Lords' Reason. (Hansard, 7 August 1893)

§ VISCOUNT HAMPDEN
said, he would not offer any hostile criticism on the agreement which had been come to between the two Houses, for it seemed undeniable that the London County Council, on behalf of the London ratepayers, and the other County Councils named by his noble Friend, as representing their constituents, had an absolute claim to be represented on the Thames Conservancy Board. But he would remind the House that there were other interests concerned; and if it had been known that a compromise of this kind was going to be effected on the basis suggested, those other interests would certainly have made a claim to have proper representation on that Body. The London Water Companies paid a large sum—about £15,000 or £16,000 a year—to the Thames Conservancy Board, and were more interested than any other Bodies in the maintenance of the How and purity of the river. They had so far been well content with the administration of the Conservancy, and he did not for a moment allege that this change would in any way prejudice their interests; but, as the representative element was going to be introduced on the Board and the degree of representation was to be extended, he submitted that the Water Companies had a very strong claim to representation. So long as they were under statutory obligations to supply Loudon with water they had also a good claim to representation on the Lea Conservancy Board. As he understood that it was too late now to suggest any Amendment to the Bill, he would content himself by simply entering a caveat to the effect that the other Bodies referred to, including the London Water Companies, could not regard any settlement of the question as satisfactory or permanent which did not fully recognise their interests and admit their claim to a share of representation on the Boards.

THE EARL OF JERSEY
said, he was authorised by the Middlesex County Council to state that they approved of the arrangement which gave them one representative; but he desired to ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees whether even then, at the last moment, it was not possible to give representation on the Thames Conservancy Board to the Counties of Berks, Bucks, and Oxford? The basis on which the settlement had been arrived at was evidently riparian representation. He would point out that the Bill to be brought in by that Body next year, as stated by the Chairman of Committees, would be introduced by the members now chosen to form the Board, and it was only fair that in the drawing up of that Bill the riparian rights of those three counties should be recognised.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, he feared it would be impossible to comply with the suggestion to give representatives to the County Councils of Berks, Bucks, and Oxon, and pointed out that there was the difference between those three counties and the four counties referred to in the Amendment—that the direct interests of the counties mentioned by the noble Earl and two others slightly interested were confined to the upper reaches of the Thames between Staines and Cricklade, and that they were already represented on the Board by four members. He quite admitted that the constituencies from which those members were elected might not be wholly satisfactory; but there was that distinction. Still, he thought the question was one which might be fairly considered when the forthcoming Bill was before Parliament. All the Bodies which had been mentioned would, of course, have the opportunity of bringing their views before whatever tribunal might have to deal with the matter. He himself would have refused to move the Amendments he then submitted to their Lordships at the last stage of the Bill, unless he had clearly understood that the present arrangement was of a temporary character, and that the whole question relating to the Conservancy Board would be open before very long.