention to the parlous state of racing.

The problems raised by several hon. Members in their constructive and helpful speeches stem from the fact that Epsom and Walton downs have been subject for many years to multiple use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) said, there is bound to be some conflict between the users. The users include not only racegoers and race horse trainers but many riders, walkers, golfers and model aeroplane fliers. There must be a compromise between the demands of the users, who must operate a policy of give and take.

I have referred to the support of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. His support for racing was a little too wholehearted, because he gave the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that there were no interests besides racing. However, that is not so. The Bill is before us today because there are other users of the downs. The need for compromise was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who said that from time to time there had been dangerous incidents. However, the fact that he said that shows that there is a need for a Bill to regulate the use of the area.

The hon. Member for Stockport, North asked why the 1936 Act could not be reconstituted by means of an enabling Bill. There is a simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The original intention of the promoters was to introduce an enabling Bill, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. However, further inquiry and consideration revealed two points. First, a number of the provisions of the 1936 Act had become outdated, and so it would not have been good enough to introduce an enabling Bill based on that Act. Secondly, a new Bill was needed specifically to try to meet the requests of those who ride across the downs, the hack riders whose interests had not been adequately safeguarded in the 1936 Act.

The hon. Member for Stockport, North also referred to the legitimate rights of riders and others. That may have been a perfectly reasonable point, but unless there is new legislation before the 1936 Act runs out there will be no legitimate rights. That important point must not be forgotten in the general consideration of the Bill.

I was glad to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate referred with pleasure to the provisions of clause 16. The information I have been able to gain leaves me in no doubt whatever that caravans have in certain respects become an increasing nuisance. The caravans appearing on the downs nowadays bear no relation to the old-fashioned gipsy caravans that appeared in the paintings of Sir Alfred Munnings and were vehicles of great charm. Sadly those days have gone. The modern caravan is more often than not a rather scruffy mobile home.

The right hon. Member for Small Heath drew attention, among other things, to the needs of golfers. I have ascertained that, by chance, there was a complaint by the golfers only this morning—there has not been time to establish whether it was justified—about riders inadvertently straying on to golfing ground. That shows that there is an occasional problem about the need to maintain an area for use by golfers.

I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman made two other points. First, he drew attention to the fact that Mr. Wootton had made a generous lease in respect of the use of Walton downs. A host of people must be very grateful to Mr. Wotton for that. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the inadequate facilities on Epsom racecourse on major racing days. I have no doubt that he is right in saying that if the Bill becomes law it will benefit racegoers who wish to enjoy the Derby and other race meetings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised an important point which was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North is better known than anyone in the House for his strong support for riding and riders. I felt particular sympathy with him when he said that horses are not motor cycles. He and I have had considerable experience in that regard, often ending in pain and other tribulation.

My hon. Friend was particularly concerned with the possibility of hack riders finding themselves in a position in which they could be guilty of a criminal offence. Indeed, that could happen under the Bill as drafted. He said—so did the British Horse Society—that he would prefer breaches of the legislation to be dealt with by means of byelaws, and that the promoters have not given an undertaking to introduce an amendment. There is some misunderstanding, because there is a distinction—it was certainly in the minds of the promoters, if not in the mind of my hon. Friend—between the criminal offence, referred to in clause 15(3), of a rider riding where he or she should not ride, and the criminal offence, under clause 15(5), which arises where land is temporarily taken out of use so that it might be rehabilitated in its own interests and in the widest possible interests of riders and other users of the downs. There has clearly been some misunderstanding between my hon. Friend and the promoters on those two points.

I was informed of the misunderstanding earlier today, and the promoters have only recently been made aware of it. I have had the opportunity of a brief discussion with them on the subject and they have undertaken to look at it very carefully. Clearly they wish to be as sympathetic as possible, as they have always tried to be when points have been raised on the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

As I understand the position, the promoters are now saying that if somebody strays from the areas in which he is supposed to be and goes on to areas on which he has known over the years that he should not go, he may be prosecuted under the byelaws. But if, inadvertently, he goes over an area which is being reseeded, that will be a criminal offence. Surely, if we get nothing else out of the debate, we should have an assurance that the two offences will both be treated under the byelaws. That would be a simple undertaking to give.

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate. He said first what the promoters are now saying, as he understands the position. He intervened before I had finished what I was saying. I was going on to say that the promoters wish to look at the point with great sympathy but that, not having had the chance to have proper consultation about it, they prefer not to be dogmatic in any concession tonight. However, I have no doubt that they will make a concession. I certainly hope so, because I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the apparent rather artificial distinction between two different offences. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that as a reasonable assurance. The matter will be considered as soon as possible.

Mr. Greenway

My hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but the promoters find it rather difficult to have to face suggested changes under pressure of time and yet they are lawyers, but those same people expected me to be able to reconsider several redrafted clauses, although I am not a lawyer, less than an hour before the Bill was originally due for its Second Reading. So I have little sympathy for them and I do not quite know who they think they are. I take it that I have the support of my hon. Friend and the great sympathy of the promoters. However, that is not enough. They should give a categoric assurance, quite frankly through my hon. Friend, because that is what I consider they gave me when I first considered their suggestion for meeting my point under pressure of time. There is only one of me but about six of them.

Mr. Morrison

I have gone no further than a Minister speaking from the Front Bench normally would when asked to make a concession on the Second Reading of a Bill. If a Minister had a question fired at him during the debate or if he were requested earlier in the same day to make a change in the Bill, it would be unlikely if, in summing up that same evening, he would be prepared to be totally categoric in accepting the point. My hon. Friend can take it that it is as good as certain that a concession will be made, but I cannot in all honesty be absolutely categoric and dogmatic because I am not a promoter of the Bill.

Mr. Greenway

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a personal friend as well as an hon. Friend. I take that as a strong assurance and it helps me to overcome what I felt was earlier dishonoured by the promoters and not by him.

Mr. Golding

Will the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) make it clear to the promoters that the Bill is at risk if they do not support the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)? It would be nonsense for such a good Bill to be at risk because there is a question of an undertaking not being honoured.

Mr. Morrison

The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has almost taken the words out of my mouth. There will be no question of twisting arms, but he can rely on me that if any arms have to be twisted they will be. I am sure that the promoters will have been even more impressed by having heard the strength of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and the hon. Gentleman about clause 15 and criminal offences.

I conclude by thanking hon. Members for their interesting and constructive comments on the Bill. As I said earlier, the promoters have clearly demonstrated that they are ready and prepared to make necessary concessions, but it must be accepted in the ultimate that a compromise will not be an ideal for everyone who makes use of an area subject to multiple use. I emphasise again that there will have to be give and take, but I have no doubt that any outstanding problems will be ironed out in Committee. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.