Severn-Trent Water Authority Bill (Hansard, 8 November 1983)

§ The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships may recollect that this Bill, in the event, was unopposed because the petitions against it were withdrawn. But, in view of the fact that there was an Instruction in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, it was agreed that that Instruction should be heard by a Select Committee. The Select Committee, under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Murton of Lindisfarne, has reported. It reported that it is of opinion that Parts II and III of the Bill should be allowed, and the report is available in the Printed Paper Office. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord Beaumont of Whitley
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lords who sat on that Select Committee for the work that they put in. I should just like to add one piece of information to what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has told us and to ask a question, which I think is addressed to the Government Front Bench if there is a Minister on the Government Front Bench who feels that he can take this on board.
Noble Lords might care to know that the whole question of the cost benefit methodology which they examined, and which was discussed when the Committee was set up, is one which has been looked at again by the Government departments concerned, and my understanding is that a considerable change has come over the way in which this is looked at. Therefore, the work of the Committee, even though it has not come up with a positive recommendation to your Lordships' House, has not been without benefit.
Since we are dealing with this matter, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, a question. He need not feel it necessary to answer at this moment, but your Lordships' House may like to know the answer. During the passage of the Water Bill, the noble Lord often talked about the inter-departmental review that was going on at that time, and I wonder whether your Lordships can be told what progress has been made on that extremely important review. My information is that it is still on the Minister's desk for lack of priority to take it off, which gives one a horrifying feeling of what Ministers' desks must be like. I wonder whether the noble Lord would care to comment on that now or at a later moment.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, with regard to the comments on cost benefit methodology of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not think that this is a subject to go into at great length at this stage of the Bill and, if I may, I will reserve my position and write to the noble Lord. So far as the inter 696 departmental review is concerned, this again has not strictly anything to do with the Bill which your Lordships are discussing at the moment. I confirm that it is being studied by Ministers, but I refute utterly that there is any lack of priority in a decision being arrived at.