Lords Sitting of 15 February 1939

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD MILFORD.
Sir Laurence Richard Philipps, Baronet, having been created Baron Milford of Llanstephan in the County of Radnor—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD HANKEY.
Sir Maurice Paschal Alers Hankey, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., having been created Baron Hankey of The Chart in the County of Surrey—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

DEER AND GROUND GAME (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Zetland, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision as regards Scotland for the prevention of damage to crops by deer or rabbits; to amend the law of Scotland relating to the rights of occupiers to kill ground game, and to the use of poison or spring traps or the use of firearms at night for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CLUBS BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the registration of clubs in England and Wales and the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor therein, and for purposes connected therewith; and to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Clwyd.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (PUBLICATION OF REGISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Acts, 1918 to 1928, in respect of the date of publishing the register; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Jessel).
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a; and to be printed.
PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

RAILWAY POLICY.
LORD MONKSWELL LORD MONKSWELL rose to call attention to the defects in the policy pursued by British railways in the past and to ask His Majesty's Government for an assurance that in granting, or contemplating the grant, of any new powers to the railways they are at the same time giving attention to the importance of ensuring that the mistakes of the past are not repeated; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the finances of British railways are in such a serious condition that I think everybody agrees that something must be done about the matter. Exactly what ought to be done is not so clear. In these circumstances it is important to ensure that remedies are not applied that are worse than the disease. So few people have had the time or inclination to study railways that it may be useful to begin by very shortly summarising their history. The Liverpool and Manchester Railway was opened in 1829 and was at once brilliantly successful. For the next twenty years or so up to about 1850, in spite of a good deal of financial trouble, largely

747
due to the losses of investors in the railway mania period in the middle 'forties, very great progress was made, and railway appliances and railway services improved out of all knowledge.
By this time the position of the railways was secure. It was everywhere obvious that for the purpose of inland transport they were so far superior to any possible rival that no competition need be considered except the competition of one railway with another. There had by this time grown up a large professional class of railway officials who very quickly perceived the strength of their position and saw that all they need do to secure for themselves a quiet and untroubled life for any time to which they could look forward was to agree with one another to do as nearly as possible nothing in the way of technical development or improved service. Although of course much new line had to be built, and complete inertia in technical development was not feasible, it is not unfair to say that such improvements as took place were usually made in spite of the bitter opposition of the railway officials. The adoption of block signals and continuous brakes are classic instances. These things were forced upon the unwilling railways by the Board of Trade. Speeds of 75 miles an hour had been attained in the 'forties. Maximum speeds were still about 75 miles an hour in the 'nineties.
One result of the inertia and lack of foresight of this period was that a system of working the goods and mineral traffic was allowed to grow up which has led to some of the worst troubles from which the railways are suffering to-day. British goods and mineral traffic has always been carried on in small lots at frequent intervals and at fairly high speeds. I do not suggest that this system is without valuable features, and it would take far too long to discuss it in detail to-day; but the system was allowed to get completely out of hand, and was carried to ridiculously wasteful extremes. Single parcels of awkward and cumbrous shape were regularly accepted on the one hand, and, on the other, no proper arrangements were made for carrying in an economical manner the heavy mineral traffic passing at regular intervals. The vehicles were not big enough, and the colliery sidings and terminals in industrial works were not adapted to dealing with big vehicles.
748
The prime advantage of railways—that of being able to carry very large loads with a small amount of man-power—was not utilised as it should have been.
From about 1900 things became slightly better. Certain attempts were made to work on a larger scale, and a number of technical improvements were, very belatedly, put in hand. There was, however, no real change of spirit in the railway managements who, far from regarding themselves as partners with, and regarding themselves even less as servants of, the public, still made a quiet life for themselves their principal aim and object. Their point of view was exactly expressed by a well-known General Manager who remarked:
"The railways have the advantage of speed, and need not exercise themselves to enhance this advantage."
The interests of the public did not occur to him as being worth a thought. So things went on till about ten years ago. Up to that time the railway officials never seriously thought of mending their ways. As late as 1927 the Chairman of the London and North-Eastern Company, when asked whether he would increase to 60 miles an hour the speed of the best trains between London and the principal centres served by that railway, replied "No." When asked if he would introduce third-class sleeping carriages, he replied "I hope not."
It is therefore with all the more pleasure that I offer the London and North-Eastern Railway my most sincere congratulations, in which I hope your Lordships will join, upon the really remarkable improvements that have been effected in the last ten years. It is no longer a case of 60 miles per hour to the principal towns. York and Darlington may be reached at 70 miles an hour: Leeds, Newcastle, and Edinburgh at over 65; and there is even hope for Norwich. Third-class sleeping carriages are found where required, and, though I believe no formal instructions on the making up of lost time—that is to say, punctuality—have been issued, the position in this respect also has much improved. Goods traffic methods have changed for the better by getting the trains more quickly over the line by means of improved signalling and more powerful and economical engines. The permanent way is better, more cheaply, and much less laboriously maintained by modern methods of packing. Goods are

749
largely despatched in containers or expeditiously distributed by road motors from railhead. If improvements on the other three groups have not so far reached the high standard attained by the London and North-Eastern Company, similar developments on a smaller scale are perceptible on all of them. Indeed, from a technical and operating point of view, never since the very early days has there been such a burst of activity.
We must not, however, allow ourselves to be carried away by satisfaction at certain aspects of the railway problem. It would be folly to ignore the dark shadows. One very unsatisfactory feature of recent railway activity is that it has been accompanied by what can only be described as the "stunt" of electrification on surface railways. By "stunt" I mean a spectacular move that involves the spending of a great deal of money and is useless when completed. I have studied railway electrification as carefully as I can and, so far as I can make out, its usefulness is confined to underground lines. Owing to the adventitious fact that electricity does not exhaust or foul the air, its use on railways which are entirely or largely in tube is unavoidable. On surface lines its only technical advantages are slightly quicker starting and a small saving of space in terminal stations. It is enormously expensive to instal, and an electric motor costs roughly twice the price of a steam locomotive of equal power. Owing to difficulties of springing the heavy motors electric engines knock the road to pieces, and the vibration thus set up causes acute discomfort to passengers. I have recently exchanged experiences with some half-dozen friends and casual acquaintances of their impressions of journeys in the electric trains of the Southern Railway. All except one had felt serious discomfort, and the one exception was a retired naval officer who is, presumably, accustomed to rough seas.
Neither is there any reason to suppose that electrification pays. The Southern Railway have again and again been asked for particulars of the finance of electrification. They always flatly refuse to give them. They merely go on repeating that the traffic has largely increased on the electrified sections. Of course it has. The number of residents in the suburban districts served by the Southern Railway has largely increased
750
and traffic must have grown whatever system of traction was used. The railway's claim is a mere subterfuge to conceal awkward facts. Again, the Chairman of the Great Western Railway has recently told us that the electrification of the whole of the main line west of Taunton is under consideration, and he has added that a firm of electrical engineers has been asked to report on the subject. It is, of course, a foregone conclusion that they will report strongly in favour of a large expenditure of money in their own trade. This is the kind of way things are done. It is quite certain there will be no advantage for the shareholders or for the public.
Who is it that benefits? That is a most interesting question, and one that might very properly engage the attention of the Government. It must be remembered that it was the Government who, in their intense anxiety to snatch at any colourable excuse for spending, agreed to lend the railways millions of the taxpayers' money below the economic rate of interest, and took no proper steps to ensure that the money should be usefully employed. It was putting temptation in the way of the electrical industry that has never been backward in making claims that cannot by any means always be substantiated. It was also inviting trade practices of which the less said the better. It can only be hoped that the virtue of the various parties subjected to these unnecessary temptations is sufficient to withstand them.
When the railways asked to be relieved from their present obligations the principal reason which they alleged for this request was the pressure of the competition of road vehicles. Road vehicles are said to skim off the cream of the traffic and leave the railways only the less paying kind. Now railways are specially suited for moving very large loads. They have, and are never likely to lose, three immense sources of traffic; firstly, heavy goods and mineral traffic; secondly, intensive passenger traffic into and round the big towns; and, thirdly, long distance passenger traffic. The traffic they have lost is that where their immense carrying power is least felt; that is to say, for which they are least suited. The trouble is that railway goods rates have never been fixed upon an economic basis. The railways have always charged, in their own words, "what the traffic will bear." Put in another way, this means that they

751
have charged the more valuable consignments rates out of all proportion to the value of the services they have rendered, and have used the profits thus secured to subsidise the transport of cheaper and more bulky merchandise. In essentials the trouble is that the policy of favouring one kind of traffic against another has broken down. The subsidy has behaved as subsidies usually do behave, and has come home to roost.
It is noticeable that the railways are extremely reticent about what they propose to do if granted the new powers for which they ask. The Minister of Transport himself has failed to elicit any information. Unfortunately the whole history of officialdom on railways tends to show that it is only really stringent conditions such as have existed in the last ten years that can galvanise railway officials into life. If they are not constantly kept up to the mark they slacken effort, and it is difficult to avoid the fear that any considerable easing of their position would quickly lead to an abandonment of that activity for which we had to wait so long. The unpleasant fact also has to be faced that the immediate cause of all this trouble is that the wages of the railway servants have been forced up by political action to a point too high to allow the railway shareholders to receive a suitable return on their holdings This is obviously detrimental to the public interest, for the shareholders provide means for carrying on one of the vital public services. The capitalisation of the railways, moreover, cannot seriously be regarded as too high because it is much less than the sum that would be required to replace the railways.
This trouble, unfortunately, does not stand alone. It is merely one aspect of the present condition of national finance, which has landed this country where it now stands, in Queer Street. It is the inevitable result of subsidies, because subsidies, no matter of what kind, always tend to prevent proper provision from being made for the future. The railway servants are receiving not only that proportion of the railway receipts which they earn, but also a supplement which is earned by the thrift of the shareholders but taken from the shareholders and handed over to the railway servants. This is the morass in which we are now floundering, and, though it may be
752
possible to make some arrangements for relieving the acute troubles of the railways, no temporary expedient can settle the fundamental trouble, which is that this country is living beyond its income. These are, I believe, the principal facts bearing on the case put very shortly; and a pretty kettle of fish they are.
I have asked that steps may be taken to prevent a repetition of the mistakes of the past, so I must say a few words on that subject. My own belief is that most of the trouble has come from the weakness of the boards of directors. The boards are supposed to be a committee of shareholders whose function is to ensure that the interests of the public, the shareholders and the railway servants all receive suitable consideration. In some ways the boards are almost ideal bodies. They are mostly composed of big industrialists, landowners and public men, all of the highest character and personal integrity. But that is not enough. They also have defects which destroy their usefulness. The directors know so little about railways and can spare so little time to learn, that in practice they are hardly more than a body for registering the decrees of their professional advisers. These advisers value, above all things, a quiet life for themselves and when it is a question on the one hand of fair treatment for the unorganised and impotent shareholders or, on the other hand, of saving trouble by giving way to some demand of the highly organised railway servants, there is never any doubt what they will do. The real remedy is to get the boards to take their duties seriously. One of their first duties is effectively to organise the shareholders for such action as may be necessary, and another is to ensure that the railway managers and officials should at least continue the activity which they have recently displayed. I beg to move for Papers.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, in spite of nine years experience as a Member of Parliament in another place I feel very much in need of your Lordships' indulgence in making my maiden speech here to-day. I feel especially in need of that indulgence because I know that the noble Lord who has just spoken is an expert on the subject which he has raised and I most certainly am not. Whether one is in agreement with all that has just been said or not, I am sure your

753
Lordships will be grateful that the subject has been raised to-day, because it is a particularly appropriate moment, when railway companies are making claims for most drastic revision of the law which, in many respects, has hindered them in the past. I can only look at this subject from the point of view of the man in the street, who has to use the railways for business and pleasure and also, on occasion, to despatch goods. I think it is quite clear, if one follows the history of the railways since they were inaugurated, that they have been fettered by a great many rules, regulations and restrictions which have now entirely outlived their usefulness. At the same time, I think it would be most dangerous to sweep all these rules away and give the railway companies an entirely free hand.
It is also true, as one can see from reading the history of railways in this country, that they are suffering from a great many difficulties which were put in their way when they were originally built. Most unfair prices had to be paid by the companies before they could build their lines, and it is not an exaggeration to say that they are still, more than one hundred years later, feeling the effects of that kind of obstruction. But at the same time I would not advocate sweeping away all forms of control over the companies, because that would be very dangerous and would lead to results which we cannot at present foresee at all. It will be very interesting to hear to-day what the views of His Majesty's Government are on this question. I very much hope that they will come to the conclusion that the railway companies do need some assistance, but also that that assistance should be tempered with discretion. I think that if this all-important question is handled with wisdom and foresight there will be a new and better era, not only for the railway companies, but for the whole country. If I may just sum up what I feel on this matter, I would say that I think the railway companies should be granted a very large measure of the freedom which they are now seeking, but that even then there should be some definite control of railways in regard to the conveyance of traffic, and a continuation of the general supervision which the Ministry of Transport now exercises with regard to safety and matters of that kind. I do not feel that the railway companies should be
754
granted a blank cheque to charge what they like, because that would not be for the general good of the country.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should like at the outset of my remarks to congratulate the noble Earl, who has just sat down, on a very able maiden speech. Your Lordships have often heard such congratulations offered but I venture to say never with more reason than to-day. If I may say so, taking the substance of the noble Earl's remarks about railways, I, as a railway director, have not the smallest fault to find with a single word that he said. The railway companies have no desire to exploit the community and no one is more alive to the need for proper charges and reasonable charges than are the railway companies.
Now, if I may, I will turn to one or two of the remarks which fell from the noble Lord who moved the Motion. To begin with, the noble Lord dealt rather with past history. I thought at first that he was going to deal almost wholly with the past. He told us about a good many things that ought to have happened long ago and I thought that he was going to reside entirely in a bygone age. Then, to my great pleasure if I may say so, the noble Lord came to life and he told us, in phrases which I envied, and which I could not myself dream of bettering, about some of the things which the London and North-Eastern Company have done in the past ten years. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord because what he said is perfectly true, and I am sincerely grateful to him for having followed what has been done and for being ready to give praise where praise is due. If I may, I would just venture to correct one figure which he gave. He said you could travel from London to York at 70 miles an hour. As a matter of fact, the exact rate is 71.9 miles per hour. It happens to be a journey of 188 miles and the train is the fastest in the British Empire.
Then the noble Lord, having been kind for a moment, pulled himself together and said it would never do to be carried away by satisfaction. He went on to condemn the railways, among other things, for their system of charges. He said the railway companies have adopted a system of charging the traffic the rates which the traffic will bear. That is the very thing we are trying to get rid of.

755
The noble Lord did not tell your Lordships that that system is imposed on the railway companies by Act of Parliament. That is just one of the troubles we are dealing with at the present time. The noble Lord then went on to condemn any attempt to electrify railway systems and I should like, if I may, to say a word about that. I should have thought that it was absolutely res judicata that for dense suburban traffic electrification was the only possible system by which to get the maximum traffic which is necessary in the circumstances we have to face to-day. Before the noble Lord spoke, I wondered whether we were open to attack for not having done sufficient electrification or for having done too much. But the noble Lord condemned electrification root and branch, although I think he did say that electrification might be all right for the tube railways.
LORD MONKSWELL: It was surface electrification I condemned, not the electrification of tube railways. I said that was necessary.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I gather that the noble Lord approves electrification of tube railways mainly because they run in tunnels and with electrification you do not get smoke. That seems to be the only redeeming feature in the noble Lord's view. The real point about electrification, of course, is that where there is dense traffic, you can only get the maximum number of trains by electrification. Once you have got your line electrified you can run a very much larger number of trains per hour than you can when steam is the motive power. The trains are made up of multiple units. There is no shunting. The trains run into a terminus at one end and they can start out the other way, and the saving both in time and in expense is very great. The Southern Railway, apart from the suburban traffic in and about London, is the railway which has gone in most intensively for electrification. I believe they have electrified something like between 650 and 700 route miles. That system is peculiarly suitable for the Southern Railway. I do not want to say anything which is rude to the railway with which my noble friend below me is connected, but the Southern Railway is really a glorified tramway, and that is why electrification is so suitable for that
756
particular area. What I might call main line electrification is quite another thing. The Southern Railway represents 12 per cent. of the railway business of this country, and of that 12 per cent. only 1 per cent. is, I believe, merchandise. Therefore the Southern Railway is in an entirely different category to the other three main line railways.
Practically speaking, there has been no main line railway electrification carried out in this country yet. There is a certain amount on the Tyne, but that is perhaps rather special. The project which is now under construction is the electrification of the main line between Manchester and Sheffield on the London and North-Eastern Railway, and that is being undertaken because, for certain technical reasons, it would seem to offer a very favourable field. I can assure the noble Lord that the reports from electrical engineers were far from being the only matters under consideration when this expenditure was authorised, and I am sorry the noble Lord thinks that all railway directors are so very biddable and obedient to their experts. I am bound to say that I think he gave your Lordships a rather distorted picture of the proceedings which go on in the board room of a great railway. So much for electrification. If I may just add one word, it is that you get infinitely quicker acceleration and more rapid stopping.
LORD MONKSWELL: I really must protest against that. You do not get more rapid stopping. The stopping is done by the air brake which is exactly the same on a steam train as it is on an electric train.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Two similar brakes no doubt give similar results, but nevertheless I am advised that you do get quicker stopping as well as more rapid acceleration with the electric train. Apart from electricity, the noble Lord told us that merchandise is carried in much too small quantities, goods and minerals in too small lots, and that the vehicles are not big enough. This is a very old story about the 20-ton wagon. The railways have always been in favour of larger wagons, but the railways do not have the last word. The proportion of the wagons which are owned by the railways is only a part of the wagons which are on the railroads, and our masters are the traders. I sup-

757
pose the mineral traffic is best adapted for large wagons. I believe that the whole of the coal traffic that is shipped from the north-east ports is carried from the colliery to the coast in large mineral wagons. I believe it is a fact that the whole of the docks in South Wales are equipped to handle traffic in large wagons, but unfortunately that is not the case among the colliery companies generally.
I have an extract here which I think I will read to your Lordships from the Report of the Standing Committee on Mineral Transport issued in 1929. That Report says:
"Our investigations show that 56 per cent. of the collieries on a tonnage output basis and 64 per cent. of collieries on a numerical basis cannot handle 20-ton wagons. Also that 43 per cent. of private sidings serving works with a weekly consumption of 500 tons of coal cannot take the 20-ton wagons and the position at smaller works is likely to be even more unsatisfactory.…
"Another reason for the reluctance to adopt: the 20-ton wagon is that the small consignee prefers a small truck. In many cases his trade is of such a character that either lie would have to take a large wagon partially filled or he would hold up for a very long time a large wagon with a full load."
That applies, of course, to merchandise.
The railways would much prefer to handle trains made up of large wagons, and the railways do all they can to encourage traders to send their goods in large quantities, but unfortunately the traders show a disposition to do exactly the opposite. The average load for general merchandise has decreased since 1929 from 2.94 tons to 2.88 tons in 1937, and that is in spite of all the efforts which the railways have made by quoting lower rates for large quantities and in other ways. There is a way in which the railways have been successful and it has been referred to by the noble Lord who gave us credit for having done what we could to encourage the use of what are called bulk containers. Those are containers in which goods can be bulked. Where there were only 1,500 of them in use in 1928 there are 15,000 of them now in daily use.
There is only one other figure I would like to give your Lordships and that is with regard to the complication of the privately-owned wagon. In 1929 there were 5,000 separate owners, and 35 per cent. only of the wagons were greater than 12-ton capacity. I do not think I
758
need say anything with regard to speed. The noble Lord was good enough to give us credit for having increased the speed, and I can leave that alone. The noble Lord was not very polite about inertia and coma and all the rest of it, but I would like to mention that the British railways, as far as I know, are the only railways in Europe, possibly in the world, who have not got their fingers in the taxpayers' pockets. I do not know whether the noble Lord would wish me to say it, but it is perfectly true we have had the advantage of some State guaranteed money. That is true. It enabled us to get our money rather cheaper. It is, I believe, literally true that there is no other system of railways in Europe which is not having subsidies from the Government of the country. I may be wrong; I am not sure that Luxembourg does not have railways which pay their way. If so, it is an exception on which I think we can only congratulate Luxembourg without being seriously disturbed.
There is one test on efficiency which I think I can give your Lordships, and that is engine mileage. Engine mileage is a good criterion of work performed. Engine mileage in 1927 was practically the same as engine mileage in 1937, but the working expenses were down in that period by 15 per cent., and that, I think it is obvious, could not have been done without efficiency on the part of those who are responsible for that result. There is the question of wages. The noble Lord was inclined to blame us, I believe, for paying too high wages. Of course there again the wages are settled by conciliation machinery, derived from the Act of 1921. The Government conceded the eight-hour day to the railway unions without, I think, even consulting the railway companies, and the same conciliation machinery has worked from that time. Of course it is not only the eight-hour day which is expensive, but the conditions with which the eight-hour day is accompanied. In some ways the conditions cost even more than the wages.
I do not know whether I need seriously defend the railway directors from the charge of inefficiency. I was interested to observe in an evening newspaper that they had worked out the average age of railway boards. I do not know whether the noble Lord thinks that everyone is too old at sixty. The average age of

759
my own board is 57½. I have always been taught to believe that the prime of life is ten years older than the age of the man you are talking to. It is not a bad rule, and by that rule I think the average age of 57½ ought to go down fairly well in your Lordships' House. We really are struggling for efficiency, and I think not without success. The road competition has the tremendous advantage of "door to door," and I must remind your Lordships that one of the great difficulties under which the railways labour is the fact that their stations are so often a mile or so from the village or town that they have to serve. I suppose that in the period 1840 to 1870 any railway that was built was tremendously petitioned against, and there again your Lordships' House has had a share in creating the circumstances which now do add difficulty to the attempts of the railways to secure efficiency. I am not mentioning that in any spirit of reproach, but merely as an historical fact.
When we are accused of inefficiency sometimes I think all that derives from the fact that people do get accustomed to such a wonderfully high level of service that they are inclined to be a little bit unreasonable if there is sometimes a falling away from that high level. I was travelling south from Scotland on a night when there was a considerable snow storm just before Christmas, and I happened to look out of the window of my sleeper on several occasions during the night. On every occasion, apparently, there was blinding snow, and one could see little or nothing. In the morning when we arrived I found that the space of half an inch or so between the glass and the wooden shutter of my sleeper was packed solid with snow, and I do not think there could be any doubt that the train had been running through a blinding snow storm all night. Yet it arrived at King's Cross exactly one hour late, and I could not help thinking that that was something in the nature of a miracle. I think we get so accustomed to the high level of service and punctuality of trains that when any failure occurs undue blame is attached. I can only say that I know from the inside that the aim of the railways is to serve the public, and I believe that the level of efficiency has never been so high as it is to-day. This is not the time to enter into a discussion of the so-
760
called Square Deal. That is a matter which is sub judice, and I must not go too far in discussing that, but I would only like to add, in conclusion, that I do not think the noble Lord has made out a case that we are inefficient, and I believe that we are doing a job of work for the general public with efficiency and a real regard to the public interest.
THE EARL OE ERNE: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, on his excellent maiden speech. I hope we shall often see him here taking part in our debates. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has raised a very interesting topic in initiating a debate on the subject of the British railways. He will not, I hope, expect me to deal in detail with many of the points of railway administration which he has mentioned. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who is conversant with the day-to-day working of the railways, has intervened in this debate, and covered many of these points. I would remind your Lordships, however, that the railways are not a Government service, and that subject to statutory regulation in certain respects, notably safety and charges, railway policy is a matter for the railway directors, who are, in turn, responsible to their shareholders.
Now let me turn to the five main points in Lord Monkswell's speech. First of all, it is obvious that Lord Monks-well does not like electrification, but it has many advantages in suitable conditions. Rapid acceleration and ease pf reversing at terminals are very real advantages. As an example, the Southern Railway, giving evidence before the Railway Rates Tribunal in 1933, said:
"If it had not been for our policy of electrification our net revenue would have been very considerably less than it is to-day, even after making allowance for interest on the capital that has been spent."
They also stated that
"the whole subject of an electric service is to give improved facilities; and for every two steam trains we have taken off, we have put on five electric trains."
As regards the noble Lord's statement that the Government "agreed to lend the railways millions of the taxpayers' money below an economic rate of interest, and took no proper steps to ensure that the money should be usefully employed,"

761
I should like to deal a little more fully with this as it is a matter of Government policy. This statement is not strictly accurate. By an Agreement scheduled to the Railways (Agreement) Act, 1935, the railway companies were to borrow the capital necessary to finance certain works from a finance company which, in turn, raised money from the general public by the issue of securities. All that the Government did was to guarantee these securities as to principal and interest. By this means the companies were able to undertake works which they could not otherwise have done, and large numbers of men have obtained work in consequence. These works are all designed to improve facilities. They have been agreed with the Government, and include such things as the improvement of lines and the reconstruction and enlargement of stations. The point about the railway system of working goods and mineral traffic has been dealt with very fully by Lord Balfour, and I do not propose to deal further with this rather complicated railway matter.
As regards classification, this system was imposed on the railways by Parliament after expert inquiry. The present classification was settled by the Rates Advisory Committee in pursuance of the provisions of Section 29 of the Railways Act, 1921. The section provided that in determining the classification the Committee should, in addition to all other relevant circumstances, have regard to value, to the bulk in comparison to weight, to the risk of damage, to the cost of handling and to the saving of cost which might result when merchandise was forwarded in large quantities. The quoting of exceptional rates and agreed charges—particularly during recent years in reply to competition by other forms of transport—has to some extent cut across the existing classification table, but the general principle of a classification of merchandise primarily according to value and bulk is still the foundation on which the railway rates structure is built. This matter is one which is being very closely examined by the Transport Advisory Council, and I cannot very well say more about it at present.
With regard to wages, in common with the policy adopted in industry generally, the wages and working conditions of railway servants are in the first instance the subject of joint negotiation between
762
representatives of the railway companies and the trade unions. If agreement cannot be reached in this way, the matter comes before a tribunal on which an independent element is represented. Since 1935 this final court of appeal has been a body known as the Railway Staff National Tribunal, upon which neither the railway companies nor the railway trade unions are represented; it consists of three members, none of whom is directly connected with the railways. I cannot myself see what better form of machinery for wages negotiations could be devised; or in what way the interests of the shareholders could be more adequately safeguarded.
As regards the future, the whole matter is closely bound up, as I said before, with the present claim of the railways for some relaxation of their conditions. The Transport Advisory Council will in due course report to the Minister, and the Government will have to decide what action, if any, to take. I can assure the noble Lord that in this matter His Majesty's Government will give very full consideration to the effect any change may have on all interests concerned. I would only, in conclusion, remind your Lordships that any relaxation of the present statutory control of railway charges will require legislation, and so will come before this House when there will be ample opportunities for further debate.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this subject is so important that I feel it necessary to say just a few words on behalf of the Party I represent in your Lordships' House. First of all, I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, on his most excellent speech. If he will allow me to say so, my only regret is that it was made from the Benches opposite, and I hope that now that he is in the more rarified atmosphere of your Lordships' House he will presently make the transition to this side. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, reminded your Lordships that every railway in Europe in private hands is subsidised, with the exception, I think he said, of the Luxembourg railways. The Luxembourg railways, in other words, are the only ones to-day that are paying their way, and I think that in this country, with the exception of the Southern Railway, it cannot be said that the railways are paying. They are not

763
able to pay, the conditions are against them, in particular the competition of road transport. The increasing number of people even who go by aeroplane has made a great difference to the traffic of all railways, and they are not a paying proposition to-day. In spite of that, I am bound to state from my own observations and information that the British railways are as efficient as any in the world, and are very well run. But they are not a paying proposition, and you will have this continual trouble as long as they remain in the hands of private companies.
It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that I have risen to make in a word the claim for nationalisation. The Party for which I have the honour to speak believes that the whole transport problem in this country, which becomes more and more acute all the time—transport by canal, road, railway, coastal traffic and so on—can only be solved by a great measure of national control.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Might I interrupt the noble Lord? He would perhaps tell us whether he would mind, after taking over the railways, whether they paid or not.
LORD STRABOLGI: I would not mind a bit as long as they served the community. As a matter of fact, I was coming to a point on that which I shall make. Do the roads pay? Think of the millions we spend on roads. They are a necessity, but we do not make a profit on our roads. We used to. We used to have turnpike roads on which tolls were paid, and a few still exist. But the roads are public utilities. With regard to this point about railways paying, consider the case of the German railways before the War. Both the noble Lord who introduced this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, are experts, and they are aware that one of the main reasons for the great increase in German industry and export up to 1914 was a highly efficient railway system, nationally controlled and owned. The German railways showed a deficit, but they were run, organised and managed for the benefit of German industry, with tremendous results for the advantage of German industry. I believe that is not disputed and that it was one of the main reasons for the great increase in German commerce before the War. Of course the German railways
764
showed a deficit, but it was advantageous to the whole German nation that that policy should be followed.
I would remind your Lordships also that during the late War our railways had to be taken over. I dare say if another great war comes upon us as the result of the Government's policy, which I quite anticipate, the railways will have to be taken over again. After the War the Coalition Government, of which the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, was a member, announced publicly, through Mr. Churchill, that the railways were going to be nationalised. Then some vested interests or prejudices intervened, and that policy was not carried through; but as the result of the experiment of those years the Coalition Government, which was a Government of the Right, not a Socialist Government at all, proposed to do that. Our policy, as I say—and we think it is the only one that can possibly solve these great problems—is to take over, co-ordinate, and manage in the interests of the community the whole of the transport of the country, including the railways, and when we do that in the near future I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord who introduced this Motion will give us the benefit of their assistance.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I should like to begin my reply by adding my testimony to the interest with which we listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. I felt there was a peculiar connection in this case. As many of your Lordships are aware, I have on various occasions ventured to bring the subject of railways before the House in the last twelve or fifteen years. I had never spoken in the House before until the noble Earl's father, who was then Leader of the Liberal Opposition, wrote to me and suggested that I should put a Motion on the Paper, which he himself would support. I did so, and we had a very good debate. That started me off in this direction to which, rightly or wrongly, I have adhered ever since. In the absence of the father, I have great pleasure in offering my thanks to the son.
I do not know that there is very much I need say on the various points raised by Lord Balfour and by the noble Earl, Lord Erne. I was a little disappointed with Lord Balfour's speech as I am one of those who regard him as one of the

765
best speakers in this House. I must say he hardly seemed to live up to that. He seemed to lead us up to a certain point and then to sheer off, particularly with regard to electrification. He told us how splendid it was, and how everybody agreed with what the experts said, but he did not come to the question of finance. There was not a single word about that. What I want to know is what are the relative estimates of the cost of running an electric service and that of running a service by the most efficient of modern steam locomotives. I have no doubt whatever that the modern steam locomotive would have it every time and that it would save millions of money.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think I can answer that. You can run two electric locomotives, taking every financial factor into account, for the cost of one steam locomotive.
LORD MONKSWELL: That is the kind of statement I dislike. I want to know what the capital cost of the electric locomotive is and what the capital cost of the steam locomotive is. It really comes down to capital cost.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I did say to the noble Lord "taking every financial factor into account," including capital cost.
LORD MONKSWELL: How much did the electrification to Hove cost?
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think that is much more a matter for the shareholders of the Southern Railway than for your Lordships' House.
LORD MONKSWELL: I am entirely dissatisfied with what the noble Earl said, and I do not consider it carries us any further at all. If the noble Earl will give us the full figures I asked for, I should be glad to go into them and, if I am wrong, write to the papers and confess my error. I am perfectly certain he will not give us the figures. I have been at meetings of the Southern Railway myself when shareholders have been shrieking for them, and they have not been given. I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time, but I am not in the least impressed by what noble Lords have said. With regard to the noble Earl who spoke for the Government, I gathered from him that the Government proposed to do nothing. It is interesting to hear that that is so. That
766
is the question I asked, so I must leave it at that. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, made a very interesting speech about German railways, but I do not think he laid stress on the real point. Before the War the German railways were often a great help to German trade, but has he any information about the wages paid to German railwaymen, and would he ask British railwaymen to accept similar wages? I do not think he had better run that hare too hard. He suggested that British railways should be nationalised, but he did not say a word about buying up the shareholders or what sort of terms he would offer.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did not want to make a long speech, but it is quite well known that the policy of my Party is to compensate the shareholders.
LORD MONKSWELL: Out of taxes paid by themselves? But we can hardly discuss that now. I have kept your Lordships long enough, and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NIGHT COLLISIONS WITH STATIONARY VEHICLES.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDhad given Notice that he would draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the number of collisions that occur after dark, between motor-cars and motor-bicycles and heavy transport vehicles stationary on the roads; and move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, one of the most notable changes which have taken place, especially on our main roads, during the last few years has been the great development of the carriage of heavy goods. It is no part of my intention to-day to discuss the highly controversial question of whether it would have been better, in the first place, to have diverted that traffic to the railways, as many people believe. It is quite likely, had that been done, it would have been much more advantageous to the railways than any of the schemes of nationalisation so dear to some people's hearts. But undoubtedly this growth of the carrying of heavy goods on our roads, particularly after dark, has given rise to a number of problems, especially in regard to the increase in the number of collisions and other accidents. It is my hope that I

767
shall show your Lordships in the few minutes which I wish to occupy this afternoon that hitherto these problems have not been given the attention that they deserve.
I wish to make it clear in the first place that this is in no way an attack on the drivers of heavy commercial vehicles. There are among them, of course, un-skilful and discourteous drivers, but, then, these exist among all classes of drivers, and I do not think there is any evidence to show that the drivers of heavy goods vehicles are any worse than any other section of the road-using community. The fact remains that we have now on a great many of our main roads an enormous traffic in heavy goods, carried particularly after dark. My attention has been drawn to this in the course of the last few months as a result of a number of fatal accidents which have taken place, particularly in the two Scottish counties with which I have special connection. In each of those counties two accidents took place involving the loss of eight lives in all. Each of these was due to a motor car or motor bicycle colliding after dark with a large heavy transport vehicle stationary by the roadside. It is likely, and indeed probable, that in some of these cases there was negligence or recklessness on the part of the driver of the overtaking vehicle. But, even if that is the case, we have to bear in mind that only a limited number of the drivers of motor vehicles are people who might be described as really skilled. In framing legislation or regulations for traffic we have to remember that a very considerable proportion of drivers are and always will be what I may term semiskilled, and that, furthermore, no number of certificates from a driving school will ever show what the reactions of a driver will be when he is faced with an emergency and has only seconds, or perhaps a fraction of a second, in which to act.
I think it is probable that most of these accidents have been caused by an inadequacy of light on the rear of the stationary vehicle. A good many of these heavy lorries are still lighted with oil lamps. The number, I imagine, is a steadily diminishing one, but there is still quite a substantial proportion of these lamps being used which under the best conditions are not visible at a very great distance, and when it is remembered that these lorries run for sometimes
768
several hundreds of miles throughout the night, often over wet roads, it is not surprising that even quite powerful lights become obscured with mud and dirt, and are, therefore, visible at an even shorter distance than would normally be the case. Besides there is the point that all of your Lordships who do much driving after dark will appreciate, and that is that when the roads are wet and there is rain falling, or there is fog or rain accompanied by bright moonlight, it is extraordinary how difficult it is to pick up a stationary vehicle even when one is driving at a very moderate speed. This is noticeably the case when another vehicle is coming from the opposite direction. Even if there is no question of being dazzled the mere amount of light of the oncoming vehicle that gets into one's eyes makes it very difficult indeed to perceive a stationary lorry at more than a comparatively short distance.
Actually I believe that Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act of 1930 does make it an offence to leave any vehicle by the side of the road so as to be a danger to other users of the road, but in practice my information is that this section is very largely a dead letter. The prosecutions under it are few in number, and have been mainly, if not entirely, confined to cases where lorries or other vehicles have been left on a bend or in some other actually dangerous position. Now these heavy transport drivers are compelled by Statute to rest every four hours, and it is impossible for them in the majority of cases to find any place off the road where they can park their vehicles. They cannot do as the driver of an ordinary light car would and get into a gateway, because there is no room. They cannot draw up into a side road, because they would block all traffic out of that side road. As a rule they cannot even draw on to a grass verge, because if they do the weight of their vehicle is so great that the side of the road in many cases would and sometimes does give way and the vehicle would be precipitated into the ditch. For this reason they are obliged to remain more or less on the highway, blocking up a large portion of it, and thereby constituting themselves a considerable danger to other road users.
The attention of the Ministry of Transport has, I believe, in the past been drawn to this, but I am not aware of anything having yet been done. I shall

769
be glad to learn from the noble Earl, who, I understand, is to reply for the Government, whether any steps are contemplated in the near future. But, having raised this subject, I venture to make two suggestions which I think are of a constructive nature. The first is that when main roads are being reconstructed, or new roads or by-passes built, wherever they are likely to have to carry a large amount of heavy traffic, particularly after dark, bays should be provided of a reasonable size and at fairly frequent intervals. If this were done it would not add perceptibly to the already very heavy cost of repairing or making these roads, and would certainly add very considerably to the safety of all road users. I think it is rather unfortunate that in the past few years, when we have spent so many tens of millions of pounds upon our roads, more provision has not been made for places where vehicles can draw off the road when the time comes for the drivers to have to rest.
The other suggestion that I would make is perhaps of a more original nature. The Automobile Association, I believe, do provide a sign of a somewhat distinctive character, a red reflector, to put upon the rear of vehicles, but I would suggest, in view of the large number of red lights that one finds already about the road of a very varying character, that something totally different would be advisable to denote a heavy vehicle at rest. Perpetually one sees in front red tail lights on vehicles, moving or stationary, the red circles of thirty-mile limits, and nowadays, every mile or two, a lantern denoting that road repairs or improvements are in operation. I do not think that another red light is going to be particularly noticeable, and I would therefore put forward the suggestion that a reflector of a totally different colour and different shape to any in use might be made obligatory for the use of all heavy lorries which habitually carry goods after dark. It might be, say, a blue cross or triangle of about a foot or fifteen inches in size, so that any person driving behind any such vehicle would recognise at once that he had in front of him a lorry stationary at the side of the road. Such a reflector would be infinitely more visible at a considerable distance than would any tail light or small road reflector of the sort now in use. These suggestions are put forward without any dogmatism as to
770
their value. I do hope the noble Earl will be able to give your Lordships some assurance that this problem is being considered, and that steps will be taken in the future to improve a situation which, although perhaps not the most numerous cause of road accidents after dark, still does bring about enough accidents and enough danger to justify some urgent steps being taken in the near future. With those few remarks I bring forward my Motion, naturally not in any hostile sense, but simply in the hope that by so doing one of the admittedly smaller causes of accidents on the road may be eliminated and the terrible toll of casualties somewhat reduced, which is one of the most unfortunate features of all road traffic to-day. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, this problem of road accidents continues to cause very grave concern to His Majesty's Government and to the Departments primarily concerned with their prevention. All noble Lords and indeed the country as a whole are, I am sure, awaiting with the greatest interest the Report of the Select Committee of this House which has been engaged in reviewing the whole question of road accidents. The total number of accidents last year varies little from that of the year before. It looked probable until late in the year that there would be a considerable reduction, but figures for the last two months of last year were disappointing.
Accidents of the type to which the noble Lord refers in his Motion are often of a very serious character and for that reason attract public attention, but they are not so numerous as is often supposed. Of the 6,337 fatal accidents and nearly 200,000 other accidents in the year ending 31st March, 1937, only seven fatal and 225 non-fatal accidents were caused by the absence or inadequacy of a rear light. The total number of collisions with stationary vehicles during the hours of darkness apart from any question of rear lights, was of course, considerably larger—46 fatal and 2,075 non-fatal, with a further six fatal and 304 non-fatal which occurred at dusk. The fact that accidents of the type that the noble Earl refers to are very few in comparison to the rest, is no reason why every practicable step should not be taken to prevent them. As the law stands to-day no vehicle is allowed to stop in such a position as to cause danger to other users of the road. The

771
noble Earl referred to that passage of the law and rather inferred that it was a dead letter, but there were something like 1,700 convictions in the year 1937 for that very offence.
As the law stands, it provides that vehicles have to carry during the hours of darkness two lamps in front and one red at the rear. The Highway Code emphasizes—(1) that vehicles must always be able to pull up well within the distance for which you can see the road to be clear whether by day or night; (2) that at night you should always drive well within the limits of your lights, and when your headlights are dipped or extinguished be specially careful. If you are dazzled slow down even to a standstill. Every motor vehicle must be equipped with an anti-dazzle device, unless its headlights are permanently deflected. Now in October, 1938, regulations came into operation which will indirectly affect the rear lighting of all new motor vehicles and will apply to all vehicles on and after 1st October, 1941. The previous regulations merely required that number plates should be "easily distinguishable" without specifying any distance, but the new regulations require the letters and figures to be easily distinguishable from a distance in front of or behind the vehicle of 75 feet in normal daylight and 60 feet during the hours of darkness. Of course it will be some time before the effect of these regulations can be seen, but their effect should in the long run be to improve visibility at night and to reduce the number of accidents due to collisions with stationary vehicles.
Various suggestions have been made which the Minister is considering. One suggestion is that a second rear light should be fixed on vehicles and that the second light should be separately wired so that if one should fail the other would remain alight. Another suggestion is the carrying of a reflector as well as a light. That bears very closely on the suggestion which the noble Earl has made. I cannot comment now on his suggestion, but it is in the same category as those which I have mentioned and which the Minister of Transport is closely examining. Another suggestion is that "draw-ins" or "lay-bys" should be provided at intervals on the roads. The noble Earl elaborated that. That also is under consideration and is being watched very closely at this moment by the Ministry of
772
Transport. In conclusion the Minister is closely watching the position and considering the various suggestions made. In addition evidence was given before your Lordships' Committee on this matter and I cannot, of course, anticipate what their recommendation will be, but I hope that the publicity which will be given to this short debate may lead to even greater care being exercised by motorists driving at night.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for his reply, with which I am, at least for the moment, quite satisfied. I would only just draw your Lordships' attention to two points. The first is that although it is quite true, as the noble Earl said, that there are many admirable regulations already in existence—if those regulations were universally respected there would have been no debate on this subject this afternoon—still I think many motor users are apt to treat those regulations with the same respect as many members of the community treat the Ten Commandments. The other point is that I hope that the Ministry of Transport will not necessarily wait until the Report of the Select Committee is available and the whole matter of a new Traffic Act has been thrashed out, because that is likely to take a good deal of time. Traffic after dark is constantly increasing. I myself and others have noticed its growth even in the last few months. If action is to be delayed for, say, a couple of years, I am afraid that in the meantime we shall have an increase, rather than a decrease, in the number of road accidents. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE BY RABBITS BILL [H.L.]
  FORMERLY

    CROPS (PREVENTION OF DAMAGE) BILL. [H.L.]
    Amendments reported (according to Order).
    Clause 1:
    Power of local authorities to require prevention of damage by rabbits.
    1.—(1) Where the council of any county or county borough are satisfied that by reason of land within the county or borough in the occupation of any person being infested with rabbits, substantial damage is being caused

    773
    or is likely to be caused to crops, trees, pasturage, fences, banks or works on land in the occupation of any other person, the council may serve on the occupier of the first mentioned land a notice in writing requiring him to take such steps as may be reasonably practicable for the destruction of the rabbits within such reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice; and if an occupier upon whom such a notice is served fails to comply with the requirements thereof, he shall be liable on summary conviction t3 a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the failure continues:
    Provided that …
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "the council of any county or county borough are satisfied that". The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is one of the first three Amendments that stand in my name. The two next are consequential upon this Amendment. The Bill, as it finished after the Committee stage, seemed in Clause r to imply that the court of summary jurisdiction before which a prosecution would go in the first instance would only have the power to judge whether the notice to abate an infestation of rabbits had been complied with or not, and they had not the power to judge on the question of fact as to whether the ground complained of was indeed infested with rabbits, or that the rabbits were doing damage to a neighbour's ground. That was not the intention of the Bill. It was intended that if there was a prosecution the court of summary jurisdiction before which the prosecution went should have the power to judge all the relevant facts, including whether the ground was infested with rabbits, and also whether damage was being done. In that connection also arose the question of the right of appeal, because if that court could only judge as to whether the order had been complied with or not, there seemed to be no possibility of appeal against the facts of the case other than that one.
    I think that the Amendment later on in the list, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, is aimed towards that question of appeal. These Amendments have been designed to clear up not only the full power of the court of summary jurisdiction to deal with all the relevant facts, but also in so doing to clear up the question of appeal, because, as your Lord-
    774
    ships are well aware, there is an appeal from the court of summary jurisdiction to Quarter Sessions, and, on points of law, from Quarter Sessions to the High Court. I hope that this Amendment is in a form which will meet the objections that have been raised to me at different times.
    Perhaps it might help your Lordships, in view of the rather involved nature of the Amendment if I read to you how the first part of this clause will read if your Lordships agree to this Amendment and the two consequential Amendments. It would read as follows:
    "Where by reason of land in the occupation of any person being infested with rabbits, substantial damage is being caused or is likely to be caused to crops, trees, pasturage, fences, banks or works on land in the occupation of any other person, the council of the county or county borough in which the first-mentioned land or any part thereof is situate may serve on the occupier of that land a notice in writing requiring him"
    and so on as the clause now reads. You will see by that, I think, that it makes it quite clear that the council of the county or the county borough must satisfy the court that the land is infested with rabbits and damage is being done. I hope with that brief explanation I may have satisfied those who have objections to that part of this Bill. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Where") to ("by") in line 9.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I was one of those who were responsible for putting down the Amendment that appears on the next page, and I should like to say that my noble friend and myself did not put it down in any spirit of hostility to the Bill. We realise fully the damage done by rabbits, and the object of this Bill has our very fullest sympathy. Our only object in putting down the Amendment was to smooth away difficulties, and to prevent mistakes occurring in the administration of the measure. For instance, it is not always clear who really is responsible for an excessive number of rabbits being on any particular plot of land. It is quite possible that the county council, to whom the administration of this Bill is entrusted, might make a mistake in serving notice on the wrong person. The fact that it is possible for that to occur would weigh in the minds of the committee. It would be the agricultural com-

    775
    mittee, consisting mostly of farmers, to whom the administration of this Act would be confided by the county council.
    I want to see this Bill work. It is no good passing an Act of Parliament of this sort, and being able to refer to it as something that is being done to stop what undoubtedly is a considerable detriment to the country side, if it is allowed to become a dead letter. If you leave the Bill as it stands at the present moment, I believe that you will find it will be almost a dead letter, because the agricultural committee of the council, consisting very largely of farmers, will not be prepared to impose these penalties on a man when in the first instance they are not quite sure whether he is the right man or not, and in the second place when they know that if there is any mistake about the matter there is practically no appeal for the man who is injured. Therefore we welcome these Amendments that have been put down by my noble friend. I am rising to support the Amendment and to say that we are very grateful to him for having met us in the way that he has, and that the Amendment standing in my name on the next page will not now be moved.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has just been passed.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 1, line 9, leave out ("within the county or borough").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    LORD ELTISLEY LORD ELTISLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "trees," to insert "shrubs." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I also am one of those who desire to see this Bill, when it does become an Act, work, although the painful history of all former Bills is that they never got to the stage of becoming Acts. I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name. I think it will provide another nail to the coffin of the rabbits, and it will prevent the rabbits from passing from a wood into a great place full of shrubs where, apparently, they will be outside the Act and no longer subject to the penalties under the Act. The point is simply this. Does the word "tree" include the word
    776
    "shrub"? If so, I have nothing more to say. From a diligent research I find that a tree is a plant having a single trunk, woody, branched and of large size. On the other hand, I find a shrub is a woody plant with several stems coming from the same root; a bush, or dwarf tree. Therefore there does appear to be some possibility of a shrub not being classed as a tree. As we do not want any loophole in this Bill when it becomes an Act, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 1, line 12, after ("trees") insert ("shrubs").—(Lord Eltisley.)
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: I have no objection to this Amendment. I do not think it unduly overburdens the Bill.
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may serve on the occupier of the first mentioned land" and insert "of the county or county borough in which the first mentioned land or any part thereof is situate may serve on the occupier of that land." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on the first Amendment, and I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page line 14, leave out from ("council") to ("a") in line 15, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "continues," to insert "after conviction." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment bears to some extent on the points raised by Lord Bayford just now, as to the difficulty of defining an occupier, of whom there may be three of any particular land concerned. It also bears on the possibility of a man being served with a notice who feels that he has got a perfectly good defence, because if you read the clause as it stands it seems apparent that if he is convicted the penalty, which is a maximum penalty of five pounds for each day on which the offence continues, will go on accruing for every day on which the offence continues, and not merely for every day after the conviction. Therefore a man who feels that he has got a perfectly good defence against the order may be incurring a very dangerous burden

    777
    of penalty if he waits for the only remedy he has, which is that of defending himself before the court of summary jurisdiction. I think your Lordships will agree that one does not want to put any such obstacle in the way of a man, who feels that he has a perfectly good case, waiting to argue that case.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 2, line 2, at end, insert ("after conviction").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, after subsection (1), to insert:
    "(2) Where a person incurs any expense necessary for the purpose of compliance with the requirements of a notice served on him under the preceding subsection, then, if he alleges that the expense ought to be borne wholly or in part by some other person having an interest in the land to which the notice relates, he may apply to the County Court in accordance with Rules of Court, and the Court, after hearing the parties and any witnesses whom they desire to call, may make such order for securing that the applicant is wholly or in part indemnified by that other person in respect of the said expense as the Court considers just and equitable in the circumstances of the case."
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, this again bears directly on that rather difficult question of the possibility of there being three occupiers of any piece of land concerned with an order, the three occupiers being the landowner, the farming tenant, and the shooting tenant. They all have an interest in the rabbits, and it is quite possible that in a case in which an order is made the responsible authority may select the wrong person on whom to serve the notice. The real objection to that is, I think, largely a financial one—namely, that the individual may be put to an expense which should properly be carried, either wholly or in part, by someone else who is responsible for keeping the rabbits down. As your Lordships see, that is remedied by going to the County Court and getting back such proportion of the expense as that Court may decide. It is rather a difficult questino, but I think that this Amendment and the previous one together and the Bill will go as far as possible towards avoiding the difficulties which might arise over that question of the divided ownership of rabbits which exists in this country.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 2, line 8, insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 6:
    Prohibition of night shooting and use of spring traps above ground.
    6.—(1) If any person—

    (a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, uses a firearm for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits; or

    (b) uses or knowingly permits the use of a spring trap for that purpose, except in a rabbit hole;

    he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a person convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
    LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR moved to insert after subsection (1):
    "(2) A police officer, if in uniform, may enter on land at any time for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this section are being complied with."
    The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I also am a humble enthusiast for trying to see that this Bill shall be a workable measure, although possibly in some cases by slightly different methods. I should like to explain that I have no great desire to apply this Amendment to subsection (1) (a) of this clause. For the sake of brevity and convenience I have made it read that it applies to both (a) and (b), but it is to paragraph (b) that I particularly desire it to apply. I do not mind in the least whether it applies to (a) or not. A great deal will depend, in considering the value of this Bill, whether trapping in the open is stopped or not, and I suggest it will very materially assist in stopping what I believe to be a highly undesirable practice, and one which I am glad is now going to be made illegal, if a properly appointed police officer has the power to enter on land at any time in order to stop it.
    I may be wrong, but I take it that the case now is that he can only do so if he has a warrant specially applied for and issued for the purpose, and I think it will be agreed that it is hardly to be expected of him that he will obtain a warrant in each case when he wants to enter upon land on suspicion that the clause is being violated. There is now a great deal of trapping in the open, both legally and illegally, and I am one of those who think that if this new legislation can be sternly enforced then the rabbit position will be made somewhat better. As I have said

    779
    before in this House, I do not think the Bill goes as far as it ought to go, but as far as it does go it is an improvement, and my only object in moving this Amendment is to make it better still. One thing which I have learned from the debates on rabbits in this House is that the conditions vary enormously in different parts of this country. I confess I did not appreciate that at the outset, but I have found out that there is all the difference in the world between the conditions in Cambridgeshire, where the noble Lord's rabbits gambol around the countryside, and the conditions in West Wales, where I happen to come from, and in Devon and Cornwall. Those areas may not be in themselves very important, but they are, I venture to say, the special areas in this particular line. They are infested with rabbits, and it has become a very serious problem indeed. Many minds have been brought to bear upon that problem in those areas, to such an extent that there is now a demand for local legislation on the subject—a course which I myself should not favour if it could possibly be avoided. But people are actually demanding a sort of local option to deal with the particular problem, realising that our legislators, coming from all parts of the country, do not, as they say, appreciate the seriousness of the position in these so-called special areas.
    I know that many do not agree with me when I say that the practice of commercial rabbit trapping as carried on today in these areas, so far from diminishing rabbits, actually increases the number. I am not going into that controversy, but I must again mention it because otherwise my argument would not be justified to-day. But this area which is now infested with rabbits is spreading. It is increasing in size, and it is moving in an easterly direction. I think any local evidence would point to that effect, and it is a very serious matter. I would like to ask the noble Earl who represents the Government what the intentions of the Ministry of Agriculture are with regard to this position, because there has recently grown up a new element in it. We now have rabbit factories being established in these areas which I call the rabbit farming areas. Now these rabbit factories must have a great supply of rabbits if they are to exist, and it follows that the interests of these factories are in direct conflict with
    780
    the interests of true farming. I am going to ask, if I may, if we can be told which of these two interests is going to be encouraged. Because I do suggest in all seriousness that they are so conflicting that they cannot both survive indefinitely.
    That is a new factor in the situation which has recently sprung up and which I think requires to be dealt with. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, will tell me, as he has told me before, that I confuse the cause and the effect. Be that as it may, I would very much like to get an authoritative opinion on this serious matter, and I suggest that if trapping in the open could really be stopped it would be a big step forward. I do not honestly believe that it can really be stopped unless some such action is taken as is embodied in my Amendment; because I respectfully agree with those who say that it is no good passing Acts of Parliament unless they are going to be enforced. If this Amendment is included in the Bill, then I think there is a real chance of the Act being enforced. It is rather too much to expect neighbours to report their own friends when breaking this law. The only sensible way to do it is to give the powers to the police and to render it easy and efficacious for them to use them.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 3, line 22, insert he said new subsection.—(Lord Merthyr.)
    LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Amendment, and I hope so for a reason that has not been mentioned by the noble Lord. I happen to be the Chairman of a Standing Joint Committee and I, like others of your Lordships, know the immense number of new duties that have been put on the police lately. They have hardly a minute of their time available. They have a great deal of writing and inspection in consequence of these new duties, and a vast quantity of work in connection with wardens and air-raid precautions, and in most counties, my own among them, the police force is being increased at great expense. I must protest against the idea that in addition to these duties the policeman should now be turned into an under-keeper.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I also feel that this Amendment must be resisted, for perhaps different reasons. I am not the Chairman of a Standing

    781
    Joint Committee. I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, fully realises all that is implied by this Amendment. At the present time the police have no right of access unless they are asked to come on to your land, and, though an Englishman's home is no longer his castle, he still has a few shreds of right, and I do like to stick to what is left as long as possible. It would mean that any policeman in uniform could wander over your land, and if you accosted him he could excuse himself by saying he was seeing whether you put traps in the open. He might be there for many other purposes, but that would be sufficient excuse. I think probably on general grounds also it is a most undesirable precedent to create.
    I entirely differ from the noble Lord in his views as regards the use of the spring trap being the real reason why there has been a great increase of rabbits in certain areas. I do not believe it is the use of the spring trap. I believe that the difficulty lies in the mentality of the people who use these traps, who prefer to make money out of rabbits rather than out of other, shall we say more legitimate methods of agriculture? I cannot speak for the Government Department concerned. I have indicated that in many cases the Amendment would create a most undesirable precedent, and I believe that if the noble Lord were to inquire, he would find that the representatives of the various Government Departments concerned would resist this Amendment most strenuously.
    VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I have a certain sympathy with the mover of the Amendment and also with what was said by the noble Earl who has just sat down. There was before the Select Committee a good deal of evidence to show how different conditions were in different parts of the country. In some parts of the country the conditions that Lord Merthyr described are really constant. Of course the subsection as drafted is rather wide. Would it not be possible to amend it by the insertion of some such words as "in cases where the local authority have reason to believe that the instructions of this section are not being complied with"? I do not know whether the noble Earl who will reply for the Government would consider this Amendment if it were in a somewhat modified form. But if there
    782
    really were reason to believe that the intention of the Bill was not being complied with I think something might be said for allowing the local authority to instruct the police to enter, at reasonable times, to see whether that was so.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I have not had an opportunity, naturally, of considering the suggestion that has just emanated from my noble friend Lord Mersey, who, as your Lordships know, was Chairman of the Select Committee on whose recommendations this Bill was drafted, but I should say at once that the noble Viscount's suggestion would be fraught with difficulties. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has intimated to your Lordships, the principle which Lord Merthyr has brought before the House in his Amendment is one far wider than that embraced by the question of rabbits alone, or indeed by the question of the single industry of agriculture.
    As Lord Radnor has said, this Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would give a general right to a constable to go on to any private land at any time, day or night. There is no such provision in the general Statute save in very exceptional circumstances, and these exceptional circumstances, I understand, apply only when a police constable has a specific function to perform in a particular space. Your Lordships will appreciate that if such a power were granted under this Bill a police constable could go on to any private land or into any premises with the excuse that he was entitled to investigate whether a gin trap were set in the open or not. That power might be used for ascertaining other information for which at present no provision is made in the case of a police constable in the performance of his duty. Therefore, on general grounds, I sincerely hope my noble friend Lord Merthyr will not press his Amendment, and at the same time I hope I have sufficiently indicated to my noble friend Lord Mersey that his suggestion would have many difficulties if it were to be applied only at the discretion of local authorities.
    LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I should like to say, first of all, a word about Lord Mersey's suggestion, for which I am very grateful. It would be extraordinarily

    783
    difficult if not impossible, for it to assist materially in this matter because normally local authorities—county councils at any rate—only meet every quarter. It illustrates the difficulty which I am up against because I want the police officer to be able to do this and act quickly and not have to go through a lot of formalities. If he had to get it formally put before the county council or the agricultural committee, and wait until their next quarterly meeting, it would be a great deal too late before he could do anything at all. Therefore, while I am very grateful for the noble Viscount's suggestion, I do not think it would assist. With regard to Lord Radnor's defence against this Amendment, I can only say I really expected something rather better than the old argument about an Englishman's home being his castle. As a matter of fact, I told several people that that probably might be said, but it is getting rather worn.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: It is not quite worn-out.
    LORD MERTHYR: There seems to be a theory that because this sort of thing has never been done before it cannot be done now. I cannot subscribe to that argument. We are dealing with changed conditions in the rabbit business which are, in some areas of the country, rapidly getting the better of us, and we are not coping with them. Some action a little more revolutionary than the noble Earl would allow, will be necessary before long. Appreciating that the sense of the House is hostile to this Amendment I do not ask your Lordships to divide upon it. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it, although I must say I am not convinced by the arguments which have been adduced against it.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 7 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, my first Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 3, line 31, after ("interest") insert ("which he has").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.
    THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, the next is also a drafting Amendment.
    Amendment moved—
    Page 3, line 31, leave out ("has the right") and insert ("is entitled").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
    On Question, Amendment agreed to.

RICHMOND PARK REGULATIONS.
LORD BARNBYhad the following Notice on the Paper: To move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the Draft Regulations for Richmond Park proposed to be made by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings under the Parks Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1926.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Motion is to deal with the proposed Regulations governing the use of Richmond Park by horse-riders. Richmond Park, as is well known to all your Lordships, has habitually been used for the benefit of horse-riders in common with other classes of the public. That has been done under an Act published in 1872, which dealt with the control of Royal Parks and Gardens, and among other things dealt with the manner in which they should be used by horse-riders. That Act was amended in 1926, and in that Act it says that:
"the Commissioners of Works may make such regulations to be observed by persons using any park to which the principal Act applies, as they consider necessary for securing the proper management of the Park."
The actual situation is that in accordance with the custom built up under these Acts the responsible authorities have been in the habit of issuing Regulations which, of course, have all the statutory authority required for their imposition.
Just recently Regulations have been issued which have progressively given the appearance of greater stringency against the use of Richmond Park by horse-riders. I would remind your Lordships that the First Commissioner of Works, Sir Philip Sassoon, is one who has always been a lover of the horse, and I feel sure that he, personally, would be sympathetic to the use of the Park by horse-riders to the full in accordance with what may be compatible with the convenience of other users of the Park. Again, Sir Louis Greig, who is the executive officer responsible for supervising the administration of the Park, is, I am sure, sympathetic to its being used for this purpose. But it does

785
appear that the object of these Regulations is to discourage horse-riding in the Park. That has given rise to serious alarm among a body of horse-riders whose numbers, were your Lordships to look into the matter, would probably exceed anybody's imagination. Your Lordships in the main will be sympathetic to the use of the horse for riding, as I am myself. I must say I had not the least idea that so many people used Richmond Park for horse-riding as the investigation has shown. I would add that since this Motion was put down on the Order Paper I have been surprised at the innundation of support I have received for the proposal to appeal for the postponement or revision of the proposed Regulations.
The horse-riding public, I submit, are entitled to as much consideration as any other section of the public using the Park. But the real point is that it is proposed by the system of Regulations now issued to go much beyond what was ever contemplated by the Parliament that passed this Act in 1926. It virtually means that the officers concerned with the issue of orders are arrogating to themselves powers far beyond those that were contemplated when the Act was passed. It appears that this alarming set of Regulations passed through another place without even coming to the knowledge of the majority of those who habitually use the Park, and who, obviously, are interested in the Regulations. What is being done really appears to be a persecution of those who use the Park on horseback. They are to be confined to an absurdly restricted area; they are to be compelled to go on a track that is quite unsuitable for horse-riding; and they are only to be allowed to use the Park at limited periods and only certain portions of the Park at those periods. It is suggested that all this is done in the interest of the general public, because horses disfigure the Park by cutting up the turf. What an absurd suggestion! But even if it were true, I suggest that it is not anything like so great a disfigurement of the Park as results from use of the hurdles, the notices and I know not what else being used to try to confine the activities of the horse.
I am not going to take up the time of your Lordships, who must all be aware of the great misfortune that would ensue were these Regulations, to limit horse exercises in the Park, allowed to come
786
into force as now proposed. We want to preserve horse-riding as much as possible, for one reason because it will enable many young people to become most desirable members of the Territorial Cavalry. Moreover, the Government are spending money upon a fitness campaign. What better way could there be to encourage physical fitness than by enabling the parks to be used for horse exercises? Further, it is suggested that a charge shall be imposed for the use of the Park by persons on horseback. I cannot find anything in the Regulations which imposes any charge for parking cars, and the big car parks which have been made in the Park are a disfigurement of it, yet their use to the public is allowed free. I do not disapprove of it if it is in the interests of the public, but surely it is not right to discriminate against those who want to use the Park as it has been traditionally and always used for horse exercises, just because it is suggested that the use of the Park for this purpose cuts up the turf. That used not to be so.
I find that the number of occasions on which the Park was closed for exercise in the winters of 1937 and 1938 was sixty-five. It is now proposed that the Regulations shall be intensified and that the Park shall be closed more than ever, and even when horse-riders are to be allowed to use the Park for exercise they are to be more and more restricted as to the area that can be used. In certain cases the horses are to be made to use a track which is totally unsuitable for horse exercise. In addition there is a proposal to evade the responsibility which hitherto has prevailed in regard to accidents that may occur. I find on examining the Regulations proposed that not only is a charge going to be made but that every class of rider is going to have a ticket or badge of a particular colour, and these colours are to vary according to the time of day at which the Park is being used. As far as I can see, there are to be such colours as blue and red and white and yellow, and I do not know how many other sorts. We shall see people taking horse exercise with a harlequinade of coloured badges hanging round about them. I suggest that the proper thing to do would be to take a paint brush and put different colours on the horses. Then we should have horses which, if requisitioned in the event of war, would already be camouflaged.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask the noble Lord where he finds this? I have the Draft Order in front of me and there is nothing about these coloured tickets in it.
LORD BARNBY: I suggest that the noble Lord's assiduous investigation of the Regulations has not enabled him to find what I have found.
LORD STRABOLGI: These Regulations on the Table are those in question, and there is nothing about coloured tickets in them.
LORD BARNBY: I am endeavouring as far as I can to interpret the proposed Regulations, and it seems to me that they necessarily hamper the use of Richmond Park for horse lovers and thus prevent horse exercise by a nation which has been habituated traditionally to use the horse in every way. It is on those simple grounds that I move this Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying him to withhold his consent to the Draft Regulations for Richmond Park proposed to be made by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings under the Parks Regulation Acts, 1872 and 1926.—(Lord Barnby.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not wish to inflict myself on your Lordships again this afternoon, but in view of the fact that I do not visit Richmond Park for the purpose of riding a horse perhaps one or two observations may be permitted me. Speaking purely on physical grounds, nothing would induce me to get on a horse if I could help it. Whether all the contentions of Lord Barnby are correct or not, I think it would be most unfortunate if any unnecessary restrictions were put upon persons desirous of riding at the present time in view of the fact that nowadays, owing to the growth of motor traffic and the complete change in the character of our roads and the absence in most cases of grass verges, it is practically impossible for people who wish to ride to do so anywhere along our highways. I understand that the great proportion of those who use Richmond Park are not persons of great means, and that it is probably quite as much as they can do to afford to ride there. In those circumstances I hope that it may be found possible to modify the suggested restrictions.
788
I would make one suggestion. If it is really found—although I cannot say that my own observations lead me to believe it—that there is a great deal of damage to the Park, could not certain areas of it be zoned as areas where persons should not be permitted to ride? Those areas could be changed as soon as the grass had recovered. I chanced to be in Richmond Park as recently as last week, and I noticed that it is just where these tracks had been provided that the worst damage had taken place. Where riders, possibly in defiance of the Regulations, had crossed other parts of the Park, although the ground was fairly damp, there was not nearly so much damage as where they were confined to narrow tracks. There the grass was knocked to pieces. I hope that the noble Earl who replies for the Government will consider the question sympathetically and see that there shall be no further restrictions than are absolutely necessary.
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): My Lords, I should like to have an assurance that nothing more is to be done under these Regulations than appears on the surface, and that the Regulations are not going to be used as a cloak for something else. I really rise to try to get an assurance on two points. One is in regard to the making of charges. There is no mention of that in the Regulations, but I should like to ask whether it is a fact, as is generally believed by those who frequent the Park, that a charge is to be made of £1 in the case of horses privately owned and £3 in the case of horses owned by people whose livelihood consists in letting out horses for hire to other people. If that is so, it is an important matter, for there are very many people who would certainly never be able to take equestrian exercise if it were not for the existence of these riding stables. As your Lordships know, it is difficult for stables, at the rates which they now charge, to make much profit, and if the owners of them should go bankrupt it would be extremely unfortunate. If it is true that fees, and substantial fees, are going to be imposed, I can only contrast that with the action of a committee of landowners who are now meeting together with a friend of mine in another place trying to find a feasible scheme by which they can provide the public with free access to land. I hope that if these Regulations go forward the noble Earl who replies for the Govern-

789
ment will suggest to the Commissioners the desirability of not appearing in too unfortunate a light when contrasted with the public-spirited attitude of private individuals.
There is another point about which I am anxious, and that is the question of tracks. If my noble friend can give an assurance on that subject he will relieve my mind. It is suggested that riders are to be prohibited from riding except on certain tracks. That of course is implicit in Regulation No. 2. But I understand that one track in question is an interesting example of how not to make a track. It runs all the way under trees, and it is in one of the boggiest portions of the Park. No real work has been done in the way of making a track. A ditch has been dug on each side, and the earth piled up in such a way that even before horses started to gallop over the track it was found that it was being made into a bog. What it amounts to is that this track is providing another bog in a portion of the Park already adequately provided with bogs. I might add that, like my noble friend, this does not concern me personally, but as a member of the public I feel it my duty to bring these points forward. On one occasion I did attempt some equestrian exercise in China, but I found it as uncongenial to myself as it was quite apparently repugnant to the horse. We parted company after a very short time, if not by mutual consent at any rate with mutual relief. If my noble friend can give assurances on these points I may be satisfied, but otherwise I hope the Motion will be pressed to a Division.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, this is an entirely new subject to me, and I would like to ask for a little more information. I rode in Richmond Park years ago, and I was certainly never charged anything. Why is a charge suddenly being imposed? It seems to be quite a heavy charge, running up to £3 3s. A paper has just been handed to me which contains this paragraph:
"A riding school master or mistress paying for six or more red badges will on application and if desired and on the payment of £1 10s. each, be supplied with one white badge in respect of each six such red badges. A white badge will authorise any person to ride in the Park, subject to the terms of condition 4."
Then there follows another paragraph:
"Yellow and white badges will be valid only so long as the corresponding red badges remain in force."
790
What does all this mean, and why is it suddenly being sprung upon an unsuspecting public? I really think that there ought to be some explanation. In another place the Regulations, I understand, went through without discussion. I do not suppose members ever saw them. They probably thought that the thing was all right and no one took any notice, but I would like to know the history of the whole thing and to have an explanation of Regulations which at first sight seem to be quite indefensible. I hope that the noble Earl will promise that the matter shall be looked into, because it seems to me that my noble friend really has something to complain of.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I ask if it is proposed to supplement these Draft Regulations by Regulations applying to other parks? Will it be necessary to have a red badge to ride in Hyde Park?
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I would like to add a few words, because I think this matter is of very grave public importance. I came here this afternoon without the smallest idea of what lay behind this Motion. It appears that the Regulations have gone through another place, and the danger is that unless something is done here to-night it will be too late; the harm will be done. During the course of the debate I have had an opportunity of reading a memorandum sent under cover of a letter from the Richmond Park Riders' Association affiliated to the National Horse Association, and there are some very serious statements in that memorandum. I rise only to say that I am perfectly certain that after this debate the noble Earl will make a conciliatory reply and say something to allay the fears of my noble friend. If he does not do that, I hope the noble Lord will go to a Division and if he does I am certain he will carry his point.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Earl Fortescue, it falls to my lot to reply to the Motion of my noble friend behind me. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer briefly to the situation in Richmond Park in order to give your Lordships some idea of what is actually happening at the present time. I am told, as many noble Lords will probably be aware, that in

791
recent years there has been a very large increase in the number of horse-riders in this Park. The number of riding establishments has practically doubled during the past eight years, and during the same period the number of riders in the Park on a Sunday has increased from 300 to roughly 750, an increase of 100 per cent. With that increase in the number of riders using this Park on a Sunday there has correspondingly been a very large increase in the number of tracks which have been followed by the riders, and while my right honourable friend the First Commissioner of Works has every possible sympathy with such exercise as these people indulge in, it is his duty also to administer the Park in the interests of the ordinary user. I hope your Lordships will bear that in mind when we consider the whole of this problem. For a long time the Commissioners for Richmond Park endeavoured to close these tracks by means of hurdles, but unfortunately that proved useless for the reason that new tracks were instantly formed before the powers of nature restored the old tracks to their proper and original condition. Apart from that, my right honourable friend has had many bitter complaints of the damage done by equestrians in Richmond Park.
Perhaps I might give the House some indication of what the proposed Regulations are. Firstly, when this matter was originally discussed it was between the Commissioners and the National Horse Association on behalf of the riders, and I understand that the decisions which are laid down in these Draft Regulations were in fact approved by the National Horse Association. It is perfectly true that they have lain for 21 days in another place, and that they now come before your Lordships' House. They give full power to the Commissioners to control, and modify if necessary in the light of the experience gained, the conditions under which riding shall take place in the Park, and further to charge a licensing fee. Up to the present day during this winter the Park has been closed altogether to riders for 10 days; last year it was 27 days, and in the previous year it was 67 days. My right honourable friend does claim, and I think rightly, that as this track was laid down sometime in the middle or at the end of September it has already served its use and has enabled people to use the
792
track when the Park in general was in a bad state due to weather.
A NOBLE LORD: Would the noble Lord state how many accidents have occurred through using the track?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will deal with that in my own way, if I may, when I come to it. These charges will be arranged as follows: It will, as noble Lords have pointed out, be done by means of badges, and a fee of £1 per badge per annum will be charged in respect of a horse ridden by a private owner and £3 in respect of horses owned by the riding school. I may say that these conditions, as I have already mentioned, were approved by the National Horse Association in consultation with the riding schools in the neighbourhood of Richmond Park, and it was gathered at the same time that the private riders were equally prepared to accept them. It is therefore quite clear that the Commissioners could not ask for any modification of the proposed Regulations which now stand before your Lordships' House. The money which is obtained from these licences will be in effect a contribution towards the cost of maintaining the track, and the rejection of these Regulations, I venture to think, would not therefore help the cause of the riders in any possible way.
A question has been asked about the state of the track. It is some six miles in circumference and the Commissioners have chosen it to avoid the boggy parts as far as possible. I understand that they have indeed altered the track in order to remove a cause for complaint, and they are at all times ready to receive representations for further alterations of a reasonable character. They intend to continue the work of making up such parts of the track as are unsatisfactory. I understand that a beginning has already been made, but, due to the abnormally wet weather, it has been impossible to do as much as the Commissioners would have desired. On the question of accidents I have no figures before me, but I understand that that is a matter of Common Law, and I would far rather leave that to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I do in conclusion impress upon your Lordships that my right honourable friend does not wish in any way to restrict the use of this Park, but from the figures I have quoted to your Lordships I think it is proved quite

793
conclusively that the track has served its use, that the Park has not been closed so many days this year as in the previous two years, and, lastly, that this track is only used on Saturdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays after 12 noon. I hope I have said sufficient to induce your Lordships to allow the Regulations to go through unopposed.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I feel very uneasy after the statement of the noble Earl because it is evidently the intention to extend this practice of making charges elsewhere.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I did not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I think if this gets through you will have a precedent which will be acted upon. At a time like this we should encourage the use of the parks for every possible recreation that can be conceived. You are taking away an old right. Quite possibly it might be asked why people do not ride more in other parks. Well, if they did, the chances are that if the number of riders increased in Hyde Park a charge would be made there, too. I do not see where you are going to end. I hope that noble Lords who have an interest in conserving the rights of the public will allow the riding public the same rights as others who use the parks without trouble and without red tape rules. I hope the House will show that they disapprove of the proposed Regulations.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, may I point out that there is no idea whatever of extending the payment of fees to ride in other parks. The whole point of the question is this. There is no riding track such as Rotten Row in Richmond Park, and therefore riders have been all over the place. I can assure the House that when I was First Commissioner, before the present First Commissioner, I had to consider this question, and as a hunting man I realised what it meant. Those of your Lordships who follow hounds know what damage is caused by a pack and a full field, and you will realise that it is a huge field if there are as many as 300. But here you have over 700 riders. Imagine to yourself a pack of hounds with the whole field following, going across an area week
794
after week on Saturdays and Sundays. Imagine what that means in the way of cutting up the grass. Your Lordships have only to realise from your own experience out with hounds what it means in regard to Richmond Park.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: Why charge for it?
EARL STANHOPE: Because there is a certain amount of cost in the licensing of these horses. You have to have some arrangement by which you can license the horses and regulate them so that you can keep in touch with what is being done, and recognise more or less where these horses come from.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Is there any such charge for Rotten Row?
EARL STANHOPE: No, because there is only one place in Hyde Park where riders can ride, but if they rode all over Hyde Park no doubt licences would be necessary. Your Lordships seem to think that there is here an invasion of the rights of the public. There are others besides riders who use Richmond Park, and there have been bitter complaints by pedestrians who use the Park and who sometimes bring perambulators and the like. Those who have seen the riders in Richmond Park know that they are not always in control of their mounts, and it is in the interests of the public that these should be under control. The object of the Regulation is not to hit the riders but to benefit the public as a whole. They are made in order to preserve the Park for pedestrians as well as for riders, because if you allow indiscriminate riding by any number of individuals you are going to have the turf cut up, not only for pedestrians but also for the horsemen themselves. I suggest that these Regulations are for the benefit of the public, and they have been agreed with the Horse Owners' Association. That being recognised, there is no question of bureaucracy and attempting to limit the rights of the public, but merely a question of preserving them to the best advantage both for pedestrians and those who ride.
LORD BARNBY: I should not like to find myself in conflict with the sympathy of the noble Earl on anything to do with horses, because his prowess and sympathy in anything to do with horses are well known. I will not disagree with what he

795
has said as to the riders in Richmond Park. There may be some who are less expert riders than may be looked for in hunting circles, and one appreciates the difficulty of the First Commissioner of Works in interpreting his responsibility. I do not want to extend the time which is taken on this Motion, but I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I comment on one or two points. It is suggested that a large number of users of the Park would cut up the turf, so that it would be inconvenient for other users. Surely it is an extravagance to suggest that a relatively small number of horses, however many hundreds it may be, is going to imperil the turf for the use of the public, who in the main come in automobiles and in 'buses. I am told that already, as a result of recent Regulations, without those which are now suggested, a census of horse-users of the park shows a striking reduction.
EARL STANHOPE: Was that for the whole year or for the winter?
LORD BARNBY: I have not that information. It might well be that cutting up of the ground would depend upon the state of the weather. That might apply to the summer or the winter, and it would be immaterial which month of the year it was. The essential point would be to make a comparison with the exact state of the ground, which might exist either in summer or winter. The hurdles that have been put up have had the exact effect of cutting up the tracks and making the unsightly courses which have been complained of.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The hurdles were put up to stop people riding on the tracks which had been worn badly by horses on other occasions.
LORD BARNBY: That may be a matter of opinion, but I do know that Regulations prevent people jumping the hurdles, which would be an easy way of getting out of it. It is suggested that these-Regulations have been agreed to by some body. I am not certain what body that is, but I am quite certain that they have not been agreed to by the Richmond Park Riders' Association.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Can the noble Lord tell me when that Association was formed? Was it at the same time as the conversations?
LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH): I can tell the noble Earl. It is a society formed owing to the extreme indignation at the action which you are taking.
LORD BARNBY: There is another body called the National Horse Riders' Association. The noble Earl has referred to the Horse Owners' Association, and I have no wish to confuse the House as to these bodies. May I sum up by saying shortly that what we have heard this afternoon confirms the belief that real anxiety exists as to what may be the result of precipitate Regulations, which appear to amount almost to persecution in the discriminatory action against one set of users of one of His Majesty's Parks, which is for the general convenience of the public. On that ground I venture to voice the fear that exists, and to make an appeal to the noble Earl to give the House an assurance that there will be a delay in the imposition of these Regulations, until some method has been found of having them examined and of making sure that no public interest would be impaired.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: May I ask the Leader of the House a question on the matter of procedure? If a Bill is rejected in this House, or the other House, the same question cannot be put twice, but with Regulations like these, if the Regulations are rejected by this House is there anything to prevent revised Regulations being drawn up immediately afterwards? It is true they would have to lie for twenty-one days before each House, but there would not be so very much delay, for it appears to me that something might be produced which would meet The criticism that has been made.
LORD BAYFORD: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider the question of adjourning this debate? The whole matter has been sprung upon the House very suddenly, and why should not the debate be adjourned?
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I understand that the statutory time for these rules lapses to-morrow, and therefore there is not much room for delay. If your Lordships choose to oppose these rules what could be done would have that new rules might be made and they would have to come before both Houses of Parliament and go through the process of lying on the Table for twenty-one days, or whatever the time is. I understand

797
that the First Commissioner would be quite prepared to consider these conditions with the riders, and therefore I think probably your Lordships would agree that the best thing would be that these actual Regulations should be withdrawn and the matter could be considered again.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with the assurance of the Leader of the House that the proposed Regulations will be the subject of conference with representative bodies representing the riders in the Park, I beg leave to withdraw.
LORD STRABOLGI: That was not the assurance at all. The assurance was that these Regulations were to be withdrawn and new Regulations made.
LORD BARNBY: What I understand to be the proposal of the Leader of the House is that the Regulations which have formed the subject of this afternoon's debate will be cancelled, and that new Regulations will be drawn up which will go through the usual procedure, so that
798
this House will in its turn have full opportunity of considering them.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Unless this Motion is carried, will not the Regulations take effect automatically?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Will the noble Earl accept the Motion for nullifying these Regulations?
LORD BARNBY: That is my Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and the said Address ordered to be presented to His Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CEFN AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1939.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Cefn Mawr and Rhos-y-medre Gas Company, Limited:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.