Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill (Hansard, 25 November 1982)

§ The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)
MyLords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

§ Lord Beaumont of Whitley
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House unduly on this matter, but there is just one matter which, as I understand that this Bill is opposed and will go to committee, it might be as well should be mentioned in your Lordships' House on Second Reading and. therefore, taken aboard by the committee before it reports back to your Lordships' House.
The Severn-Trent Water Authority, in putting forward this Bill, which gives powers to the authority to construct engineering works along the River Soar in Leicestershire, has been most co-operative in discussing and helping to allay the fears of various national and local conservation organisations about the effects that this scheme might have. The potential for agricultural change, affecting approximately 6,700 acres of agricultural land following improved land drainage, is claimed by the authority as a positive benefit. But we know from other land drainage controversies elsewhere in the country—for instance, the Halvergate Marshes in Norfolk and the River Stort flood scheme in Hertfordshire and Essex—that the so-called agricultural benefits cannot be taken at face value if regionally and nationally important wildlife and landscape interests are to be affected.
Indeed, this is a very interesting Bill to come before your Lordships' House. I think that some time ago it would have been almost unheard of for your Lordships to be likely to pass a Bill which would probably destroy some of the best valley hunting land of the Quorn. But it is not about that that I am particularly raising this matter this afternoon. I am concerned with the landscape and the wildlife considerations.
The point at issue, very brieflly, is that the authority—no doubt perfectly properly—has continued to refuse to make available to conservation agencies and local authorities the cost-benefit analysis being used to support the scheme or, indeed, any economic justification. Indeed, in a letter of 27th September to the Leicestershire and Rutland Trust for Nature Conservation, the authority says: I regret that it is not possible to supply you with a copy of the cost-benefit analysis undertaken by the Authority as the information used therein is based on confidential information supplied by individual farmers, the disclosure of which would not only put the Authority in breach of confidence, but also seriously jeopardise the prospects of further cost-benefit investigations being undertaken in connection with other schemes". One understands that point of view, although I always regard the excuses given for not producing information of this kind with some scepticism. However, the committee which considers this Private Bill really must weigh up the pros and cons. It might 977 be hoped that information so far denied to conservation agencies could be made available to the committee by the authority. I hope that the committee may insist on that happening. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a worthwhile consideration to put before your Lordships' House and I hope that the committee will take this on board.

§ Baroness White
My Lords, briefly, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As some of your Lordships at least may be aware, the Severn-Trent Water Authority comes quite considerably into the Principality of Wales because of the Severn catchment area. Without detaining your Lordships, I should just like to say that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is important and is one that I am sure should be seriously taken into account by the committee which will be working on the Bill.

§ Lord Aberdare
My Lords, it is true that the Bill is opposed. There are two petitions, but they both relate to the same rather limited point regarding Coates' mill at Loughborough. However, I shall make certain that the general points that have been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, are drawn to the attention of the relevant Committee.