§ 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 STRABOLGIMay 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 BARNBYI suggest that the noble Lord's assiduous investigation of the Regulations has not enabled him to find what I have found.
LORD STRABOLGIThese Regulations on the Table are those in question, and there is nothing about coloured tickets in them.
§ LORD BARNBYI 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 MANSFIELDMy 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 BAYFORDMy 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 MERSEYMy 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 BURLEIGHMy 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 MUNSTERI 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 TEMAIRI 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 MUNSTERI did not say so.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIRI 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.
§ EARL STANHOPEBecause 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.
§ EARL STANHOPENo, 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 BARNBYI 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 STANHOPEWas that for the whole year or for the winter?
§ LORD BARNBYI 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 MUNSTERThe hurdles were put up to stop people riding on the tracks which had been worn badly by horses on other occasions.
§ LORD BARNBYThat 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 MUNSTERCan 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 BARNBYThere 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 RANKEILLOURMay 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 BAYFORDMay 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 STANHOPEMy 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 BARNBYMy 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 STRABOLGIThat was not the assurance at all. The assurance was that these Regulations were to be withdrawn and new Regulations made.
§ LORD BARNBYWhat 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 RANKEILLOURUnless this Motion is carried, will not the Regulations take effect automatically?
§ LORD BARNBYThat 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.