HC Deb 01 July 1908 vol 191 cc757-62
MR. MORRELL (Oxfordshire, Henley)

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in any legislation affecting the Upper Thames, in view of the fact that the Thames Conservancy are a nominated body and not directly representative of those who chiefly use the river, and of the importance of the public rights involved, the Government will consider the advisability of providing for the responsibility of the Board to some Department of the Government in all matters affecting the protection of any public right.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. CHURCHILL,) Dundee

The Bill which is now being considered by a Joint Committee of the two Houses will establish an authority, which I hope will include representatives of those who use the river. The new authority will have power under the Thames Conservancy Act, 1894, to make bye-laws subject to the approval of the Board of Trade for regulating the use and enjoyment of the river, and they will be empowered to apply to Parliament if they find that their powers for this purpose are insufficient. I am advised that it would not be practicable to deal directly with the question of public rights in the present Bill.

MR. MORRELL

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new body will still be a nominated body, and would there not be a strong case for making it responsible to a Government Department?

MR. CHURCHILL

The general character of the body is indicated in the Bill which is now being considered. As to whether any alteration should be made in the different proportions of which that body is composed, that is a matter which may well be held over for future consideration. The general character of the body may be regarded as defined in the Bill.

MR. MORRELL

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the south bank of the Thames, between Cleeve Lock and Streatley, there are notice boards stating that the Conservancy pay rent for the use of the bank as a towpath and that the public have no right to use the bank as a footpath except by permission; whether, before the erection of these notices, the inhabitants of Streatley and the public generally used this path to reach Cleeve Lock and the ferry at the Leather Bottel; whether he is aware that this is the only path by which the lock and the ferry can be reached from Streatley; what is the amount of rent paid by the Conservancy, and at what date they began to pay it; and whether the Government will take steps, in connection with any legislation affecting the Upper Thames, to protect the public in the use of the banks as footpaths wherever such use has occurred, and rights of way have been acquired by long user, in addition to rights of towing.

MR. CHURCHILL

I am informed by the Thames Conservancy that the notices referred to in the Question have been erected by the owner of the towpath on his own property. I have no information as to the former use by the public of the path or as to the access to the lock and ferry. I am informed that the yearly rent paid by the Conservancy is 2d. per rod for a distance of several hundred yards, and it has been paid ever since 1866, when the Conservators took over the control of the river above Staines. I am advised that questions of rights of way could not properly be dealt with by the Bill which is now under consideration.

MR. MORRELL

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the frequent disputes that have arisen in consequence of the attempt to restrict portions of the towpath along the Thames to those persons who are engaged in navigation of the river, and the difficulty of ascertaining when there is or is not an ancient right of way along the bank in addition to the right of towing; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to secure the right of any person to walk along the towpath, whether towing a boat or not.

MR. CHURCHILL

Questions as to rights of way do not come under the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade, and my attention has not been hitherto called to the disputes referred to. I understand that in many cases the tow-paths of the River Thames are private property, subject to a right of use by any persons for towing vessels. I will give careful consideration to any concrete proposals that may be submitted to me for attaining the object at which my hon. friend aims, but I am advised it is not practicable to deal with the matter in the Bill now before a Joint Committee.

MR. MORRELL

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of dealing with that in another Bill so as to secure some such control of the Upper Thames for the public as exists in the case of the lower Thames?

MR. CHURCHILL

This Bill creates an authority for the upper river.

MR. MORRELL

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the north bank of the Thames, at Mapledurham, a notice board has recently been erected prohibiting landing without permission and signed J. D. B.; whether, at the request of the gentleman who erected it, and who is himself a Conservator of the Thames, the Conservators have given orders to the lock-keeper at Mapledurham not to ferry people across to this point as had been done by the lock-keeper at a small charge for more than twenty years previously; and whether, in view of the fact that this has been always regarded as a public crossing between the parishes of Purley and Mapledurham, and that any foot-passengers between these parishes are now obliged to go round by Caversham, an extra distance of nearly six miles, he will cause a full inquiry to be made into the action of the Thames Conservancy in this matter.

MR. CHURCHILL

I am informed by the Thames Conservancy that the notice board referred to is not on land over which the Conservators have rights or control, and that the Conservators have not objected to the lock-keeper when not engaged on his duties conveying authorised persons over the river. The Board of Trade have no authority to decide whether there is or is not a public right of way, and I have, therefore, no power to cause an inquiry to be made as suggested.

MR. MORRELL

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain the meaning of the term "authorised persons"?

MR. CHURCHILL

Some doubt has occurred to my mind, and I have asked for information on the point.

MR. BYLES

Will the newly-created body have any power whatever with regard to public rights and private enclosures?

MR. CHURCHILL

That question of protecting public rights against private enclosures does not arise in the present Bill, which merely sets up the authority.

Sir CHARLES W. DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

Will the upper river body have the same powers as the Thames Conservancy?

MR. CHURCHILL

Yes, and the question is whether wider powers shall not be granted to the new body.

MR. MORRELL

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Thames Conservancy are frequently reluctant to give full information upon matters that come within their knowledge, and that when recently asked by a Member of this House to produce the correspondence that had passed between themselves and a parish council they replied by asking to what use the information would be put, he will take steps to see that Members of this House shall have proper access to all documents and correspondence in the possession of the Thames Conservancy relating to any matters of public interest.

MR. CHURCHILL

I have no knowledge of the alleged action of the Thames Conservancy, and I am not advised that the Board of Trade have any power to require them to produce documents and correspondence.

MR. MORRELL

Are not the Board of Trade represented on the Thames Conservancy?

MR. CHURCHILL

Yes, but I was speaking of the action of the Conservancy as a whole.

MR. MORRELL

Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his representative to allow me to see the correspondence?

MR. SPEAKER

Notice should be given of that Question.

MR. CHURCHILL

I shall be very I glad to give the hon. Member all the information I can.