LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. (Hansard, 11 August 1893)

§ *MR. SNAPE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood)
said, he had put down certain Notices of Motion with reference to the Lords Amendments which, however, he would not move, as he did not wish to jeopardise the Bill; but he would like to take the opportunity of saying a few words. He was a Member of the Select Committee which considered this Bill, and the Committee came unanimously to the conclusion that a larger number of representatives than those approved in the Lords Amendments should have been 2 given to the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy Board. The Members of the Committee also came to the unanimous conclusion that there should be an addition to the representation upon the Lea Conservancy Board of two other members. He regretted that when such a decision had been arrived at, after many days of patient investigation, and been confirmed by that House, it should then have been altered by the other House. He could not understand on what grounds the reduction in the number of representatives was made; for the conviction was forced upon him that, instead of the number to which the Committee agreed being too many, it was inadequate. The number was only consented to by the Select Committee in the expectation that at some future date there would be a re-constitution of the Thames Conservancy Board, when a larger number of representatives would be given to the London County Council.

§ MR. BENN (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)
did not intend to persevere with the Motion which he had placed upon the Paper for the rejection of the Lords 3 Amendments. As representing an East End constituency, however, he felt hound to say that the decision of the Lords, with regard to the River Lea, was of a most disappointing and discouraging character. He would remind the House that the late President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) said— If there is one river which the London people are more concerned about with regard to its purity than any other it is the River Lea. The London Council have already got a representation of one; and looking to the fact that the Committee of the House of Commons has considered that that representation ought to be increased from one to two, I shall certainly support the clause. Again, the present Attorney General (Sir C. Russell) said— I do not know a more disgraceful history than the history of the River Lea, and I am satisfied that if the Council had had a share in the control of the river, and possessed representatives who were directly interested in maintaining the parity of the Lea, it would not have been reduced to the shocking position which it has occupied of late years in the lower parts of the river. He (Mr. Benn) must say that when the Bill left this House with a view to some sort of a compromise, he certainly expected the compromise would extend to the River Lea as well as the Thames Conservancy. The compromise with regard to the Thames Conservancy was disappointing enough, but he regarded the rejection of the Lea clause as a very great grievance. The Committee were unanimous in their decision that two representatives should be given to the River Lea. He thought, therefore, the question of the Lea should be considered an open one, and he hoped next year they should have an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.)
desired to say a few words not as representing the Government, but as, in some sense, representing both sides of the House, inasmuch as on the Debate that took place a fortnight or three weeks ago he had a good deal to do with, and was to a great extent responsible for, the compromise to which the hon. Member had just now referred. The House would recollect that the position of the matter was this: A Committee of the House decided—he thought very properly—that there should he four representatives 4 of the London County Council upon the Thames Conservancy. The House of Lords were of opinion that that alteration should not be made without- a preliminary inquiry into the whole question, and that the matter should be postponed for that purpose. The Lords sent the Bill back to this House with the clause struck out, and, of course, if that Amendment had been assented to the Loudon County Council would have had no representation whatever on the Thames Conservancy. A Debate arose in this House, and, as a result of that Debate, the representatives of the London County Council declared that they were quite willing that the great riparian counties should have representation on the Thames Conservancy Board as well as themselves, and the great riparian counties who had previously opposed the action of the London County Council said that they were quite willing that the London County Council should have representation if the also were allowed representation on the Board. In that state of affairs, when the Bill was last under discussion, he ventured to submit to the House that it was possible to meet both these views by means of a compromise. He did not disguise from the House that there was some technical difficulty in carrying out that plan. The House dissented from the Lords Amendments with the hope that some compromise might be arrived at. He need hardly say that as between two Houses of Parliament as well as between two Parties compromise meant concessions on both sides—one side could not have its way. When the authorities of the House of Lords, with whom he was brought in contact to discuss this question, met to go through the various points, there was no feeling of irritation because of the action this House had taken, nor any indisposition to meet the views of either the London County Council or the riparian counties. But they were met with difficulties of a technical character affecting the proceedings of the House; and he believed that, in accordance with the Rules and Orders, it would not have been practicable to have added more than seven members this year to the Thames Conservancy. The four principal riparian counties desired to have one representative each, and, that being so, he was responsible for 5 the suggestion that, in order to meet the view of the riparian counties, the Loudon County Council should be content for the present with three instead of four representatives. The House of Commons said give four members; the House of Lords said give none; the compromise was three, and three was the number agreed upon by those who represented the House of Lords—

§ SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dartford)
Is there not a statutable objection to increasing the number?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said that, if the House of Lords had pressed certain technical objections which no doubt existed, He was afraid this provision could not have been put in, but the House of Lords waived those technical objections in order to carry out the compromise. The whole thing was regarded as provisional, and was only for a period of throe years. A clause was inserted in this Bill making it compulsory on the Thames Conservancy Authority to come to Parliament next year, when the whole question of the rights of the London County Council and of the riparian counties would be considered, and then his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would have to say a word or two in the public interests. The Thames Conservancy Authorities, as die had said, were to come forward next year with a Bill, and if they omitted to do so the Loudon County Council were empowered to come forward and promote a Bill. As to the non-extension of the representation on the Conservancy Board of the Lea, the hon. Member would recollect this was not parallel with the Thames Conservancy. There was no representation of the London County Council on the Thames Conservancy; there was a representation of one member on the Lea Conservancy; and although he quite admitted there should be an increase, the House of Lords were of opinion that the question should not be altered until there had been an inquiry into the whole question of the Conservancy of the River Lea. There, again, he thought it was necessary such an inquiry should take place. He could only say, in conclusion, that he did the best he could. He was very sorry he had not given satisfaction to the hon. Member (Mr. Benn) and some other 6 hon. Members, who thought that a better arrangement ought to have been made with the House of Lords. As he had said, he did his best, and he could only regret the matter was not placed in somebody else's hands, who might have done better.

§ LORD G. HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)
said that, speaking on behalf of one of the counties interested in this matter, he was bound to say that he was satisfied with the way the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken the part which he promised to take on the last occasion this question was before the House. At that time there was no objection on the part of the County Councils outside Loudon to the London County Council having representation on the Thames Conservancy; but the objection was that this representation was to be given to the London County Council in such a way as might give the go-by to the just claims of other counties. He was doubtful then that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry out all they wished; but he thought the arrangement which he had made was a good and legitimate compromise; and, so far as the County of Middlesex were concerned, they felt indebted to the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped this compromise would get rid of any suspicion or irritation which might otherwise have existed between the London County Council and the other County Councils concerned, all of whom, he hoped, would now be able to work together in harmony.

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)
thought it was a pity the first two speeches should have been made, because in this compromise—effected largely by the present Government—the other House had done a great deal to make it much fairer than it otherwise would have been. The hon. Members made their speeches, and then had not the courage of their opinions to move the Resolution which they had placed on the Paper. The action of the House of Lords had been to make this a workable scheme, and it should be distinctly known that their efforts had been directed towards securing such an object so desirable in the interests of the public.

§ SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)
, as the Member in charge of the Bill, desired on behalf of the London 7 County Council to thank the President of the Local Government Board for his assistance in the matter. He hoped the representatives of the riparian counties would feel that the London County Council had done what it could to secure representation for them also. As regards the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley), he wished to observe that the Amendment disagreeing with the action of the Lords was not put down on behalf of the Loudon County Council. At the same time, no one could wonder that the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Benn) objected on behalf of his constituents, who were so much interested in the Lea. He hoped another year the matter might be re-considered; but, having regard to the technical difficulties, he was glad that his hon. Friend did not intend at present to press his objection, and he desired to acknowledge the conciliatory spirit in which they had been met by the other House.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)
, as one of the few Surrey Members in the House at that moment, desired to say that, so far as he could judge, this arrangement seemed fair to the riparian county, in the representation of which he had the honour of having a share.