§ As amended, again further considered.
§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
10.15 pm§ Dr. Kim HowellsMay I continue what I started by reading out new clause 5. It is important that everyone knows exactly what it stands for. The language is somewhat technical, but perhaps by explaining it I may be able to make my point more clearly. New clause 5 states:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.That is central to the future of the project. I shall be interested to know what the defence for continuing the project could possibly be until the problems are solved. I give notice that there are many tips in south Wales which issue leachate into water courses and water tables which drain into the tributaries of the Taff and the Ely which will be affected by the barrage.The Institution of Civil Engineers defined leachate in a recent publication. I shall read it for the benefit of hon. Members. It states:
Leachate consists of water which must not be allowed to flow from the sites carrying with it, in solution or suspension, chemicals, metal contaminants and organic matter. Care is needed to ensure that this leachate is not discharged into watercourses but some, or all, may percolate through the ground to underground aquifers. The main problem is generally caused by the continuing decomposition of the suspended organic matter which absorbs oxygen in this process. This oxygen requirement, known as the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is one measure of the 'strength' of the leachate.If any leachate is discharged into a watercourse, it will absorb oxygen from the water to satisfy this demand and complete its decomposition, and unless the dilution is such that the watercourse can cope with this demand, the level of oxygen in the water can fall below that necessary to support fish and animal life and these will suffocate. In extreme circumstances, the levels can drop below that necessary to support plant life with disastrous results. A further problem which can occur is the production of ammonia which can also adversely affect fish and plant life.I have quoted that report on pollution and its containment because it is important that we understand just how serious it will be if proper measures are not taken to prevent leachate from tips—whether in the immediate environs of the barrage or further upstream—feeding into the tributaries of those rivers. This is not a whimsical objection, but one that is recognised throughout the scientific and engineering world as absolutely central to any project of this type, especially one in such close proximity to so many people.
§ Mr. RogersMy hon. Friend mentioned the substantial danger of the accumulation of salts and other mineral materials in enclosed waters.
As he said, it is not a whimsical proposition. In a natural situation, substantial salt marshes develop, for example, where there has been development of spits such as those in the mouth of the river Dyfi and the Mawddach estuary in Cardigan bay. Wherever there is a shifting of alluvial material at the entrance to estuaries, there will be 254 significant problems. My hon. Friend is right to point out the significant danger of completely enclosed areas such as estuaries.
I should like to make a point to which I am sure that my hon. Friend will return. If the barrage created one acre of extra land for industrial development, it could be argued that the barrage was a good thing. On the other hand, the barrage will do nothing for the industrial development of Cardiff.
§ Dr. HowellsThat is a good point. I have heard many detrimental remarks from the sponsors of the Bill about the grounds upon which the Bill is being opposed. I have heard it said—very stupidly—that a development such as this should not founder on concern for waders or other bird wildlife in the area. I would argue that unless the problem is solved, the impounding of water containing leachate presents an enormous health risk not just to the wildlife which may inhabit the lagoon but to the people living around it.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend is right that these are serious matters. In fairness, however, we are considering the amendments that he proposes. He referred specifically to leachate in the immediate area, although I know he also referred to other matters. I would point out to him that leachate removal is dealt with in clause 69(7)(a), which requires the Ferry road, Ferry road tip, Cowslip, Cogan and Penarth dock outfalls to be removed, relocated or diverted to the satisfaction of the river authority. I say that in recognition of the importance of the issue to which my hon. Friend refers and to emphasise that under the Bill it will be dealt with to the satisfaction of the authority.
§ Dr. HowellsI thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am sure that he means his remarks to be constructive. I would point out, however, that new clause 5 does not limit itself to the Ferry road tip, to which a later amendment refers. I propose to deal with that question because it is not dealt with properly in the Bill.
I will read new clause 5 to my hon. Friend. It says:
the undertakers shall produce"—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman has already read the new clause to the House, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) can read it for himself.
§ Dr. HowellsI fear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the sponsor of the Bill has not read or understood new clause 5, which refers to
sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay".In layman's language, that means the water that feeds into the lagoon. I have tried to show that it is not simply a question of water that may originate in Cardiff and the surrounding areas. We are talking about the rivers that are to be dammed, which are considerable bodies of water draining large areas which, because of our industrial heritage, include some of the most poisonous tips anywhere in Britain.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesI will give my hon. Friend a graphic example of the problem to which he refers. He and I represent neighbouring constituencies, and my hon. Friend's area, like mine, contains many mineworkings. In the past couple of months, the National Rivers Authority has been having great difficulty dealing with iron-rich 255 water in the Rhymney valley, which comes from the old Britannia colliery. Now that the colliery has closed and the pumping has stopped, the workings are flooded. The leachate is rich in iron and other salts and is polluting what had previously been a clean river. Exactly the same circumstances could arise with the Taff, in which case precisely the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred would arise.
§ Dr. HowellsI thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that if we chose, we could be here all night giving instances of colleries, iron works and so on that feed into rivers. I do not want to do that. There is no point, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will understand my point full well.
§ Mr. MichaelI appreciate the seriousness of the issues to which my hon. Friend is referring. I am merely trying to emphasise the fact that that seriousness is appreciated by everybody. Discussions have been held with the water and rivers authorities on the environmental management of the impoundment and neither authority considers that the proposals that are the subject of the new clauses need to be included in the Bill to protect their statutory function with regard to the environment.
It is not a question of disregarding the issues; the new clauses are not needed to ensure that the topics that my hon. Friend rightly highlights are dealt with. They can be considered seriously without any amendments to the Bill.
§ Dr. HowellsI tabled the new clauses and amendments precisely because I do not share my hon. Friend's faith in the development corporation. I am not so confident that its long-term objective is to do something about the pollution that flows into the Taff and Ely; nor do I see in the Bill any explanation of how the modifications will be paid for. I believe—this is at the heart of my argument —that we are putting the cart before the horse if we build a barrage before we have cleaned up the rivers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has said, it is generally appreciated —not just in this country but around the world—that leachate is a major problem. To be fair to the Government—I am not often fair to them—I think that they have taken that on board and a good deal of work has already been done to try to discover how leachate can best be contained. The imminence of the barrage, however, increases the urgency. Although long-term plans to improve the quality of the water in the rivers may well be afoot, I fear that the barrage will arrive before the improvements. I require more concrete assurances to the contrary.
As I said earlier, the EEC has shown great concern about the matter, as has the European Council. In 1988, in Hanover, the Council invited the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to intensify their efforts to prevent water pollution; the Environment Council, in its turn, invited the Commission to submit proposals for measures required at Community level for the treatment of municipal sewage. Most of the proposals address the environmentally detrimental effect of effluents that are not sufficiently treated.
Such effluents are frequently put into the Taff and the Ely and their tributaries simply because—through no fault of the development corporation—not enough has been invested in the sewage treatment works in the past. I am 256 sure that many hon. Members are well aware that at times of high rainfall, for example, raw sewage is released into most of the rivers that either flow or drain into the Taff and the Ely.
The assurances that we have received from Welsh Water plc are far from satisfactory. Derogations have been granted, which I have criticised in the past and will criticise again. I am not at all confident that the treatment works will be improved in time for the construction of the barrage. I fear that a good deal of contaminated water will flow into it.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesMy hon. Friend has not yet touched on the microbiological contamination of the valleys rivers—
§ Mr. DaviesI welcome my hon. Friend's support. I share a boundary with him as well, and we have discussed the specific problem that has arisen along the River Rhymney at Michaelston-y-Vedw, and, indeed, affects all the south Wales rivers.
The Welsh water authority, as it used to be, constructed an outfall giving directly on to the river to deal with the surcharge in the sewers at the times of heavy rainfall. At such times, much of the surface run-off goes into the foul sewer and surcharges it; the sewer then discharges directly into the river. In the case of the Taff and the Ely, microbiological contamination is a very good guide to water quality. At the moment, that contamination is flushed out to sea, but after the construction of the barrage it will go straight into the lagoon.
§ Dr. HowellsI am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me about that. I had not intended to refer to it; I thought the case was already strong enough. However, it is a good point.
I spoke recently to a friend of mine who is a practising pharmacist. He told me of his outrage when he discovered at a meeting of pharmacists that assistants in chemist shops, as well as the owners, flush out-of-date medicines down lavatories. Some of them are extremely toxic. They flow directly into the sewers. These toxic substances are also poured down common drains and flow into the rivers. That toxic concoction will eventually end up in the barrage.
§ Mr. RogersMy hon. Friend is dealing with an extremely important and serious issue that is not resolved by the provisions in the Bill. He referred to raw sewage being discharged into rivers. Many of the south Wales valleys have new trunk foul sewers, but I take no pride in saying that the trunk sewer in my constituency has not been renewed. I hear complaints from constituents at my surgeries about the discharge of raw sewage into the Rhondda Fach and the Rhondda Fawr, both of which discharge into the Taff. Only last week I had a leter from one of the borough engineers in which he said that approval had been given for capital expenditure in order to control the discharge of foul sewage into the Rhondda Fach between Ferndale and Mardy. That scheme, however, will not be realised for many years. It is only one of many instances of breaks in the trunk foul sewer system in the Rhondda valley because of its peculair geography and narrow confines.
§ Dr. HowellsI am sure that my hon. Friend's point applies to many locations within this water catchment area. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) faces exactly the same problems in his constituency as I do. I know, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) faces grave problems over sewage disposal in her constituency.
The detrimental effects of municipal waste water are self-evident in our rivers, particularly in the Taff and the Ely. At the most superficial level, the discharge of untreated municipal waste water can cause noxious conditions and thus reduce the amenity value of rivers, lakes, estuaries and coasts. That point needs to be emphasised because the raison d'étre for the barrage scheme is that it should be an amenity. Given the state of the water flowing into it, it will not be much of an amenity. Indeed, it will be a health risk more than anything else. However, we may be able to deal with that matter in more detail at a later stage.
In fresh water, the reduction of dissolved oxygen and the introduction of ammonia and suspended solids can seriously reduce ecological quality, thus affecting a wide range of flora and fauna, including fish. We have suffered particularly badly from that. I have seen a beautiful painting—one that I am sure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to have on your wall—depicting Cardiff as it was before it was redeveloped by the Marquis of Bute. Coracles were shown being carried out of the waters of the Taff, which was one of the most famous salmon rivers in Wales. I understand that there is a chance that salmon will return. There has been something of an improvement in the water. The salmon now get as far as Pontypridd before finally succumbing.
§ Dr. HowellsTo make it that far, they had to be tough.
If the lagoon is to be an amenity, the water will have to be cleaned. But it will not be an amenity—it is as simple as that.
§ Mr. MichaelI should like to draw attention to the quality of water currently in Bute East dock. That is exactly the same water as will be held in the general bay area. I can assure my hon. Friend that the people who walk around it, and those who boat on it, regard it as a considerable amenity. One sees dragon boats on it at the weekend. It is much appreciated.
§ Dr. HowellsThe point is well taken. However, I have to say that if my hon. Friend is prepared to take his children for walks around a polluted dock, that is up to him. I do not consider it to be much of an amenity.
The reduction of water quality can also affect water intended for abstraction and human consumption. In that context, one thinks of someone who happens to fall into an area of impounded water. People will inevitably fall into this one. Indeed, some may jump in—especially after the next election. Municipal waste water is discharged into the sea, making conditions unsuitable for bathing and for shell fish cultivation. But if the barrage is built, that will become an irrelevance, because the waters simply will not reach the sea in their present condition.
It is important that we take into account the fact that, despite the trends of the past decade, south Wales still contains many working factories, including chemical 258 plants. There are several very contentious chemical plants in my constituency. They are contentious because people have become much more environmentally aware. As a result of this awareness, the plants are subject to constant monitoring. That monitoring shows that the effluent from the factories is by no means satisfactory in all respects and at all times. It is very important that people should understand that the need for continued employment, balanced against the need to clean up the environment, will ensure that these factories remain in operation for a long time.
The current inadequacy of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—a subject that cannot be dealt with at length tonight—makes it obvious that improvements will not come over the next decade. I fear that discharges from waste water treatment plants are not always satisfactory because of the particularly noxious materials that are discharged by some factories and chemical plants. Certainly the water is not of a quality suitable for recycling.
It should be noted that over the past decade eutrophication has become a major problem in Community waters—certainly more so in our waters than anywhere else in the European Community. I am thinking especially of certain rivers and lakes. The proposal for a directive relating to municipal waste water treatment plants, together with the proposed directive concerning the protection of fresh coastal and marine waters against pollution caused by nitrates from diffuse sources, provides, inter alia, an opportunity for the European Community to take action to control the discharge of the two major nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorous—that are responsible for eutrophication. The barrage will not take advantage of that opportunity. On the contrary, its enormous cost will drain funds from projects that could control the discharge of such nutrients.
The EC directive lays down minimum requirements for the treatment of municipal waste and for the disposal of sludge, but because of the assimilative capacity of the waters into which treated waste waters are discharged it is proposed that the receiving waters should be classified into three types. It is important that we try to understand the quality of the water that will flow into the Taff and Ely, which will be dammed. It is proposed that, in general, a secondary or biological treatment will be required as a minimum. In more sensitive areas, additional treatment will be required to meet specific environmental needs such as the reduction of nutrients.
The Commission believes that, in principle, all municipal waste water discharged into marine waters should be heavily treated. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will agree wholeheartedly and endorse that proper and right aim. I do not intend to talk about the effect of the barrage on water tables, but we must consider whether it is possible to carry out these improvements and modifications before the barrage is built. I should be interested to hear my hon. Friend's response to that, because it is critical to the viability of the project and its public acceptability.
The EC directive seeks to control the discharge of industrial waste waters that are of a similar nature to municpal waste water and that do not enter municipal waste water treatment plants before discharge into the environment. It is important to understand that the Commission felt that it was inappropriate to require member states to introduce what might be costly measures 259 to control municipal waste waters while ignoring discharges of comparable waste waters from industrial sources, especially where those discharges occur near one another. That is particularly important in south Wales because of the close proximity of the sources.
§ Mr. RowlandsI am following my hon. Friend's argument with much interest. His remarks and observa-tions remind me that in my constituency, despite all the directives, planning powers and vigilance, a company suddenly dumped 6,000 barrels of toxic waste on the edge of a river. The National Rivers Authority and the Secretary of State for Wales—I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who upheld the decision of Rhymney Valley district council—rightly said that Euromet should not have dumped on the edge of the river bank. Despite those powers and vigilance, such disastrous problems still occur. It behoves us not to pass the Bill without checking and being vigilant. We are being far too careless with our environment in south Wales.
§ Dr. HowellsMy hon. Friend makes a good point. Such incidents have occurred many times in south Wales, and will continue to happen. We can never be infallible and such incidents will occur again and again.
My hon. Friend's point is relevant to the new clauses, because the Bill does not provide for an audit of possible contaminants, even those held at factory sites, in case such an incident occurs again. The problem is that there is insularity in the Bill which attempts to build almost a fortress around the Cardiff bay development. Although the promoters are pleased to tell us that the champagne will dribble out to our communities when the wealth starts coming in, they seem to ignore the fact that Cardiff has probably the most organic link of any city to its hinterland; Cardiff owes its development to the coal industry. Ecologically it is indivisible from its hinterland. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for making the point so well.
10.45 pm
There are many industrial sites within that drainage area. There are already high pollution levels in the waters of the Taff and the Ely. The EEC directive to which I have already referred lays down criteria for the identification of sensitive and less sensitive areas.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesMy hon. Friend rightly took an example from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who shares the representation of Rhymney valley with me. May I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to an incident which happened on the Rhymney river last year. It is a good example of the unforeseen things which can happen. There was a fire at the Klockner-Pentapac factory which manufactures cosmetics. The fire authority came along promptly, doused the factory with water and eventually gained control of the fire. Of course, in the process the firemen swept out all the tanks which stored cosmetics. In no circumstances could anybody have foreseen that. The consequence was a direct wash straight into the River Rhymney of all the cosmetics. Almost the whole of the river from Aberbargoed to below Machen was devastated. The fish life was destroyed. Is not that precisely the sort of eventuality which could occur? At the 260 moment the sea acts as a natural method of disposal of pollutants. If there was a barrage there, they would be held in the lagoon. No one could foresee such an occurrence.
§ Dr. HowellsThe point has been well made by my hon. Friend. I am sure that many other hon. Members could relate similar instances of large numbers of fish stock being killed as a result of chemicals escaping into rivers. That will always occur.
§ Dr. HowellsThat is exactly the point that I am coming to. The problem is that there is a distinct lack of trust in the policing powers of an organisation which is run by precisely the same person as is involved so deeply in the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
I know many people who work in the National Rivers Authority and I have discussed these matters with them on many occasions. They are fine people with tremendous records. They are concerned about and have made great strides in cleaning our rivers. I hope that the new clauses show the concern of myself and other hon. Members. The problem is that Cardiff Bay development corporation sees itself quite properly as a pioneering enterprise which will transform an area which has long needed transformation. But that organic link with the hinterland shows up the limitations of the scope of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. If we cannot have an organisation that sees Cardiff's hinterland as being part and parcel of that environmental, ecological and economic entity, it seems that the Welsh Office should take on that role. There should be proper audits of what chemicals are held along the banks. Proper safeguards should be written into such a major project so that Euromet does not happen again; and if there is a fire in a cosmetics factory such as that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) described, there are proper containment structures and systems to ensure that, if the barrage is built, the pollution will not go into the lagoon. The link demands an overview and, in doing so, shows up the Bill's limitations.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesThe Water Act 1989 contains substantial powers. The Secretary of State has many of the powers to which my hon. Friend refers, but the problem is that he will not use them. After all the incidents which occurred, and which we have discussed in tonight's brief debate, I pressed the Secretary of State to use the powers available to him under the Water Act. Unfortunately, he says every time that it is not appropriate to do so and that he does not wish to use the powers. The existence of the difficulties has been recognised. What is lacking is the political will to use the instruments that the House has put in place.
§ Dr. HowellsMy hon. Friend has put the argument very well.
I shall turn to the problem which I mentioned earlier and which is central to the new clauses—eutrophication. It is not easy to say that word at this time of night, but I have managed to say it so far about eight times. New clause 6 deals with that issue, and states:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate stripping of the waters of the rivers 261 entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.".The new clause has been drafted precisely in line with the EC directive which, in its criteria for the identification of sensitive and less sensitive areas, states:Lakes and streams reaching lakes reservoirs closed bays which are found to have a poor water exchange, whereby accumulation may take place. In these areas the removal of phosphorous should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication. Where discharges from large municipalities are made, the removal of nitrogen may also be considered.There was agreement among my hon. Friends on the issue of the bacteriological pollution of rivers. The directive also mentions other areas of water which are found to have a poor water exchange or which receive large quantities of nutrients. It states:The discharges from small municipalities are usually of minor importance in those areas, but for large municipalities"—I have already said that we are probably dealing with perhaps half a million people, a large municipality by any standards—the removal of phosphorous and nitrogen should be included unless it can be demonstrated that the removal will have no effect on the level of eutrophication.
§ Mr. MichaelParagraphs (a) and (b) of clause 69(13) cover that issue. My hon. Friend raises important matters, but the Bill already deals with them. They state that when works are required upsteam of the inland bay, the undertakers are required to pay the costs of any works required to meet water quality standards over a period of 20 years. That provision could include phosphate-stripping if the water quality standards required it. The point is that the responsible authorities do not consider that that is necessary at present. The matter, which is serious, has been covered.
§ Dr. HowellsI thank my hon. Friend for that reply and I take his point. I have read the Bill carefully and I know that that is included, but it does not say how to ensure that eutrophication does not occur. I remember that at one time there was talk of a magic barge, which was going to go back and forth across the lagoon and do something to it which would stop algae from growing on and under the surface of the water. I pointed out at that time that I wondered how it could clear other forms of pollution, such as abandoned house doors and kitchen sinks, which daily go past my front window down the River Taff. That was the magic barge, but I have not heard a great deal about it since.
A clear recognition should have been included in the Bill by those who drafted it that the problem of nitrogen and phosphates occurs further upstream and that it is too late—and rather stupid—to deal with the problem once it has been impounded within a barrage. The obvious thing to do is to clean up the rivers first and then talk about how the problem might be dealt with. Even after rivers have been cleaned there will still be natural pollution, as anyone who has studied the problems in the third world knows. For example, in completely remote and uninhabited areas methane becomes a problem in impounded waters. I would be interested to know why the Bill does not contain any detailed accounts of how that problem will be solved.
§ Mr. MichaelIf I may assist my hon. Friend, he referred again to algae growth. The management regime is there to control it. I referred to Bute East dock, and algae growth 262 as a result of nutrients in the water has not been a problem there, so we already have practical evidence. These matters have been discussed with the statutory authorities, which have powers to deal with the issue if necessary. My hon. Friend and I would obviously want to develop and strengthen powers over such environmental matters and I am sure that we would find ourselves in agreement on those matters in general legislation. They are covered, either in the Bill or in the powers of the statutory bodies.
§ Dr. HowellsIf they are covered, I cannot find them. I have to disagree with my hon. Friend about that matter. He draws comparisons with the still water of a dock. That is a fair comparison, because the water comes from a feeder from the River Taff. However, he will have observed, I am sure—as I observe every day that I am in my constituency—that there is an enormous difference between a river which rises and falls by 15 ft or 20 ft according to the amount of rainfall, and a feeder that goes off it into a dock in a tame and controlled way.
In 1989 there were serious problems of algae in—
§ Mr. MorganPerhaps it would assist the House if I mentioned that lorry loads of algal scum had to be removed from Bute East dock and the feeder in the summer of 1989, which was a longish and hottish summer, after about 1 August. Until then the algal growth had been providing rather a good feed for the mullet in the dock and, up to a point, algal growth is beneficial to the environment, as it provides foodstuff for that type of fish. However, after it starts to bloom it becomes an absolute menace and deprives the whole area of oxygen. Lorry loads of the material had to be removed at the insistence of the house dwellers on the new Tarmac housing development at Bute East dock.
§ Dr. HowellsI thank my hon. Friend for that information.
§ Mr. RogersI am listening to this discussion, which is vital to the people who live in the area. Does my hon. Friend accept that the argument used by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is very like saying, "Let's have coal pits or pollution everywhere. Don't worry—we'll put in some money to clear it up afterwards"? One should do things logically and resolve the problem of pollution first instead of having to spend huge sums clearing up the environment afterwards. If the barrage created another inch of land for industrial development, there might be some value in it, but it does nothing except create a water vista.
The other point that I shall seek to cover later is the problem of the interface of fresh groundwater, coming from the rivers or the aquifer areas to the north of Cardiff, and the saline intrusion from the sea. The increased salinity of the area will be a substantial problem. In many parts of the country, increased salinity has been the subject of substantial surveys and monitoring by many bodies. I make this criticism of the technical people involved—not only were they late producing their reports, but many of those reports are not well done or even properly finished.
§ Dr. HowellsI shall listen with interest to my hon. Friend's account of the shortcomings of that part of the Bill, and I agree with the point of his earlier intervention.
I am sure that the Bill's supporters will agree—we cannot disagree on this—that the barrage development is a major project, probably the largest single project ever 263 undertaken in Wales. As I have already said, I welcome the development of the bay of which we are discussing one particular aspect tonight.
§ Mr. FlynnAll south Wales Members have an interest in cleaning up the rivers, some of which have been dead for a century. Is my hon. Friend aware that when I asked the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water about their programme to clean the rivers to EEC standards, I was informed that there is no programme. The only rivers with a chance of being cleaned in the foreseeable future are those for which barrages are planned.
§ Dr. HowellsIf
§ Dr. HowellsI am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has made that important statement. If what he has said is the case, it is a disgrace. I represent a constituency that does not have an area to be barraged—unless we try to write off all the problems of some of our valleys by sticking dams across their mouths, which I understand was a proposition advanced in the 1930s. Like my hon. Friends, I shall seek some clarification to ensure that those of us whose constituencies may contain a river that does not stand a chance of being barraged at some stage can nevertheless expect it to be cleaned up.
§ Mr. FlynnMay I offer my hon. Friend some clarification? In the attempt to be brief, I perhaps misled him. My point is that the only schemes for cleaning up rivers are the barrage schemes. Apart from that, I have no hope of and see no programme for—although I am pressing for one for my constituency—cleaning up the rivers regardless of whether barrages are constructed. My hon. Friend seems to be blaming the promoters for the sins of omission of Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority.
§ Dr. HowellsI thank my hon. Friend again for his intervention. He completely misunderstood what I said, which was that one should not draw up such a Bill while the deplorable state of affairs means that the rivers flowing into the barrage will not be properly cleaned.
I have had no indication that early work will be undertaken on either the Taff or the Ely, or on their tributaries, to overcome the problem of raw sewage being pumped into those rivers. That information, therefore, comes as a surprise to me. If it is true, it is extraordinary that the only rivers that will be cleaned up are those which are to barraged because it means that we should all be pressing for barrages—in other words, for the sealing up of rivers which for millions of years have formed our environments and flowed into the seas with an exchange of water that is absolutely vital for our weather systems. We are being asked to agree to something that we find iniquitous simply because we might obtain a promise from the authorities that they might clean up their act on the disposal of sewage. It is an absolute disgrace.
§ Mr. RogersI agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) may be misleading the House inadvertently. I have substantially criticised Lord Crickhowell, who is wearing two hats in this matter. One 264 of them is that of chairman of the National Rivers Authority. In fairness to him, sums of money have been allocated, for example, to clean up the Rhondda rivers. That is nothing to do with the Cardiff barrage. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is preparing his arguments for the Usk barrage and laying the groundwork so that he can convince his constituents that they should support such a barrage proposal in order to have the River Usk cleaned up, but that is not a case for a barrage. The case needs to be far more substantial than that. The National Rivers Authority is providing some money for cleaning up rivers—it is certainly not enough, but it is being provided and it has nothing to do with the Cardiff bay barrage.
§ Dr. HowellsI thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps I may return to the point that I was making about 10 minutes ago.
§ Mr. FlynnI regret intervening so often on this, but as the subject has been raised, I should inform my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that there was a plan to clean up the Usk river by taking the sewage out of it. That was way back in the 1970s when Newport had its own water authority. The plan was ditched when the Newport water authority became part of Welsh Water. Subsequently, the charges for water increased by 2,500 per cent. within a decade and the scheme for cleaning up the river was never implemented. The campaign to implement the scheme has been going on for 20 years and it has nothing to do with the barrages.
We should like to clean up the rivers with or without the barrage, but in south Wales there is no programme or plan to clean up our rivers. Nevertheless, the issue is separate from the barrage. It is a coincidence that the rivers on which a barrage might well be built may be cleaned up. The point made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is artificial. He is off target. He ought to complain and campaign for the National Rivers Authority to clean up the rivers. As a by-product of the two planned barrages, the rivers may be cleaned up. That is a different proposition. They will probably be cleaned up before other rivers which are more in need of it.
§ Dr. HowellsIt is rare that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West but his case is an extraordinary inversion of a simple argument. One should not proceed with a major project such as this, which will suck in large amounts of public money, before first tackling the problem, which my hon. Friend has eloquently described, of the reluctance of what was a public body and a body which is central to cleaning up the rivers of Wales and everywhere else to get on with the job.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsIs not the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) rather like saying that the constituency of Pembroke has high unemployment which could be solved by putting a nuclear power station there? That would be to justify the nuclear power station by the high unemployment rather than to tackle the high unemployment head on. Is not that similar to the perverse argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West?
§ Dr. HowellsIt is perverse.
§ Dr. HowellsI shall not give way for the moment. I should like to get on.
§ Mr. Win Griffiths (Bridgend)The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is filibustering.
§ Dr. HowellsYes, he is doing a good job of filibustering. If may continue—
§ Dr. HowellsNo, I shall not give way.
§ Mr. FlynnOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. To respond to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), I have been chairman or vice-chairman of the Welsh anti-nuclear authority for the past 12 years. His suggestion is entirely absurd.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerThat has nothing whatever to do with the Chair.
§ Dr. HowellsThank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for injecting that note of reality back into the proceedings.
About 15 minutes ago I spoke about the size of the development in financial and physical terms. It is a large development which is addressed by the EEC directive in terms of the kind of information it requested from member states about such developments.
The directive asks member states to provide information on the costs of the programme, giving capital investments and operating costs for the collection, treatment and disposal of municipal waste water. It asks for the identification in sensitive areas as well as less sensitive areas, including short explanations and notes. It asks for a short overview of the actual loads of municipal waste water discharged to fresh water, estuaries, coastal waters and land, and where insufficient data exists estimates should be made using available information.
It is extraordinary that the Bill for the biggest development in Wales, and one which is about impounding water of the type defined precisely in the EEC directive, gives no notion of the cost of cleaning up that water. Never mind about sending the figures to the EEC, they are not even sent as far as Pontypridd. At least. I have not received them and I would like to know why. Why are the costs not contained in the Bill? Why is there no information on the systems that will be used for cleaning up the nitrates, the phosphates, and so on? Is some kind of panacea for all this to be presented suddenly when the last breeze block is put in place on the face of the dam? Will it all fall into place?
To return to the question of nuclear facilities raised by two of my hon. Friends, I am reminded of the false optimism that led people to press on with developments in the belief that somehow the technology to deal with any problems that might arise would suddenly appear from nowhere. It is the result of a faith in the inevitability that science will somehow come up with the answers to whatever iniquity is perpetrated upon the planet.
Anyone who takes a sensible view of this will ask how such problems are to be addressed. I have not got far tonight in listing those problems. I have a couple more to list, including the one that I mentioned earlier about leachates. There are no firm proposals or costings, nor even an idea of a programme, for the works needed upstream on the Taff and Ely rivers to improve permanently the quality of the waters and the treatment of the sewage effluent which currently finds its way into both 266 those rivers. There was talk at one time about the magic barge which would solve everything. I do not know what has happened to it. Perhaps, metaphorically, it has sunk —and good riddance to it, as I have rarely heard a more absurd suggestion.
Nor have I heard any suggestion about what will happen about something that is central to the Cardiff bay development. I refer to the fate of the Ferry road tip, a large landfill site which has long been a source of worry for many people, not only because of the leachates which may at the moment be finding their way into the mud flats which, if the Bill is enacted, will become the bottom of the lagoon. I have already listed some of the problems with leachates and some of the materials which may find their way into our water tables and bodies of water as a result of leachates. However, I understand that the future of the Ferry road tip is still far from clear. The Touche Ross consultancy report, commissioned by Cardiff city council last October in compliance with the Welsh Office request, recommends:
The future of the Ferry Road site be established as quickly as possible in discussion with Welsh Office and that Committee's previous decision regarding continued tipping be reaffirmed.There have been discussions in Cardiff city council about constructing some other form of waste disposal in conjunction with the Cardiff bay development corporation that will take some of the waste already in the landfill site. There has been talk about an anaerobic digestion plant. The very title is revolting, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that it is late, so I shall not upset your sleep by outlining what happens in anaerobic digestion.11.15 pm
All the relevant technology is still being pioneered, but there is much talk about how to get bacteria to eat the contents of the Ferry road tip. An anaerobic plant somewhere on the foreshore in Cardiff has been suggested, but little has been said about the possible costs. I note, however, that the Touche Ross report has said that the cost would be about £4.5 million. Who will pay? Will it be the city council or the Cardiff bay development corporation, or will the cost be met by a joint venture? Where will the plant be cited? The people of Grangetown and Butetown should be told.
What will happen to the present tip? Will it be moved? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is aware that a waste site at Pyle has been mentioned and he is right to be concerned about that.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsThe Stormy Down site has been mentioned, but when that proposal was discussed at the Ogwr borough council some councillors said that they would lie down on the road to prevent any lorry from getting anywhere near the site with waste from the Ferry road tip in Cardiff. There is total opposition to the disposal of that waste in the Ogwr borough.
§ Dr. HowellsI can understand that opposition. At the best of times landfill sites are not welcome. If one authority attempts to shift a landfill site into another constituency for cosmetic reasons, that is asking for trouble. My hon. Friend's intervention is another example of the difficulties caused by the way in which the Bill has been drawn up. No solutions have been proposed for the central problems. I am not opposed to development, but I am opposed to any development that does not take into account likely problems.
§ Mr. RogersThe short-sightedness of the corporation and the local authority was revealed when they held an exhibition in London when the Bill was first presented. At that time they had not even consulted adjacent local authorities. When they were criticised for that by people such as myself, consultation commenced.
My hon. Friend's background is the mining industry and he lives in the valleys. He will remember the traumatic experience to which the valleys of south Wales were subject to aid the developments in Newport at the Llanwern steel site. Our villages were hell holes because of the huge lorries that went through, but we suffered all that because we knew that our tips were being removed. We knew that the blots on the landscape were finally going. We suffered for a good cause—the new steel works at Llanwern.
We shall not have a similar experience with the removal of the Ferry road tip. When the huge lorries start travelling through the Vale of Glamorgan villages to reach Bridgend to dump the waste, there will be civil insurrection in south Wales. It just goes to show that the Bill has been badly conceived.
§ Dr. HowellsMy hon. Friend draws a good analogy. There is an enormous difference between the case of Llanwern, in which a village was blighted for many years to lay the foundations for an excellent new steelworks, and the fate envisaged for the Ferry road tip in Cardiff.
The Touche Ross report requested by Cardiff city council and drawn up on the recommendation of the Welsh Office says:
The intentions of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation have affected the waste management planning in Cardiff adversely. Accepting the political reality, the intentions of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation with respect to Ferry Road should be finalised. They feel however that CBDC has grossly underestimated the logistic, environmental, health and safety problems associated with exhuming 2 million cubic metres of waste.The Consultants have in fact, following informal discussions with the Welsh Office, intimated that the removal of the tip may not now proceed in full.I can well imagine that not many authorities would relish the prospect of moving 2 million cubic metres of waste —not to mention the feelings of those in the communities through which the waste will be driven. But if the waste is not moved, what will happen to it? If it stays where it is, who will pay for the defences that will have to be constructed to contain the leachate and prevent it from going into the lagoon following the building of a barrage across the river?
§ Mr. RogersMy hon. Friend is citing a substantial criticism of the development corporation by the local authority. During the passage of the Bill, a certain image has been projected—that everything is working perfectly and that the local authority wants the development to take place. Is my hon. Friend now saying that the local authority is criticising the corporation?
§ Dr. HowellsI am merely saying that page 7 of the Touche Ross report drawn up for Cardiff city council says:
The intentions of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation have affected the waste management planning in Cardiff adversely.That is clear enough and that assertion is certainly a blot on the venture's otherwise perfect public copybook.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsAre we not in a terrible fix with regard to the Ferry road tip? We dare not leave it there because there is no way of sealing it and there will be 268 leachate problems in the lagoon. On the other hand, we cannot move it because no other local authority will be willing to receive it.
§ Dr. HowellsMy hon. Friend makes a good point. Both bodies are clear about it. That is why a special report was drawn up by Touche Ross and it is presumably why the report has received no publicity until now. The problem is central to the future of the project but it is one about which we do not hear. The promoters have managed the news well. We hear only the good news and never the bad news —even if we often disagree about what constitutes good news and what constitutes bad.
§ Dr. MarekWill my hon. Friend consider asking the Minister his views on this important matter? No doubt the Welsh Office, having received the Bill some time ago, will have considered the matter, and Ministers may be able to set our minds at rest on it. The House would be interested if the Minister would intervene, however briefly, to clear up the matter.
§ Dr. HowellsI shall certainly invite the Minister to intervene, although knowing his reputation—about which I have written elsewhere—for riding out such storms I shall not be surprised if he does not. My hon. Friend has asked an important question; his remarks were certainly not flippant. We should like to know the thinking of the Welsh Office on that and on £500 million or £100 million of public money—the sum seems to vary from week to week.
The consultants also make the following recommenda-tions:The status of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation's intentions with respect to Ferry Road should be determined in the near future. Accepting the political realities, if Ferry Road is acquired by CBDC, it should be ensured that adequate compensation for replacement of an equivalent amount of operational waste management capacity is provided.In other words, the corporation must find another tip.Anyone who has been following recent events in Taff-Ely will know that the proposal for a landfill site at Penrhos is no easy matter. It is also an enormously expensive matter. It is no longer possible simply to find a hole in the ground and chuck stuff into it, as has been done so often in the past, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the problem even exists.
What are the chances that Cardiff city council will be able to operate a local authority waste-disposal company capable of dealing with the Ferry road tip leachate problem? I do not think that they are very good. I fear that environmental and ecological problems will be forced on us when the tip is removed. For, if it is not removed, I cannot see how the lagoon can possibly go ahead, unless huge modifications are made. Civil engineering works will be needed to ensure that the material in the existing site is contained, and considerable expenditure will be required if an alternative site is to be found. It will no longer be possible to use the Ferry road tip; it is no use damming a river to provide a beautiful stretch of water around which to construct wonderful flats and a marina if behind the flats seagulls are picking over botulism organisms on a rubbish tip.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsDid not the development corporation more or less admit the existence of a massive problem by considering the removal of the tip so seriously? If it were possible to seal it to prevent the leachate 269 problem, the corporation would not have thought of spending millions of pounds to remove it. The barrage can go ahead only if the tip is removed.
§ Dr. HowellsIndeed. That is the point that I have been trying to make.
I shall end my speech here—I know that everyone will be massively relieved—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.'']
§ Mr. FlynnWe have listened fascinated to my hon. Friend's account of all the pollutants that can enter the Taff, but it is difficult for us to judge the worth of his speech. When will he come to the point and tell us the amount of leachate, the amount of eutrophication and the number of organophosphates? Organophosphates, which are minute, have not been mentioned yet.
We know that there is pollution, but if we are to make a judgment we must know whether there is a minute or a massive amount. I have yet to hear any attempt to quantify it in what has, in terms of its length, been a very thorough speech.
§ Dr. HowellsI have hardly heard a more absurd point in my life. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do—he mentioned it earlier in connection with his constituency —why it is impossible to quantify the pollution. He has made a very cheap point.
As my hon. Friend knows, the funds simply are not available. This applies to my constituency as well as to his. I hope that he will tell his constituents when they find themselves living next to old landfill sites that we have no idea how much leachate is coming out of them, or how much methane is being generated. My hon. Friend is very unwise to make such criticism. If he is a scientist, as he says he is, he will know that any landfill site produces methane and leachate. The work has not been carried out because the money has not been made available. I am extremely surprised at my hon. Friend.
§ Dr. MarekI rather feared that I might not get into this debate either. The amount of leaching is central to the clause. If the Welsh Office and the Minister say nothing, I hope that the Bill's sponser, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who has, of course, looked at the matter in detail, will be able to help us. Perhaps he will tell us how much leaching there will be, whether it will be dangerous and what damage it will cause. How much will have to be spent to clean up, and what will be the recurrent costs? So far no one has been able to give precise answers to those questions.
§ Dr. HowellsMy hon. Friend makes his point well.
§ Mr. RogersMy hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made an absurd point. Surely it is the responsibility of the promoters to say that there will be no pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport. West should pay attention to the answer to his question. It is the responsibility of the undertakers to provide the information that he seeks. In fairness to the undertakers, I should say that they have carried out surveys in relation to coliform bacteria concentrations, potential demand, leaching and sewer outfalls. They are trying to identify the problem, but they have not come to any firm conclusion. Because of the problems and figures in some areas, the 270 undertakers have had to draw up theoretical projections. It is fairly significant that all their suggestions seem to be on the safe side.
§ Dr. HowellsMy hon. Friend answers the point very well. The Touche Ross report concludes that the Welsh Office must call an urgent meeting to establish the intentions of the Cardiff Bay development corporation about the future use of the Ferry road landfill site. That is crucial to enable Cardiff city council to decide whether a waste authority will be viable. What has the Minister to say about the matter? Will the Welsh Office demand a meeting with Cardiff city council and Cardiff Bay development corporation to hear exactly what will happen to the Ferry road tip?
Many hon. Members have spoken about the Ferry road tip. I have spoken at some length, and I began by saying that it is not the only tip that leaches into the rivers that eventually become the Taff and the Ely. There are many such tips. A survey in the past year shows that limited fines apply to the many tips that we already know about. The Bill's promoters should take that on board and should tell us exactly what they intend to do about it. Will the Cardiff Bay development corporation contribute to the cost of putting right those tips? Will it be subject to a levy to make sure that spillages, such as that which occurred in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, do not reach the rivers? That is a perfectly fair burden to place on the corporation because the scheme is about property development and property prices; it is not concerned with the environment. The Bill does not answer these questions, and it is a crying shame and to the detriment of south Wales.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesI am sure that the entire House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) on his speech. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He has presented a first-class analysis of the problems that will be created and illustrated vividly the difficulties faced by those who represent valley communities. My hon. Friend is a well-respected member of the Select Committee on the Environment, and I am sure that we shall all give full recognition to that fact when we come to weigh his contribution to the debate.
It is worth noting that the amendments are constructive. I hope that that will become clear as the debate unfolds. I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will recognise that the amendments will not defeat the Bill or reduce its effectiveness. All the amendments will strengthen the Bill and make it more acceptable to those who will be directly affected by it.
§ Mr. DaviesI shall, but first I wish briefly to make two points. Having done that, I shall be more than happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
Two features have characterised the debate. First—this is the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd concluded—we have not received any answers from the promoters. I accept, of course, that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked how leaching can be quantified and how the degree of pollution can be assessed, and what can be done to remedy it. He must understand that it is not the responsibility of my hon. Friends and I to produce a scientific analysis. As 271 my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) rightly said, that is the direct responsibility of the promoters. They must satisfy the House, and they have failed to do so in that respect.
The second feature that has characterised the debate has been the absence of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), for a great part of it. The hon. Gentleman has strolled back into the Chamber, I accept, but the Minister of State has been present throughout and has listened attentively. Many of the questions that have been raised can be answered only by the Under-Secretary. The solution of the problem of water pollution in the valleys—that is directly relevant to the new clause because it is the cause of the problem in the bay—rests directly with the Minister. There are powers available to him under the Water Act 1989, if he wants to use them, to take action to lay the necessary orders to prevent the recurrence of the pollution that has emanated from industrial concerns, for example, thus far.
The Minister has every reason to be present in the Chamber. He has even more reason to outline the position of the Welsh Office. It is not good enough for Ministers to sit on the Government Front Bench and do nothing while covertly using the machinery of government to ensure that when the Bill is debated Members come out from under stones or crawl out from the woodwork obediently to vote at the whim of the Government, without hearing one minute of our debates. If the Government are to take the responsibility of bringing Members into their Lobby, they have a responsibility to the House to set out their views on these important issues.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend has made the point extremely well. I was seeking to make the same point in my own way. As my hon. Friend said, the purpose of the amendments is not in any way destructive. Indeed, I believe that their acceptance would prove to be helpful to the Bill. When my hon. Friend said that they would not be destructive, the Under-Secretary of State guffawed in disbelief. He seems to be expressing disbelief even now.
§ Dr. MarekIf he is doing that, he owes it to the House, if he is a man of integrity, to explain why he thinks that the amendments are destructive or otiose. If they are unnecessary in any way and he explains why that is so, I shall not seek to delay the House one moment longer in its consideration of the new clause. The Minister will help the House if he intervenes, after my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) has completed his speech, to explain the Government's view.
§ Mr. DaviesI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for that helpful and constructive intervention.
It is particularly worth placing on the record the wording of new clause 6 about phosphate and nitrate stripping. It states:
'Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers 272 entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.'.No one could accuse new clause 6 of being a wrecking amendment. It is simply a deliberate attempt to safeguard water quality in the part of south Wales about which we are all so concerned.My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd recounted some telling and graphic examples of the problems facing the valleys in south Wales and the rivers that drain into the bay. Reference has already been made to the major occurences of pollution and there are some spectacular incidents. However, there is also regular, insidious pollution which drips and washes into the rivers on a daily basis. That is inevitable if we consider the geography, economy and social structure of the valley communities.
§ Mr. FlynnOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The news that British troops have been sent into northern Iraq is a matter of such importance that a statement should be made to the House. As it appears that we will be continuing our deliberations into the early hours, can it be arranged for the House to consider that important development?
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerObviously those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). At the moment, no request for a statement has been made to Mr. Speaker's office.
§ Mr. DaviesBecause of the geography of our valley communities there is a conjunction of relatively densely populated settlements with a mix of fairly new industry while at the same time we have the legacy of the 19th century with abandoned mine and coal workings. That mix in an area of high rainfall and steep valley sides will inevitably result in a high level of pollution in our rivers. In addition, we face the problem of the inadequacy of our storm and farm sewers.
Several hon. Members who have spoken tonight have direct experience of living beside rivers. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd made it clear that from where he lives he can see what is coming down the river. I have a similar experience. I live beside the River Rhymney and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West shares my concern about this. I do not want to embarrass you, Madam Deputy Speaker, by describing some of the stuff that comes down the river. However, not all of it is natural material; some of it is man made. Inevitably at times of high rainfall, the river rises and leaves its flood debris in trees on the river bank. When the river subsides., we can see the souvenirs of the night's heavy rain scattered along the river.
If and when the barrage is built, that which is carried down the river at times of high rainfall will be deposited in the bay. That will cause major problems. Our rivers are grossly polluted. They obviously contain high levels of nitrates and phosphates and a great deal of organic material from sewers or in the form of sheep that fall into the rivers, dogs that are killed and thrown in or horses that are washed down river. Those are by no means rare occurrences in our valley communities. All that matter will end up in the bay—[Interruption.] It is not unusual to see a horse's leg or head going down the river. Horses fall in or die and are thrown in. Unfortunately, such things 273 happen regularly. That, together with the microbiological contamination, will reach the lagoon and create a major problem.
In fairness to the promoters, I should point out that they have gone on record as saying that the water quality in the lagoon will be sub-standard. They maintain, however, that the problem can be dealt with. I have read carefully all the documents and the report of the Committee proceedings. I have also listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Moreover, I have read the reports that have been prepared by and on behalf of the promoters. I am not convinced that they have found a solution to the problem. They say that there will have to be regular patrols round the lagoon to pick up waste matter—the dead dogs and horses, and all the other rubbish.
11.45 pm
I do not mean to be unkind to the city of Cardiff, but I have to say that it is one of the dirtiest cities that I have ever visited. The streets of Cardiff are unclean. However, the suggestion is that after the lagoon is constructed an efficient cleaning system will miraculously appear that will pick up all the detritus. Rather than Cardiff city employees doing the scavenging, it is far more likely that rats and gulls will do it. [Interruption.] I am more than happy to give way to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) if he wishes to speak. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman has had a pleasant night out. I do not blame him for that; he is probably very well fed and he has probably had a drink or two. Now he seems to want to take part in the debate. Perhaps he has been sufficiently beguiled by the Government to come along and vote, even though he has not heard the debate. That is up to him. If, however, he wants to participate in it, he should not be provocative. Let me now put on record that the hon. Gentleman is leaving the Chamber with a gracious gesture, which will doubtless be recorded for posterity.
I hope to speak later about birds. My hon. Friends know that I am anxious to secure both a good environment for them and their protection. However, I do not want the gulls to proliferate. They will not be an amenity; they will drive away birds that are attracted to the lagoon and they will not improve living conditions in the vicinity.
The most telling condemnation of the proposal is that the promoters say that no contact sports will be allowed in the bay. We are told that the lagoon will be a powerful incentive to economic development and that it will make a magnificent contribution to Cardiff's environment. No contact with it, however, will be allowed. People will be unable to swim or fish in it, or to windsurf on it. The fear is that if they come into contact with the water it will become so grossly polluted that their health will be endangered.
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend has made an important point about the amenities of the lake and of the two fingers that point north out of it. I am not sure that he is right about the fishing. Fishermen tend to undo knots with their teeth, which would be dangerous, but fishing is not a dangerous practice. It is not a contact sport, unless one falls into the water.
There are differences of opinion between the city of Cardiff environmental health officer, who advises against the practice of dragon boat racing, and the county and, I 274 think, Tarmac plc, which owns the Bute East dock. Dragon boat racing is a form of Maori giant canoe racing, the vessels being not large enough to overturn. Unlike swimming, this is not a true contact sport, but it does involve splashing. Vigorous effort and passing can result in water coming into contact with lips. People making maximum physical effort tend to lick their lips, and even that is sufficient to result in a warning from the Cardiff city environmental health officer that people taking part in such sport in this location do so at serious health risk.
§ Mr. DaviesI am grateful for my hon. Friend's useful and interesting intervention.
The implications for fishing are unclear. I have in fron tof me a copy of a Sunday Times report on the algae pollution incident at Rutland Water last year. Although I want to return to that matter, I shall allow myself to be distracted for a moment from the main thrust of my argument in order to refer to this report, which deals with the studies that were carried out after the incident. Apparently, a sales engineer from Great Glen, Leicestershire, spent two weeks in bed because of symptoms that included nausea, headaches and aching and swollen limbs. Those symptoms developed after the man had come into contact with algae while fishing at the reservoir in August. I have no doubt that, if my worst fears are realised, problems will arise because of the practice of biting on shot—of course, fishermen cannot now use lead shot—and contamination in the course of eating, drinking and touching the face.
If the amendments are not accepted, we shall be faced with four particularly unacceptable phenomena in the bay. First, the lake itself will be unsightly, and, because of the high level of microbiological contamination and decom-posing organic material, unpleasant odours will come from it. Secondly, the decomposing organic matter and the high incidence of rats and gulls will constitute a direct health hazard. Rats, of course, carry leptospirosis, and gulls are invariably heavily contaminated with salmonella. Several hon. Members are laughing. Let them understand that this is a major problem. Thirdly, there will be the problem of midges. No doubt this, too, will be a subject of great amusement to some hon. Members, but the promoters of the Bill recognise that it will be a major difficulty.
Let me put on the record a report in the South Wales Echo, which is a regular and enthusiastic advocate of this Bill. It carries this story:
Swarms of midges could be a problem if the Cardiff Bay barrage goes ahead and a huge lake is formed, members of the House of Lords were told. For the first few years of the lake's existence the midges could coat washing on clothes lines and windows in the area near the lake, a scientist told a Select Committee. Some people could also develop allergies to the midges, even if they were dead, said Mr. Morlais Owen, the chief scientist of Welsh Water. He was giving evidence of water quality and other factors relating to the rivers Taff and Ely, which will be held back by the barrage. Mr. Owen said that the condition of the Taff had improved considerably during recent years, and Welsh Water were insisting on stringent conditions to safeguard the fish which had returned to the river.He supported the barrage and advocated the highest standards, but he recognised that there will be a considerable problem. There will be not a health hazard but an annoyance.We are being asked to authorise expenditure of more than £100 million to create the lake because it will be attractive to property developers. However, we are told 275 that for three months of the year people will not be able to go near it because of midges. It will not be a great attraction to anybody.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsGlobal warming could become a worse problem. Malarial mosquitos were found on the Isle of Sheppey for quite a long time after servicemen had disembarked there at the end of the second world war. It is conceivable that, with global warming and international air travel, this large lagoon could attract the malarial mosquito to south Wales—perhaps not in this decade but in decades to come.
§ Mr. DaviesThat is an appropriate intervention, but I do not want to be led too far into the future. My hon. Friend suggests that an atmospheric change in the bay could affect its insect life.
I was going to mention global warming in connection with blue-green algae. The rate of growth of algae, causing the problem of toxic poisoning, is directly controlled by, among other things, air temperature. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is right: if temperatures change by even a half a degree or a degree, we shall have no way of quantifying its impact on the growth of blue-green algae.
§ Mr. RowlandsMy hon. Friend referred to the evidence given by Mr. Morlais Owen, which was not expected to be hostile. In cross-examination, it was put to him:
With two rivers discharging into the lake with pollutants in them—probably low oxygen levels—probably full of phosphates, algae, extensive rubbish tips nearby, storm water flows as sewage heavy metal pollution, midges and problems with micro-biological quality … 'are you familiar with a case like that anywhere?' Answer, No. Obviously I would have to say I know of no other lake which has been created in such circumstances.
§ Mr. DaviesThat graphically shows what a leap in the dark we are being asked to take.
§ Mr. MorganA pig in a poke.
§ Mr. DaviesNo, the pig comes down the river with the horses.
I was tempted earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to refer to the dangers to fishermen. I referred to the problem that occurred in 1989. I refer briefly to an article in The Sunday Times which is relevant. It mentions a report by Anglia Water, which revealed that
water had been piped to customers in parts of Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire containing a substance suspected of being microsistine",which is a toxin. That toxin results from the decomposition of blue-green algae. Such water will be used in the lake, around which people will walk with their children or dogs or in which they will fish.Anglia Water's conclusion that there was nevertheless no threat to health was challenged this weekend by the scientists on whose research the report was based.
Professor Ian Falconer of the university of New England in Australia found that the doses of the toxin in highly concentrated forms promoted the growth of tumours in mice. He said, 'The general flavour of the Anglia report is playing the incident down.' Dozens of people complained of nausea, stomach ache, diarrhoea and skin rashes after the blue-green algae infested reservoirs at Grafham in Cambrigeshire and Rutland Water in Leicestershire in October and November.276 Those are precisely the blue-green algae which it is recognised by everybody, including the promoters, will contaminate the waters of the bay.12 midnight
The article continued:
Similarly dangerous levels of the algae have been found already this year in at least nine lakes and reservoirs in the midlands and southern England. The toxin in blue-green algae can sometimes cause liver damage in humans and kill birds, animals and fish. The National Rivers Authority, Britain's water pollution watchdog, yesterday warned that the algae posed a risk to anglers, water sports enthusiasts and other people using affected water for recreation.That was the official warning given by the National Rivers Authority to the public about the dangers of being adjacent to or coming into contact with water contaminated by blue-green algae—precisely the con-ditions which, on the promoters' own admission, will apply in the Cardiff bay lagoon. It makes one wonder what the logic is behind the proposal.The article continued:
Dozens of other stretches of water have also been found to contain smaller amounts of the algae which is fed by sewage, farm pollution and natural chemicals reacting with sunlight. Anglia argued that its report's conclusions were based on the advice of Government scientists and John Howell, a toxicologist at the water research centre, an independent company funded by the industry. He had decided that there was no risk to human health because research by Falconer had shown no effect on mice given 1,000 times the doses that might have ended up in drinking water. In fact, Falconer found that doses that concentrated had killed many of the experimental animals and the lowest dose he has ever used, still 200 times higher than in the drinking water, caused an increase in general illness in the mice.That was the incident which led to all the problems of illness and to the deaths of domestic and farm animals when they came into contact with water. They did not necessarily drink large amounts of water, but only came into contact with it. It was the incident which led to the angler to whom I referred earlier being struck down with various ailments.It is not as though the NRA is not aware of the problem. I refer briefly to another report, again in the South Wales Echo, last November:
Action to fight the growth of poisonous algae which infected eight lakes in South Wales this year has been announced by river watchdogs.The final sentence was:In their first report on blue-green algal blooms which are thought to have killed 20 sheep, 15 dogs and put two soldiers in hospital in Wales in 1989 the National Rivers Authority makes a series of recommendations.None of the recommendations is capable of being implemented in the circumstances of Cardiff bay. Even if they could be implemented, they would be an enormous continuing burden on the ratepayers of Cardiff and South Glamorgan. Provision is made by the promoters for the interim period, but what will happen then? Who will pick up the tab of ensuring that the lake in the middle of Cardiff, which will be useless, will be monitored, treated and controlled in such a way as not to make it fit for people to drink or fish in but merely to walk alongside and exercise their pets? It is a frightening prospect.An interesting specialist report from the National Rivers Authority, dealing with toxic blue-green algae, was published last September. It contains issues that are relevant to the new clauses.
§ Mr. RowlandsIn the evidence given about the need to monitor, the same witness, Mr. Owen, was asked: 277
the lake will have to rely, will it not, on extensive control measures for many years if not in perpetuity, to ensure that there is adequate quality of water and the environment".He answered:that is correct, yes".
§ Mr. DaviesThe more we consider the issue of water quality, the more we realise how wrong the Cardiff Bay development corporation has been in its assessment.
It is worth reflecting for a moment on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who is not here at present, raised. We are not talking about the construction of a barrage that will generate power, assist communica-tion across the bay, create a water reservoir or a body of water that will he of general use to the population for recreation, sporting or relaxed leisure purposes. We are told that the barrage is necessary to pond back the waters to enhance Cardiff's environment so that it will be attractive to property developers who will build high-tech industry or yuppie housing.
The promoters have made a monumental mistake. If they think that a reservoir—to disguise it for a moment —which will not he drinkable, and in which one will not be able to play or fish because it will be riddled with pollution, fly ridden, attractive to vermin, will give off odours, be covered in the summer by blue-green algae and contain deadly toxins, will attract people to invest in high-tech industries or build yuppie houses, it makes me wonder what sort of people they think will come. The industrialists whom I try to talk into coming to my constituency would not be attracted by that prospect.
I shall return to the report of the National Rivers Authority on toxic blue-green algae, published in September 1990. I want to develop that subject because, if the other matters are inconvenient, blue-green algae and the toxins that they produce are matters of life and death, and positive hazards to human health.
The report's introduction contains a brief summary, which is worth putting on record because I know that my hon. Friends will appreciate the definitions that it contains. It starts:
Blue-green algae are organisms with some properties characteristic of both bacteria and algae. They are capable of photosynthesis and the pigment required for this process often gives them a blue-green colour. Many species of blue-green algae have the ability to fix gaseous nitrogen and, under suitable physical and chemical conditions"—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) when he referred to global warming—particularly in still waters"—which is precisely what we shall have in the barrage—populations may grow to extremely high densities and, under certain circumstances, a scum if algae will form on the surface which can accumulate. These algae are also known to produce chemicals which can be toxic to mammals, including man.This will be the attractive lake that will be created by the expenditure of £150 million of public money.The report continues by referring to the problems of Rutland Water, and I do not want to develop that theme because I have already mentioned it. However, I shall briefly consider the factors that affect the incidence of blooms. You will be fascinated to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the blooms occur in the late summer when the temperature conditions are such that the algae break down, giving rise to the toxins. They grow
relatively slowly; but a long period of stable weather, giving a constant physical (hydraulic) environment, is therefore required for large populations to develop. Within this 278 constraint, the temperature and the nutrients available will determine the population size which may be achieved if good growth conditions persist. In most places in southern and eastern England"—this report was referring to England but for our purposes it applies equally to Wales as the conditions are exactly the same there—nutrient availability is more than adequate and grazing by zooplankton is usually minimal, thus blue-green algae normally become dominant in the algal community in mid to late summer.Those are precisely the conditions that would be created within the barrage as a result of the drainage factors that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that those problems had already been experienced.
§ Mr. MorganI have not spoken about that yet.
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said in an earlier intervention that those were precisely the problems that had given rise to numerous complaints by residents of Cardiff in the big dock development.
You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall now skip a few pages of this report to come to the matters that are directly relevant to new clause 5. It says:
About 25 species of blue-green algae have been implicated in poisoning incidents. Confirmation that algae can produce toxins is a difficult and lengthy process … The potential toxicity of a bloom or scum cannot be determined by its appearance odour, texture or any other simple feature.We are creating a time bomb, the toxicity of which cannot be determined by anyone without recourse to detailed physical or scientific examination. Blooms capable of producing toxins have been reported from all over the world, including many European countries, and up to 75 per cent. of all such algae tested have been found to produce toxins.The important and damning point is that:
The toxicity of a single bloom, however, may fluctuate rapidly both in time and in space.The conclusion that can be drawn from that is that, whatever the algae—we will not know which species it is —it may well be producing highly toxic material. No one will be able to tell because there will be no physical manifestation of the quality of the algae. It will not smell or look a particular colour and it may vary in terms of time and space.We are told that this development will be attractive to all the yuppies who are going to move into Cardiff bay —pull the other one.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend makes a very good case, but I wonder if there is perhaps a large sluice gate in the barrage which could be opened at low tide to let out everything into the Severn. That would get rid of the algae, the dead horses and all the sewage.
§ Mr. DaviesThat is a serious matter and my hon. Friend does the development corporation a disservice in mocking it because it recognises the problem and has studied ways to combat it. I know of two ways that it has considered, and I understand that one is still on the cards. The first was to allow an ingress of salt water. The belief was that, when the salt water mixed with the fresh water, the biological conditions would change, and that would kill the blooms.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsThe salt does one's throat good when one gargles.
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is absolutely right.
However, the flaw in that solution is that the salt water is heavier than the fresh water in the lagoon—
§ Mr. GriffithsAlgae do not gargle.
§ Mr. DaviesAs my hon. Friend says, algae do not gargle. Furthermore, as the necessary mixing of the waters would not occur, that idea was put to one side.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is desperately anxious to find a solution to the problem and may confirm that the current solution to the problem of algae growth is thought to be something like a giant jacuzzi, in the belief that if the oxygen content of the waters in the bay can be altered, that will create conditions in which the algae cannot survive. The current idea seems to be to have a giant oxygenating plant which would have to be turned on at regular intervals, and which could reinvigorate the whole lagoon. You can therefore understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why people will not be allowed to swim in it.
§ Mr. MorganPerhaps it would help the House to know that page 36 of the Bill refers to the necessity of removing algal scum. It is not my hon. Friends and I who have introduced this algae fixation; it is the promoters, who have signed an agreement with the National Rivers Authority involving a wide variety of procedures, including the oxygenating equipment that my hon. Friend has mentioned and a giant algae hoover plant which will suck blooms of algae out of—
§ Mr. Win GriffithsI thought that the hoover plant was in Merthyr.
§ Mr. MorganWell, it may involve an order for converting a hoover—I do not know. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has absented himself from the Chamber for that reason.
However, there is no mention of what will be done with the algae once it has been sucked out of the lake. It would fall under the definition of "sewage sludge" and there is nothing in the reference on page 36 to the removal of algal scum to tell us what will be done with that algal scum. Following the municipal waste water directive that has been mentioned, that scum cannot be dumped at sea or piped out to sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that we want more clarification on this point?
§ Mr. DaviesYes; and, more importantly, so does the National Rivers Authority.
You will be delighted to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that brings me almost to my concluding point—
§ Mr. Michaelrose—
§ Mr. DaviesI shall happily give way to my hon. Friend as I know that he does not want to end the debate too soon, but perhaps I can finish my sentence first.
The NRA recognises that there is a problem and has suggested ways in which blue-green algae can be controlled in the longer term. Before I develop that argument, which is directly relevant to the new clause, I happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on the assurance that he will not seek to move the closure if I sit down.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend can be satisfied that I am merely rising to try to help him. The point that I made earlier applies equally to his current argument about these serious and important matters. The maintenance of water quality standards at the disposal site is dealt with by the NRA which, under its statutory procedures, must satisfy itself that these matters are dealt with satisfactorily. Those requirements are included in the Bill, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West said. Interesting though these technical matters are, the Bill is satisfactory as it stands at the moment.
§ Mr. Davies. I understand that that is the promoters' response, but if we pass the Bill, we are allowing through legislation which has enormous environmental consequences that are worthy of more detailed debate, and which will allow expenditure of £150 million or £200 million of public money—or more—in pursuance of the idea that Cardiff can be regenerated by the lake. That is what this is about. We are now told that the main flaw in the technical arguments and the main problem of pollution will be dealt with at some unspecified time in the future and by some unspecified means.
§ Mr. DaviesExactly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) says, we are expected to take it on trust. I am not prepared to take it on trust. I might be satisfied on this point if the National Rivers Authority said that it would implement A, B and C, how much it would cost and that that would bring about a solution to the problem. If that was on offer, I would be prepared to withdraw the new clause, as I am sure all my hon. Friends would be. But that is not on offer, so I am not prepared to accept the proposal.
§ Mr. Rogersrose—
§ Mr. DaviesI give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I know that you will be impressed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I know that it is my hon. Friend from Burnley when I am not even looking at him. However, I know that he is there. I can sense his presence. I know that he has a valuable contribution to make to the debate and I shall happily give way to him. As I am sure that he recognises, this is essentially a matter involving us in Wales, so I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
§ Mr. RogersMy hon. Friend may be asking for the impossible when he says that he wants firm undertakings from the National Rivers Authority. The NRA may think of itself as god-like, but it is not a god. It cannot control the enormous problems that exist in estuarial areas. There is a mixing of water in such areas as a result of the interchange of sea water and fresh water, which vary substantially in their organic and inorganic content and relative salinity. There is almost a natural jacuzzi effect which gives rise to an enormous concentration of organic life at river mouths. That would be denied by the construction of a barrage. As a result of the accumulation of materials when it passes over and through the ground eventually to reach an estuary, fresh water probably has 10 times more organic material in it than sea water. That shows the continually compounding and evolving 281 problems that would occur behind an enclosed area. The hon. Members for Newport, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth may snigger at that, but, as my hon. Friends have said, the barrage could be a time bomb for the people living in the area.
§ Mr. DaviesThat is a telling point. However, I want to refer directly to new clauses 6 and 8 so I shall not be led down the path that my hon. Friend signals.
§ Mr. PikeMy hon. Friend will know that I was on the Environment Select Committee until six months ago and that I have always been a strong supporter of the National Rivers Authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the powers that the NRA had to deal with the specific points that have been made. I wonder whether he is aware that on more than one occasion the NRA has said that it does not have all the powers that it should have to carry out its functions and sometimes has to use persuasion. On other matters, it does not necessarily have all the resources that it needs to carry out the duties laid upon it by the Water Act 1989.
§ Mr. DaviesI have to confess that I did not know that. To use a term which I understand is now acceptable in the better political circles in this country, I am absolutely gobsmacked to hear that. No doubt that point will be developed.
§ Mr. MichaelWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. DaviesI am desperately trying to bring my speech to a conclusion, but I know that my hon. Friend wants to develop this point. As he is in charge of the Bill, of course I have to give way to him.
§ Mr. MichaelI understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) was not present when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd to say that there were matters on which we agreed that we should seek improvements in general legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd put his finger on one such matter, but it is not one for the Bill.
§ Mr. DaviesClearly, we are all united on that matter. I look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, together with myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd and for Burnley, will be members of a Standing Committee pushing through legislation introduced by a Labour Government. In the meantime, let me return to the NRA report of last year.
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that there are methods of dealing with blue-green algae in the longer term. The report says:
Blue-green algae in reservoirs and lakes may be controlled by direct and mostly non-selective algicidal techniques or by the artificial enhancement of natural selection through physical, chemical and biological methods. However, the use of algicidal techniques is not considered advisable because toxins may be released into the water during cell breakdown. Enhanced natural controls may be effective, but only under certain conditions."Enhanced natural controls" means some form of bio-engineering, which opens up the prospect of the Cardiff Bay development corporation setting up a system for genetically manipulating the blue-green algae, injecting them artifically into the lake and, by a process of natural 282 selection, bringing about a clearance of the blue-green algae. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is looking a little bemused at that suggestion. When the Cardiff Bay development corporation suggests that the manipulation of the genetic structure of the blue-green algae will be the solution to the problems of the bay, I will be satisfied that it has finally given up.
§ Mr. MorganFurther to my hon. Friend's gob being figuratively smacked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and mine in turn by the idea that, in order to provide the water quality that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Panarth (Mr. Michael) and I want, both of us having a riparian constituency interest in the lake, algae can be genetically engineered to self-destruct at the right moment, is that the algal equivalent of pigs flying?
§ Mr. DaviesI think that that is a rhetorical question.
Before you remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am dealing with new clause 6 which refers to phosphate and nitrate stripping. I am referring particularly to phospate stripping because the report goes on to say:
Reducing phosphorous availability would be effective but even total control of point sources is likely to leave diffuse sources which may be adequate for blue-green algal bloom production.As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said earlier, that means that although it may well be possible to pinpoint, and deal with, particularly concentrated areas of pollution—there is no suggestion that the Bill will deal with them—there would still be the regular routine leaching or seeping into water courses and into the bay of waters containing phosphates.
§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you have any information about reports that the French and the Americans have now accepted the Prime Minister's proposals to bring immediate help to the Kurds? If those reports are true—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)No, I have not heard anything about that at all.
§ Mr. NichollsWould it be possible, through the usual channels, for the Foreign Secretary to come along and give that information to the House because it would be the most welcome news?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerDoubtless that will be passed on.
§ Mr. DaviesThe report says:
The control of diffuse sources is much more difficult and would still leave the previously introduced phosphorous within lake and reservoir muds being available for several years.I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the immediate need for action, but even if that were to happen and phosphate pollution ceased now, residual phosphate pollution of the muds will continue for five years or more.12.30 am
The report states:
Permanent destratification methods are likely to depress the growth of blue-green algae in reservoirs indefinitely, but only if the mixed depth considerably exceeds the depth which sustains algal growth.That will not be feasible in terms of the barrage. The report continues: 283Intermittent destratification would be subject to similar conditions and whilst it could depress the growth of all major algae it is a technique untried on the full reservoir scale.So much for that.The report then goes on to detail research and development, and certainly that is the only way in which a solution will be found. It states:
Research and development in relation to blue-green algae blooms and their toxins fall into three broad areas: those relating to the formation and control of blue-green algal blooms, research specifically related to the toxins that they produce and research into the effect of the toxins. A number of possible methods for controlling algal populations have been suggested in the report, all of which require improvements or basic research before they could be described as being effective.That is the essence of the problem. The NRA, after studying the most recent research, has concluded emphatically that more research needs to be done before an effective solution to the problem is found.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsI have listened with interest to the discussion about the way in which the problem must be tackled. The need for more research has been outlined in the NRA report. Does the NRA venture to suggest a time scale in which the problem might be dealt with? If the barrage went ahead before a solution to the problem of the algae had been found, how many years would people have to suffer the possibility of toxin poisoning and goodness knows what else?
§ Mr. DaviesNo time scale was offered in the NRA report, but it discussed not only improving existing techniques for control but basic research. We are talking not about a scheme that already exists but needs fine-tuning, but about basic research.
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend is right that we are still talking about research rather than any practical prospect of being able to choke the sources of nutrients through sewage that can lead to highly eutrophic water and the right conditions for blooms. If there was any evidence in the Bill or in protective clauses signed by Welsh Water and the NRA that they had a solution to excess nutrients arising from sewage flowing into the waters of the bay, that would be fine; we could do without some of the airy-fairy ideas about genetically engineered algae. However, no whit of an approach has been made to solve the problem of storm sewer overflows that bring additional sewage into the rivers that feed into the lake.
Phosphate and nitrate stripping is specifically covered by another of our new clauses because the two Cilfynydd sewerage works that drain the Cynon valley and the upper Taff—Aberdare, Merthyr and so on—will continue to provide treated sewage in the future. It does not contain any solids and it is suitably clean for a flowing river, but that treated sewage will come down the river. We know that, in the summer, half the flow in the river Ely and one third of that in the river Taff is treated sewage. That is what gives the rivers the peculiarly pungent smell that one experiences in July and August when walking along their banks. No solution to the problem has so far been provided.
§ Mr. DaviesIt is clear from my hon. Friend's intervention that we all agree that the problem has three dimensions—or, at least, three areas that require action. First, there is the problem of the existing sewer outfalls and the need to ensure that the controlled effluent is properly treated. Secondly, we need to recognise that, even if we 284 achieved that now, there would still be a problem in the lagoon and a need to find some way of treating not only the blue-green algae but the toxins. I fear that the third matter—the leaching into the river of pollutants from the domestic areas of our valleys—has not received adequate attention. I refer, for example, to leaching from Berw road in Pontypridd and from the settlements right across the Taff and Ely river valleys. There is an enormous amount of casual spillage and pollution of all sorts goes into the rivers. Even if we tackle the problem of the existing sewer outfalls, that problem will remain. Action is needed on all three fronts.
The section of the report dealing with research and development concludes:
Little is known about the environmental behaviour and fate of the toxins produced by blue-green algae.In other words, even if we could deal with the problem of blue-green algae, we would still know little about the toxins themselves. The report says:Better analytical techniques, toxicity testing methods and reference collection material are needed, as is research to determine the mechanism used by the algae for, and the effect of environmental controls on, toxin production.In its latest updated report, the National Rivers Authority, which has specific responsibility for the problem, concludes that not enough is known about the toxins produced by the algae. What we do know, however, is that if one comes into casual contact with them, one is likely to suffer sickness and diarrhoea and all the other ailments that we have described and that if one's dog or stock go near the water, they will die. We may not know the precise mechanisms involved but we certainly know that the toxins can create the most difficult problems.The debate that we have just had—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am not suggesting for one moment that we are concluding the debate. The debate thus far has shown—
§ Mr. DaviesMy hon. Friend is encouraging us to say more, but I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to make brief speeches of their own and that is why I am anxious to bring my brief contribution to a close.
It is clear that there is enormous doubt about the wisdom of building the barrage purely on the grounds of the quality of the water that will be impounded in the lagoon. We have made it clear beyond any doubt that people will not be able to swim or fish in it. They will not be able to touch it or surf on it. It is doubtful whether the dragon races will be able to be held. For much of the year, rather than being an attraction or a benefit to the city of Cardiff, the lagoon will be a disbenefit. If anything is guaranteed to convince us that the Bill deserves to fail, it is the certain knowledge that if it proceeds we shall be creating a monster that will be very difficult to control.
§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)I rise to speak succinctly and in an impassioned fashion. I say that because I am sure that, at this time in the morning, the House is more likely to be moved by the crisp logic of Russell, Wittgenstein and Professor Ayer than by the beautiful language of the romantic poets which I normally use.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who moved the Second Reading of the new clause, spoke lucidly, quietly and in devastating and impressive fashion. At one stage he paused and invited the 285 Minister to intervene: he wanted to know whether the Minister, given his specialist knowledge and advice, was prepared to say how much or how little pollution would end up in the lagoon that would be protected by the barrage. The Minister—who, for the purposes of the Bill, is clearly trying to turn silence into an art form—said nothing. I am not sure whether he has been struck dumb, or whether he has been converted to the old German proverb "Schweigen ist geld." I have always believed less that silence is golden than that, all too often, it is a mask for ignorance: certainly that is what Welsh people believe about the Minister, from Cardiff to Tenby and from Haverfordwest to Meinclochog.
At another point, one of the Bill's supporters asked my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd whether he could quantify the pollution that would end up in the lagoon. That is taking things a bit too far; with respect to my hon. Friend, it is a bit cheeky. He is relatively new to the House and may not know much about our procedures, but I am sure that he knows—no doubt he had his tongue in his cheek—that when hon. Members sponsor and speak in support of a Bill with such enormous implications, the burden of proof must be placed on them. It is their responsibility to reveal the damage, or the limits of the damage, that the Bill will cause. It is rather sad that, in this instance, the sponsors have not done their homework and given us that information.
I fear that, if we pass the Bill without the new clause and those grouped with it, rather than champagne dribbling into the valleys because of its economic advantages, poison will dribble into the sea and will then be washed back towards the valleys. I fear that environmental damage will prevent the natural toxic disintegration of nitrates and phosphates that might occur if the barrage were not built.
The sponsors say that the Secretary of State and the National Rivers Authority have all the powers that they need to get rid of the pollution. I must ask them not to allow their enthusiasm to be overrun by their naivety. They must know that, when there are conflicts between commerce and the environment, insidious, unspoken forces often prevent both the NRA and the Secretary of State from doing what they should do—and that is assuming, which I do not, that in this case they have the powers to make effective what they want to do.
Some 20 years ago I worked in what was then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, where I dealt with planning appeals. Sometimes I passed them on to the Minister, but sometimes I was the last port of call and the writ of Sedgemore would run: I would make the decision. When I see a new clause like this—I do not want to discuss private Bill procedure; we are using it in any event—I ask myself what I would have done had I been faced with a planning application and one of the objectors had come up with this proposal and wanted to attach it to the application as a condition. I would have said to those who were appealing, "There is no chance on earth that I will grant your application unless the new clauses are included." The sooner that the sponsors say that they are prepared to accept them, the sooner we can move on.
Mr. Alan WilliamsI wish to make two comments about the proposed new clauses. I congratulate hon. Members on their lengthy, detailed and expert contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke about all the new clauses in the group and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) 286 concentrated on the one in which he is especially interested, which is new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping.
12.45 am
My first detailed knowledge of the Cardiff barrage came from a film about the proposal made in 1988 or 1989 by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The two main arguments advanced in that film dealt with the proposal's effect on wildlife, the wading birds, and the danger of eutrophication in the new bay from nitrates and phosphates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd estimated that about 500,000 people live in the Taff and Ely valleys, the valleys of the rivers that feed the Ely and the Rhondda valley. It is the most densely populated area in Wales and, apart from London, one of the most densely populated areas in Great Britain. It is a fact of life that all those people produce sewage which, even when it is properly treated, leaves nitrates and phosphates, and those chemicals are found in the Taff and the Ely. Nitrates and phosphates would be trapped behind the proposed barrage, creating an ideal environment for eutrophication.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) asked for figures and was told that it is up to the Bill's sponsors to produce them. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd spoke about 3 million cu m of rubbish in the Ferry road tip. [Interruption.] I have seen quoted a figure of 3 million tonnes of phosphates. About 1,000 tonnes of phosphates from sewage come down the Taff and Ely every year. There is another 1,000 tonnes from the use of fertilisers and about 500 tonnes from detergents. There is a danger that the bay will have a eutrophied environment, certainly in the summer.
Nitrates and phosphates are fertilisers and, in warm weather, they cause plants to multiply. There is no nitrate or phosphate in the open ocean and there is therefore little plant life there because it has to depend on the availability of other nutrients. In an ideal environment there is always a danger of eutrophication. New clause 6 asks the undertakers to publish a plan showing how they will carry out phosphate and nitrate stripping should that prove necessary. Perhaps in the first three to five years there will be no serious problem, but it is probable rather than possible that in future there will be a serious problem of phosphates and nitrates. What will the undertakers do to remove those chemicals? Their removal calls for expensive technologies, the cost of which I shall deal with later.
It has been known for 10 or 20 years, for example, that eutrophication is a serious problem in the Norfolk Broads. The Observer reported last year that the Nature Conservancy Council has found that the Broads had lost their rare plant life because of pollution and that they contained little more than algae and bacteria. When there is an algal bloom, the dead algae use up a great deal of oxygen. That means that the oxygen concentration goes through peaks and troughs in a 24-hour cycle. During the middle of the day there may be plenty of oxygen, but in the middle of the night the dead algae will consume a lot of oxygen. That has a knock-on effect on all animal life and fish in the water. Serious problems that are the result of high phosphate concentrations in Lake Erie have been well documented for the past 20 or 30 years.
It has been suggested on several occasions during the debate that there are solutions to the algae part of the giant hoover effect, as described by my hon. Friend the Member 287 for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). It has been said that there may be a technological fix to the problem, but in so many technologies we are a bit too clever by half. For example, the River Colorado is an environmental disaster in many ways. An episode of "Horizon" about 10 or 15 years ago was entitled, "Where did the Colorado go?" I am sure that the House knows that the River Colorado no longer reaches the sea; it ends in a desert in Mexico. That is because along its length there over 100 reservoirs, the waters of which are used by farmers for irrigation. There is massive evaporation. The spreading of water over large areas of land greatly accelerates natural evaporation, and as the river flows from America into Mexico there is much less water than that which nature intended. It does not reach the—
§ Mr. Michaelrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 15.
288| Division No. 116] | [12.52 am |
| AYES | |
| Amess, David | Jack, Michael |
| Arbuthnot, James | Jackson, Robert |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Jessel, Toby |
| Arnold, Sir Thomas | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Bevan, David Gilroy | Knapman, Roger |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Boswell, Tim | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Bowis, John | Lightbown, David |
| Boyes, Roland | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Brazier, Julian | Mans, Keith |
| Bright, Graham | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Burt, Alistair | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Moss, Malcolm |
| Carrington, Matthew | Murphy, Paul |
| Cash, William | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Chapman, Sydney | Norris, Steve |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath) |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Rowe, Andrew |
| Dixon, Don | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) |
| Fearn, Ronald | Stern, Michael |
| Flynn, Paul | Stevens, Lewis |
| Foster, Derek | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Gale, Roger | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Glyn, Dr Sir Alan | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Thorne, Neil |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Thurnham, Peter |
| Grist, Ian | Tredinnick, David |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Trippier, David |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Harris, David | Wallace, James |
| Hawkins, Christopher | Watts, John |
| Hayes, Jerry | Wheeler, Sir John |
| Hind, Kenneth | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Home Robertson, John | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Howard, Rt Hon Michael | Wood, Timothy |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | |
| Howells, Geraint | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Mr. Alun Michael and |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David | Mr. Gwilym Jones. |
| Irvine, Michael |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Cryer, Bob | Rogers, Allan |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Salmond, Alex |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | |
| Marek, Dr John | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Dr. Kim Howells and |
| Morley, Elliot | Mr. Ted Rowlands. |
| Nellist, Dave |
§ Whereupon MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 ( Majority for Closure).
§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. RogersOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government have lost this vote very heavily—and I use the words "the Government" advisedly. At the beginning of the debate we heard a point of order concerning the Rt. Hon. David Hunt, the Secretary of State for Wales.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Right hon. and hon. Members are not referred to by name; they are referred to by constituency.
§ Mr. RogersThe Secretary of State for Wales wrote to all his Government colleagues, saying:
Because of the conventions on private Bills"—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I was in the House when this matter was raised some hours ago. I doubt very much whether I can add to what was said by the Chair on that occasion.
§ Mr. CryerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have received from any member of the Government a request for permission to make a statement to explain the mess. It appears that the Government have collapsed in chaos. As you, Sir, have said, the question of the letter from the Secretary of State for Wales was raised earlier today. In effect, that letter imposed a semi-official Whip. The Government cannot sustain a closure motion, and are clearly in disarray.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI have received no such request.
§ Mr. MorganOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that we find ourselves in an unprecedented situation. At least half the payroll vote is unavailable, despite—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We are not in an unprecedented situation at all. We have had a Division, the result of the Division has been announced, and we shall now resume the debate.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is just conceivable that, earlier this evening, you saw the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) explain on television that the Government are in a state of collapse. The right hon. Gentleman has been on the box about three times, pointing out that there are saboteurs in the Tory party. He has taken the rebels home, and has left the Government without the necessary 100 supporters. He has turned them into a rabble.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThat has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsEarlier I was speaking in support of new clause 6 and phosphate and nitrate stripping. Eutrophication may occur a few years after construction of the barrage. If so, the waters that feed it will have to be stripped of nitrates and phosphates.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) spoke impressively about toxic algae, with which we have had considerable problems in the past two years. There was an incident two years ago at Rutland water, where dogs and sheep died simply from drinking the water. Last year, there were appalling problems along the north-east coast.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for intervening, but some of us have been in the Chamber for—
§ Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)Too long.
§ Mr. DaviesThat illustrates the point that I want to make. Some hon. Members have been present since the start of this business. The Bill is of much concern to our constituents. We wish to debate it and listen to other points of view. Will you look at the rabble on the Conservative Benches? They are engaged in a deliberate campaign against my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) of barracking or trying to disrupt his speech. [Interruption.] They are at it again. Will you ensure the same order and good manners that we had before that crowd came into the Chamber.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am sure that hon. Members heard what the hon. Gentleman said and will respond to it.
§ Mr. SkinnerFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As people are coming in here half-sozzled, would not it be a good idea for you to order the bars to be closed?
§ Mr. MorganFurther to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I have the distinct impression that this debate is becoming impossible because of the noise that is emanating from the Conservative Benches—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. It seems that the noise is coming equally from both sides of the House, and it is unacceptable from either side. I very much hope that the normal courtesies that are extended to any hon. Member will be observed.
Mr. WilliamsI am finding it quite difficult to continue with so many interruptions. The vote was one thing, but the continual chatter makes it difficult to discuss expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds of public money.
§ Dr. MarekThe vote showed that the House believes that this important Bill should not be hurried and that the new clauses are important. I am not sure that I shall be able to contribute to the debate before the second closure, so will my hon. Friend appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to give us the view of the Welsh Office? The Under-Secretary is shaking his head.
§ Mr. MorleyDisgraceful.
§ Dr. MarekIt is disgraceful. We have heard of the letter saying that the Welsh Office is behind the Bill. It has instructed all its Ministers to be here, yet those Ministers are not prepared to stand up and say even one sentence 290 about whether the clause is right or wrong. Does not my hon. Friend think that that is disgraceful? Will he appeal to the Minister to speak?
Mr. WilliamsI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his worthy contribution. If the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), the junior Minister, wishes to intervene, I will be willing to give way at any time. We need the view of the Welsh Office and of the Government on the Bill. Since 7 o'clock 90 per cent. of what has been said has been critical of the Bill. We have had two powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). I am pleased that as a result of the Division we have been given more time to elaborate the arguments about pollution.
In relation to the problems of phosphates and nitrates that will be trapped, I said a few moments ago that the toxic algae problem appeared in 1989. Last year we had severe problems along the north-east coast from algal blooms. Indeed, the sale of shellfish had to be stopped for several weeks. The livelihood of 3,000 fishermen who collect mussels, prawns, crab and so on was jeopardised when toxins in shellfish were found to be up to 50 times the permitted concentrations.
Inland waters were also affected by algal blooms last year; 501 reservoirs and inland lakes were affected, including one in my constituency, by problems caused by nitrates and phosphates. What if similar problems emerge in the Cardiff bay barrage? What will be done about nitrate and phosphate stripping? Is the technology available? Will money be available?
In new clause 6 we call on the undertakers to publish a plan for phosphate and nitrate stripping of the waters entering the inland bay if that becomes necessary, and to demonstrate to us that that can be done. We want the undertakers to tell us whether it is technically possible and to explain how it will be done.
It is difficult to remove nitrates and phosphates from water. Water can be denitrified by the use of bacteria, but that cannot be done on a large scale. Ion exchange methods can be used to replace the nitrates by chlorides. Precipitation methods using ferric sulphate can deal with phosphates, but it is very expensive. I have a quote which shows how expensive it is. It was from the former Secretary of State for the Environment—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. There is still an excess of sedentary conversation.
Mr. WilliamsThe former Secretary of State for the Environment, now the chairman of the Conservative party, estimated last year—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I ask members of the Government Front Bench to respect the conventions of the House and allow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) to make his speech without interruption.
Mr. WilliamsThe cost of removing phosphates and nitrates from Britain's sewage before it is dumped at sea would involve building secondary sewerage plant at a cost of up to £7 billion. That could become necessary if algal blooms became a recurrent problem in the North sea. For the Taff and Ely, pro rata, the figure would work out at up to £100 million. That is in addition to the costs of building 291 the barrage. If we find in a year or two or whenever that there is a serious problem of the eutrophication of toxic algae, it could cost anything up to £100 million to clear.
New clause 6 asks simply that the promoters produce a plan of how they would tackle the problem, to show that it can be done and that there will be a commitment that the money will be made available.
§ Mr. FlynnIn the babble, I think that we have lost some of the subtleties of my hon. Friend's argument. I know that there have been cases of eutrophication in the Yns Y Fro reservoir in my constituency and serious eutrophica-tion of blue-green algae on Rutland water. Those problems have been cleared up and, as far as I know, those and hundreds of other stretches of water are operational again. But is my hon. Friend saying that they have been cleared up at the cost he said, or something similar?
Mr. WilliamsNo, eutrophication is seasonal—it comes and goes. It comes in warm weather. If the hon. Gentleman had listened intently to the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly he would have realised that eutrophication is temperature dependent. It does not occur in winter, but when there are long days and warm weather algae multiplies rapidly, and then goes away. But let us suppose that it becomes a recurrent problem, and there is every possibility that that could happen, especially in the Rivers Taff and Ely because there is a terrific population of half a million people there, and the sewage effluent is continually fed into the rivers. Therefore, the waters are naturally high in nitrogen phosphate. If there is a regular, recurrent problem, and there are not to be fish deaths year after year—one of the side-effects of algae blooms—one must tackle the problem at source. If one does that, one is talking of costs running up to about £100 million to clear the problem.
§ Mr. RogersThe argument of my hon. Friends the Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is that the construction of the barrage will cause pollution in the lagoon area behind it. There is no doubt about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly stressed the possible effect on the health of the people living around the district. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen is now stressing the enormous cost that it might pose to taxpayers in general in order to alleviate problems that could arise. Surely it would be much better if the Bill's promoters accepted that, in order to have development in the Cardiff bay district, there is absolutely no need to have a barrage that does not add a single square foot to the amount of land available for industrial and housing development. The only reason why the barrage is being constructed, which will then create all the pollution problems, is—as the report states—to create a water vista and enhance the prices of houses around it. From the arguments put forward on that issue alone, that seems an enormous price to pay for a water vista.
Mr. WilliamsMy hon. Friend's contribution sum-marises very well the strong feeling of the Opposition Members who have contributed most to the debate—the barrage is for purely visual effect and will not create or pull in any jobs. Of course, we want the districts of Cardiff to be developed and maximum industry and jobs pulled into 292 them. None of us is against that. We are in the Labour party because we believe that Government and public funds should be used in that way. But, in terms of trapping the water, flooding the mud flats, which are important for wild life and wading birds, and creating a potential environmental disaster, the barrage is an appalling waste of public money. That money could be far better used in the health service, in infrastructure or in a number of other ways.
§ Mr. RogersSince I posed those questions I think that I have found the answer in the evidence of Chesterton Professional Services, which were employed by Cardiff Bay development corporation. In its report it says that the full barrage would have a betterment effect on the land in the area, increasing its value from £114 million to £347 million. That is the reason why the barrage is being constructed. It is designed not to add to the economic development of Cardiff but to make money for these people.
Mr. WilliamsMy hon. Friend makes an excellent case. I cannot understand why, when the economy is in the crisis that it is, we are wasting our money in this way.
New clause 17 concerns eliminating the risks of pollution from leachates, especialy from the Ferry road tip. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd dealt at length with the problems associated with the Ferry road tip, which contains 3 million cu m of rubbish, which is not toxic waste but mainly domestic. Nevertheless, it is an enormous quantity. The onus should be on the undertakers to show that the tip can be sealed off and that there will be no leachate from it. I think that the hon. Member for Pontypridd demonstrated the logical trap that the undertakers are in as regards this tip. First, they have been thinking of moving the whole tip and trying to relocate it, perhaps in Stormy Down—I do not know.
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is looking at me furiously. I was not suggesting that. I think that the tip should stay exactly where it is.
I read another story, although I do not know whether it is a possibility, saying that all the contents of the tip could be put in trains and carried to Bedfordshire at a cost of £40 million. That was a serious proposal, but I do not know whether it is a runner. Is not it the height of absurdity to be carrying the domestic rubbish of 10, 20 or 30 years ago in trains 200 miles across the country to bury it in Bedfordshire? I wonder what the people of Bedfordshire think about that? The trains would be incredibly smelly because the waste has half-decayed anaerobically. The putrefaction and the smell would be incredible.
§ Mr. SkinnerIs it going to go by rail?
Mr. WilliamsI am not sure whether it will. Given this Government, perhaps it will be taken in lorries along the M4. Imagine being stuck behind one of those lorries on the Severn bridge for half an hour in a traffic jam.
Can the Ferry road tip be sealed? What are the alternatives? Is there a way to seal that sort of tip so that no leachates would reach the barrage? Frankly, I do not think that we can seal tips that effectively, especially as the water table may be raised and that such tips give off methane the whole time. The problem of the tip defeats this proposal.
293 I ask hon. Members to support this set of new clauses. In opposing the construction of the barrage, I think that there are strong environmental reasons why the project should not go ahead.
§ Mr. MorganWhile the Government Whips, the promoters and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) are absent from the Chamber, having a confab about what they should do in the circumstances, I wish to raise some additional points, some of which would be better raised in the presence of my hon. Friend. Indeed, I wished to pay him a compliment and to say that, as far as I am concerned, he is a prominent environmentalist in the Cardiff context. I am sure that he will be willing to concede that I am the same, and that we are both doing the Lord's work—he is doing it in his way, and I am doing it in the Lord's way, but we are nevertheless both doing the Lord's work. I very much admire my hon. Friend's approach, although I believe that our approach, as incorporated in these five new clauses, following the attempt to terminate the debate which, fortunately, fell rather flat because of the Government's disarray—
§ Mr. Win GriffithsIt would never have happened under the former Prime Minister.
§ Mr. MorganYes, Tory schism is at work here, as well as dither. One tactic that the Government may adopt—
§ Mr. GriffithsThey are taking legal advice.
§ Mr. MorganNot only that—they are also trying to gather the duvet vote, but if they look for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope that they go to his present residence at No. 11 Downing street and not to his former residence, or they may get a lesson in what goes on at night in London. That tactic should be approached carefully.
During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made many strong pleas to my hon. Friends, saying that we should not be promoting new clause 5 on leachate; new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping; new clause 8 on sewage removal; new clause 17 on the future of the Ferry road tip; and new clause 19 on algal scum disposal—
§ Mr. SkinnerWhat is that?
§ Mr. MorganI can draw it for my hon. Friend, although I am not sure that one can adequately describe it. However, if my hon. Friend were to come down on one of the free trips that the Cardiff Bay development corporation may offer him, I could show him—
§ Mr. SkinnerNo.
§ Mr. MorganWell, it is a case of whatever turns you on, is it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? If my hon. Friend will not come down to Cardiff, I shall have to do my best later to explain what algal scum is.
I am pleased that I shall now have the chance to discuss the five new clauses as I wrote every single word of them myself. It is a sign of the good sense of the House that, being aware that I had not had the chance to speak to provisions that I had drafted late at night in the Library, pity was taken on me. Much as they would like to make 294 further progress, hon. Members thought that it was not fair to close the debate until I had had a chance to say a word or two about the new clauses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth takes a different approach to the new clauses. He accepts that these five subjects are critical to the acceptability of the Bill. I know that they are critical and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontrypridd, who made his maiden speech on the Bill, also accepted that they are critical. This is one of the most important of our many important debates on the acceptability of the barrage, its side effects and direct and indirect consequences. We must consider whether an amenity lake of the quality about which we are talking will actually be an amenity lake, and if it is not an amenity lake in the normal accepted definition of the phrase in 1995, when it might open for business, or in 2005, when standards will have risen further, there is no point in having it. We should be terribly derelict in our duty if we did not consider whether the barrage will be worth the candle unless by 2005 it can provide the amenities that people will expect at a level appropriate to that year and not to the lower 1985 standards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, "All those things are mentioned in the Bill. Phosphate and nitrate stripping, algal scum and the Ferry road tip are all mentioned." We have not invented the subject matter of the new clauses; we have merely taken it from the existing Bill and incorporated it differently to give greater assurances. We ask that the House does not approve the Bill until the promoters show how they will solve the well-known environmental problems. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth were here, he would accept that his position is that the National Rivers Authority, Welsh Water or other appropriate bodies have suitable undertakings and that we should take it on trust that those undertakings will be put into effect in accordance with the standards laid down by those bodies. However, the problem is that the NRA, for example, did not exist on the previous occasion when objections could be made to the Bill, when it came from the other place to this House.
On this Bill, the NRA did not have the chance to formulate the bargaining position that it has on the River Usk Barrage Bill, which has entered the other place. The NRA is objecting strongly to that Bill. According to a conversation that I had with it this morning, there is more than a 50–50 chance that it will be able to maintain that objection throughout the negotiations with the promoters.
The NRA came into existence on 1 September 1988. The last day for objecting to this Bill was some six weeks before that, on 26 July. Until 1 September, the Welsh division of the NRA was merely a subsidiary of Welsh Water. If Welsh Water did not want to object to the Bill —and it did not—there was nothing that the people who five weeks later formed the NRA could do. We were told that they did want to object, but we shall never really know the answer to that.
By 1 September, when the NRA came into existence, it could not object because the closing date for objections was 26 July. The NRA's bargaining position is therefore extremely weak. It must obtain the best bargain that it can. That is all that it can do. It can say that it wants a fish pass which will use the latest available and best technology. On the Usk barrage it can say that if the promoters do not provide a fish pass that the NRA likes, it will stop the Bill.
295 On the Cardiff bay barrage it can try to bargain for an adequate fish pass, but in the end the promoters can say, "This is the best fish pass that we can come up with, but we are going ahead with the Bill because you did not exist as a separate body with a specific duty of conservation of aquatic flora and fauna until it was too late to object." The NRA will not be able to insist on a fish pass, for example.
We are not discussing fisheries yet. We are discussing algal scum, phosphates, leachates and water quality in general.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsThose matters still have an effect on the fish.
§ Mr. MorganThey certainly do. The same principle undoubtedly applies to phosphate and nitrate stripping, the matter dealt with in new clause 6.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has come back into the Chamber. I have been speaking about him in glowing and complimentary terms as an environmentalist who approaches the problem from a slightly different angle from me. I am asking how things are to be done before the barrage is built. I am not prepared to take it on trust that the appropriate authorities are happy with the undertakings that they have received. Such authorities are in the weak bargaining position that I have described. They could not object to the Bill because they did not exist when the opportunity was available to do so. I paraphrase briefly for my hon. Friend what I have said in the past few minutes.
Tonight we are trying to decide whether the approach of the new clauses is more relevant for achieving the standards that everyone will seek in the year 2005, or whether the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is more appropriate. His approach is that the National Rivers Authority says that it has an undertaking which is long and detailed and refers to algal scum, water quality, future water quality standards and what it will have to do to enforce them. But in its present bargaining position, if we do not retrospectively include the provisions for which the NRA would have asked if it had existed on 26 July—the last day for submitting objections to the Bill—
§ Mr. CryerAnother aspect on which my hon. Friend may wish to comment is the letter from the Secretary of State for Wales demonstrating strong support for the Bill. I remind my hon. Friend that the current chairman of the National Rivers Authority is Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State for Wales. Therefore, unless something is included in the Bill, people might suspect that the standards of environmental protection that my hon. Friend regards as desirable—I am sure that that view is shared by the whole House—might go by the board. Whether or not their suspicions are accurate, people may believe that there is a conspiracy between successive Secretaries of State for Wales to get through the House what is referred to in the letter as a "very exciting project". It is important for ensuring decent standards of conduct in public life that the safeguards that my hon. Friend seeks are included in the Bill.
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend enables me to refer to the new Tory tendency of trying to be all things to all men, one 296 of the descriptions of our new and much-loved Prime Minister, particularly among Opposition Members but not so much among Tory Members. That was the criticism of the Prime Minister made, I think, by Sir Alan Walters, in this rash of criticism that has broken out.
The Secretary of State for Wales has been doing the same thing. The letter to which my hon. Friend referred has been sent to all members of the Cabinet to tell their Parliamentary Private Secretaries to be here tonight—some were obviously lost in the post, or there would have been 115 here. Perhaps the number of Parliamentary Private Secretaries has been reduced dramatically since last weekend—we are not quite sure which.
The same subject was covered by another letter which the Secretary of State wrote on 16 April, faxed to Ian Prestt, the director general of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, an extremely distinguished former senior civil servant in the Department of the Environment. It said:
I cannot accept your allegation that my letter of 31 March is 'tantamount to an official whip'. The Government has consistently made clear its substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill.So far so good. That is the same as the letter sent to members of the Cabinet. Then the Secretary of State for Wales went on:Subject only to the additional work and consultation on ground water, I remain committed to the barrage as the best way of assisting the regeneration of Cardiff Bay.There is no mention of that in his letter to the Cabinet; nothing about the duties that he will have to discharge subject to the enactment of the Bill in saying whether there should be a final go or no-go decision on the barrage depending on the decisions on ground water and the public consultation exercise at the end of the year. Why should he be sending a different message to his Cabinet colleagues and hiding from them the fact that he has this quasi-judicial role in the early months of next year when, trying to be all things to all men, he tells the RSPB that of course he is aware of all his additional duties arising from the Bill? Why did he not send the same message to his fellow Cabinet members when he wrote telling them to be here as though this was the last word on the Bill?How far should promoters have to go? Should they have to explain to the House how they propose to solve the giant problems of the project? Take, for example, the Ferry road tip dealt with in new clause 17. That new clause says that before the barrage is constructed the promoters must produce and publish their proposals for the future of the Ferry road tip. We all realise that what happens to that tip is vital to the viability of the barrage, the cleanliness of the water in the barrage and the availability of land for development in the barrage. The protective clauses mention that but they do not say what is to be done and it is important that we should try to establish that at this stage through the publication of a proposal for the Ferry road tip. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has been operating in secrecy and speaking with forked tongue on the subject.
§ Mr. SkinnerOne reason why the promoters are not terribly worried about including the safeguards that my hon. Friend is outlining is that the Government have a majority of 150 and they know that they can shove private Bills through in the middle of the night. They need only keep a few Members here—they have not made it tonight, that is true—and the safeguards can go by the board. The 297 Government will put on an official or semi-official Whip in order to get the Bill through. That has been the feature of such legislation since 1979. The Government's majority has enabled the promoters to get away with blue murder. They have used the Government's built-in majority rather than allowing such matters to be dealt with on a non-party basis.
§ Mr. MorganI could not agree more.
The Secretary of State has spoken with forked tongue through his front organisation, the Cardiff' Bay development corporation, on the precise subject of new clause 17, which states:
'Before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.'.1.45 amConsider what we have learnt from the Touche Ross report. That report was undertaken at the insistence of the Welsh Office for the Cardiff city council to aid its execution of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That report states:
The intentions of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation have affected the waste management planning in Cardiff adversely. Accepting the political reality, the intentions of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation with respect to Ferry Road should be finalised.That is exactly what we are saying. We believe that they should be produced and published. The report states that the consultantsfeel however that CBDC has grossly underestimated the logistic, environmental, health and safety problems associated with exhuming 2 million cubic metres of waste"—let alone with transporting that to Bedford. Now we come to the interesting part of the report, which the Welsh Office will know all about as it is mentioned. It says:The Consultants have, in fact, following informal discussions with the Welsh Office, intimated that the removal of the tip may not now proceed in full.What will be done? We do not know. In public it is said that the tip will be removed, probably to Bedfordshire, or possibly to some other site in south Wales.
§ Dr. MarekIt would help the House if my hon. Friend could give the reasons for the existence of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Does it have any social objectives, or is it in it just for the money? What are its terms of reference? What were the terms of reference for Touche Ross? Only when we know precisely those terms of reference can we interpret the information that my hon. Friend has provided objectively.
§ Mr. MorganIt would detain the House unduly if I went over the purposes of the corporation—I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your eagle eye and ear would prevent me. It had something to do with creating a superlative maritme city in Cardiff and reuniting the old docks area with the city centre.
The commission given by Cardiff city council to Touche Ross was designed to enable it to comply with the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That Act stated that by last Friday all local authorities in Wales had to produce proposals on how they intended to manage waste disposal in their areas. The new scheme introduced LAWDACS —local authority waste disposal authorities and companies—while the local authority monitoring role in 298 connection with waste disposal had to separate from the actual collection and from disposal of that waste. Local authorities had to produce their relevant proposals by Friday.
In October 1990, the Cardiff city council hired Touche Ross to produce those proposals. The consultants referred to the "informal discussions" that had gone on behind closed doors with the Welsh Office. The public in Cardiff know nothing about those discussions, and, contrary to all the published evidence in the press and the general impression that the Ferry road tip would be removed, the consultants employed by the council have been told informally by the Welsh Office that no such thing will happen. They have been told that the tip will not be moved, or that not all of it will be moved, or that it will simply be moved from one half of the site to another.
A form of waste disposal alps may be created, with a low-level site in one part of the Ferry road tip and a high-level site in another. It beats me how that can be done with decomposing refuse, but I understand that that is the sort of proposal that the Welsh Office is now discussing with consultants. The general public do not know that, Parliament does not know it, the Select Committee was not told it. We were all told, "There are other options, but the favoured solution is the removal of the Ferry road tip to Bedford." To dispense with such confusion, we must be clear, before the corporation starts impounding the water, what it proposes to do with the tip. It cannot say one thing to the public in Cardiff and another behindhand to the Welsh Office, which may then, it seems, talk to consultants here and there without the knowledge of Parliament or of voters in Cardiff.
§ Mr. CryerI am tempted by my hon. Friend's comments and by the comments made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to ask for confirmation that there is no guarantee that, if the tip is moved in whole or in part, it will be moved by environmentally friendly railway and not by environment-ally hostile heavy juggernauts thundering through Cardiff and down many highways and by-ways before reaching Bedfordshire or wherever else it is dumped. The Government have an anti-rail policy, and it is clear that, with no guarantees laid down, thousands of lorry movements may be required to get rid of such a huge tip. Does my hon. Friend agree that if it had definitely been stated that there would be—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. Is this an intervention?
§ Mr. CryerI am enabling my hon. Friend to have a drink of water, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and so killing two birds with one stone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that had been clearly stated, Cardiff citizens would be lining the streets in protest at the proposal?
§ Mr. MorganHaving a drink of London tap water reminds one of what an important subject water quality is —for all of us, both now and in future. My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it is very much an open question. Let us suppose that the tip removal went ahead in part or in whole, which is what most members of the public in Cardiff think will happen given all the official public statements about the preferred option. The waste would probably go by road if it went to the site in Mid Glamorgan that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) mentioned, causing the hon. Member for 299 Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) to jump 3 ft off the ground. If the waste were taken to Bedfordshire, however, I am reasonably assured that the move would be feasible only by long-distrance rail haulage. Contrary to the impression given in Cardiff, secret negotiations are taking place with a view to leaving the tip in place or shovelling it around —landscaping it or making it a golf course, a playing field or whatever. To be honest, we do not know what will happen. I do not think that the proposals have gone that far. It looks as though the promoters have been speaking with forked tongue and the public in Cardiff and Parliament have been grossly misled.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend was asked a straight and simple question about the possibility or likelihood of the tip removal involving large numbers of lorry movements through the streets of Cardiff. Perhaps he knows something that I do not know. As I understand it, the removal would—or will—involve train movements and not lorry movements. Does my hon. Friend agree with me on that simple point? If not, can he give me the authority for any doubts that he has on the matter?
§ Mr. MorganYes, I shall be happy to clarify the matter as far as I can. Suppose that the tip is wholly or partly removed. If it is taken to the site in Mid Glamorgan that was referred to, I do not know of a railhead that could be used. That was my point. The waste would therefore have to go by road. I understand, however, that if the waste went to Bedfordshire, it would go by rail. My hon. Friend is right, however, that if the waste went to the site in Mid Glamorgan, it would not travel through residential streets, although it would travel quite close to some streets of new estate houses in my constituency, along a main haulage dual carriageway.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend has clarified the position. I understand that, when disposal to sites outside south Wales is considered, rail transport proves to be the only option. However, my hon. Friend keeps referring to other options relating to, for instance, sites in Mid Glamorgan. Has he any authority for that, or is it another of the red herrings that featured in an earlier stage of discussion about the tip? I know of no such suggestion.
§ Mr. MorganIf my hon. Friend is in a position to say that former quarry sites in Mid Glamorgan owned by Wimpey Waste Management are definitely off limits through some process of debarring, he had better intervene again. I have the impression from the development corporation's statements that if it removes the site—which is still its public and official line—it will be up to waste management contractors to put in the best offer: outfits such as Wimpey Waste Management, which owns the enormous quarry in the southern part of Mid Glamorgan, and Shanks McEwan in Bedford. If Wimpey Waste Management won the contract, perhaps the development corporation would deal with it, feeling obliged to accept the best offer. Neither company would be debarred.
§ Mr. Win Griffiths (Ogwr)When the possibility of the Ferry road tip being taken by the lorryload and put into the old quarries at Stormy Down was raised, Ogur borough council, as the planning authority, resolved in principle that it would not be suitable to move the tip to the large hole in Stormy Down, which is in my 300 constituency. Many of the councillors were very upset about the possibility of such action. The councillor in the ward where I live—Cefn Cribwr, known by its old parish name of Tythegston Higher—said that he would be prepared to lie in the road and prevent any of the lorries coming anywhere near Stormy Down. That was Councillor Viv Thomas.
§ Mr. MorganI am happy to answer that question, while my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth finds out whether he is able to reassure the House as I asked him to.
We have been upsetting ourselves over the environmen-tal consequences of large-scale waste removal—exhumation, as it is described in the consultants' report, stray paragraphs of which have come to our notice and have enabled us to conduct a proper, well-informed debate. The report contradicts the official line—which is believed by the public in Cardiff—and removes most of the possibility of large-scale waste removal to either Mid-Glamorgan or Bedfordshire. It appears that the Welsh Office knows something that Parliament does not. I should be happy to give way to the Minister, if he wants to say more about the negotiations between Touche Ross and the Welsh Office. I have read out Touche Ross's version—that, following its informal discussions with the Welsh Office, the removal of the tip may not proceed in full. If that is true, I am very happy to hear it.
§ Mr. MichaelI appreciate that we are dealing with widely ranging issues, but I do not think that we should create worry where none should exist. I am told that Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire are the only options being considered by the development corporation and that rail is the only option being considered for transport to those locations. That eliminates Mid Glamorgan and road transport. Does my hon. Friend have information that contradicts that? I am sure that he agrees that on serious matters such as this we should not operate on gossip or innuendo. I have checked my memory of those matters with the promoters and what I have said knocks other suggestions on the head.
§ 2 am
§ Mr. MorganI would be glad to be knocked on the head if it would remove from my memory a conversation with the promoters in which they said that the issue would depend on the offers from waste management contractors. I would be happy to accept the withdrawal of that statement. We have had information about secret negotiations in the Welsh Office about the tip not being moved. New clause 7 deals with the sealing of that tip if it is not moved. We are becoming bogged down in the lesser of two probabilities about the future of the Ferry road tip. There have been negotiations between Touche Ross on behalf of Cardiff city council and the Welsh Office, whose representatives remain sedentary and silent. They are probably still shell shocked by their failure on the closure motion, despite a circular letter to the Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are now safely tucked under their duvets.
§ Mr. MichaelI appreciate that my hon. Friend wishes to explore people's minds. I am sure that at all times he wants to explore people's approach to matters to make sure that they are right, and to look at other options. My hon. Friend, of all people, would not want anyone to close 301 his mind to other options. As I have said in relation to the tip's removal, the option that I mentioned is the only one that is being or has been considered. Leaching is consequent upon the issues that we are debating, and those issues are dealt with by the Bill as it stands.
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend is right to say that these issues are mentioned in the Bill. They are also mentioned in our new clauses. We are both pointing to the need for a solution to problems of leaching, phosphate and nitrate in the waters feeding the barrage, removal of the existing sewer outfalls and algae. Our new clauses strengthen the safeguards that my hon. Friend says are already in the Bill. The approach that my hon. Friend commends to the House does not require the promoters to show the House before it passes the Bill, or before its contents satisfy somebody else, how they intend to solve those problems.
We do not know what the promoters intend to do about the Ferry road tip. Our latest understanding, following bits of news about negotiations between Touche Ross and the Welsh Office, is that the tip is not to be removed. In that case, we need to know how it will be sealed. How do we deal with the problems covered by new clause 5 on leaching and new clause 17 on the sealing of the tip? There are two approaches to the problem, on the Welsh Office assumption that the Ferry road tip is to stay. We would like a definitive statement from the promoters or from the Welsh Office as to whether the tip is to stay or to go. I think that it will remain, but the official line is that it is to be removed. It would be useful to be able to determine the matter tonight, but if we are not told, that is 10 times more reason than we thought we had for insisting on new clauses 5 and 17 about the future of the Ferry road tip.
What will happen to the tip? If it is to stay, how are we to seal off such a large tip—in size, it is in the top 20—that is at the height of its powers of decomposition? It is a major producer of methane. It adjoins the old gasworks tip, with all the phenolics, cyanide and cyanates that are to be found in the ground deep underneath the gasworks, which produced gas by coke. The ground water surges round the old coke, which contains cyanates and phenolics. There is the decomposing tip, with all the methane and organics. It will be in contact with a much higher level of ground water following the closing off at the permanent high water level of the barrage.
We need to know before the impoundment starts how the promoters intend to solve the problem. To paraphrase the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth as reasonably as I can, he says that we should be satisfied with the undertakings that have been secured by the National Rivers Authority, Cardiff city council or Welsh Water, or by the words that appear in the Bill, even though they are far from specific about the solutions that are proposed.
Phosphate and nitrate removal could have a colossal effect on my constituents. If it is necessary to introduce phosphate and nitrate removal plants on the Taff and the Ely of the sort that are on the Rhine, where are they to be situated? Such plants are large. They could be situated at the double sewage works at Cilfynydd, one of which deals with the sewage from the Cynon and the other with the sewage from the Taff north of Pontypridd up to Merthyr. It would be possible to bolt on to the sewage works a removal plant. That would be handy, but the trouble is 302 that a lot of sewage comes out into the Taff through the storm sewer disposal works that are below the sewage works.
I apologise for turning my back on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I turned 180 deg while explaining these matters to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The hour is late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I ask you to excuse me.
The Ely might just be in the vale of Glamorgan. The Miskin sewage works are the main works that cover the Taff-Ely borough, an area in which the population has exploded during the past 20 years. The works are brand new and they do a great job. Large quantities of treated sewage are discharged back into the River Ely, which passes through my constituency. During a dry summer, 50 per cent. of the water in the river comes from the sewage works, and it contains a colossal amount of nitrate and phosphate.
As I have said, it is possible to bolt on removal works to remove phosphates and nitrates that are in the sewage, but they will not deal with storm overflows, and I am told that there are about 250 in the catchment areas. Given the rainfall in south Wales, the overflows work summer and winter, which means that a great deal of sewage does not pass via the sewerage works. There is also dog excrement that is washed into the rain water sewers, which ends up in the river. That is a major source of phosphates and, to a lesser extent, nitrates. None of that will be covered by the waters of the bay unless there is a phosphate and nitrate treatment works in operation just before the water enters the lake. That is where my constituency comes on the scene.
The Rhine is taken almost completely off its production line, as it were. It is taken from its normal flow. That means carving out a new river channel, and the river, in its entirety, is passed through decomposition tanks of iron for phosphates and aluminium for nitrates, or it might be the other way round. Either way, there is a need for an iron decomposition tank and an aluminium tank to react against the phosphates and nitrates and neutralise them.
Where is that to be done in my constituency? Will part of the playing fields in the castle grounds be taken? Where are we to take the Taff from its normal stream and pass it through two tanks and then return it to its formal flow? Is there any other solution? Do we know what the solution is? Have we heard anything that amounts to a solution to the problem of phosphate and nitrate removal? Even the promoters accept that the removal may become necessary if we are to comply with the municipal waste water directives of which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd spoke so eloquently. Those concerns must be met before we can buy this pig in a poke. I do not know whether the necessary land is available, but if no solution can be found there should be no barrage. There should be no impounding until we can see how the problems that the barrage will create can be solved. If we cannot see how the problems can be solved, there should be no barrage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth believes that the NRA is aware of the problems and will set the standards. There are many committed, hard-working staff in the NRA and they will do their job. However, it is far too late for them to do their job fully in the sense of being able to bargain as equal partners with the Cardiff Bay development corporation because the NRA did not exist when objections were to be heard. The 303 NRA was unable to bargain and say that, unless certain solutions to problems were forthcoming, the permissions would not be granted.
Lord Crickhowell's position is also a problem. Regardless of his persuasive qualities and personal commitment to his job as chairman of the NRA, he must be conscious that he cannot be unbiased in relation to the Cardiff bay barrage. His commitment is, if possible, even greater than that of the present Secretary of State for Wales as a result of his sense of parental responsibility for the project.
§ Dr. MarekReference has been made to the land holdings of companies associated with Lord Crickhowell. Does my hon. Friend have any further information about that? That point is important and pertinent with regard to the NRA and the way in which its policies are prosecuted and whether there may be a conflict of interest between Lord Crickhowell in his capacity as the member of a company with an interest in land in the Cardiff bay barrage area and his position as chairman of the NRA.
§ Mr. MorganI wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) has the permission of Mr. Deputy Speaker to take us down that road to investigate those inter-locking interests. The post-Cabinet, post-parliamentary appointments secured by the former Secretary of State for Wales have left him in an extremely difficult position with regard to the Cardiff bay barrage.
§ Dr. MarekI am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West out of order if he were to stray out of order. However, I hope that he will be in order because we are discussing new clauses that are principally concerned with the cleanliness of water, and that is an essential function of the NRA. Subject to the view of Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West would be in order—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We have had enough discussion about how I might hypothetically rule in certain hypothetical circumstances. If the debate relates to new clause 5, it will be in order.
§ Mr. MorganI am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham. His point is pertinent because it relates to the former Secretary of State for Wales who is now the chairman of the NRA, director of Associated British Ports Holdings and of HTV and several other companies. The former Secretary of State for Wales is Captain Clean-up. He is supposed to be like Caesar's wife —or was it Lot's wife?—and be above suspicion when it comes to pollution.
Captain Clean-up must be in the van of leading the fight to eradicate water pollution. However, in the other place, Lord Crickhowell adopted a position that I could not follow. As chairman of the NRA and as an interested member of the other place, he knocked six bells out of the Usk barrage, saying that the NRA takes a strong view about such barriers because it is not satisfied about the fish bars or about the conservation of the aquatic flora and 304 fauna, and he said that there was no way in which he could sleep tight in bed if he allowed the proposal to go through when it seems so thoroughly dangerous and pernicious.
The position in this case is completely different. The National Rivers Authority did not exist at that time. Its chairman is known to be the progenitor of the scheme. Standing on Penarth head one day with a local architect, he thought to himself, "Wouldn't it be nice to have a barrage between Penarth head and Queen Alexandra dock gate? What a wonderful lake it would make." When politicians near the end of their careers, they like to leave behind a memorial to their period in office. The Secretary of State for Wales did not want his eight years in that job simply to appear as a footnote in the history books. He wanted to create something big so that people would say, "That was Lord Crickhowell's—Captain Clean-up's—idea."
2.15 am
That creates a credibility problem when the person who favours the Cardiff Bay barrage knocks six bells out of the Usk barrage. That was not his idea. However, Lord Crickhowell is now chairman of the NRA; that is his primary responsibility. The NRA has the power, given by legislation, formally to object. It is a separate body, but that was not the case at the last date when objections could be lodged against the Bill.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsMy hon. Friend is pursuing an interesting line of inquiry concerning the attitude of the NRA's chairman to the inland lake that the barrage would create in Cardiff, compared with his attitude to the proposal for a barrage across the River Usk. He suggests that part of the problem is that the NRA did not exist when objections to the Cardiff Bay barrage had to be lodged. That may be the most important point. Might it not be that the former Secretary of State for Wales took the title Lord Crickhowell because Crickhowell is on the banks of the River Usk?
§ Mr. MorganI understand that he did not take the title Lord Pembroke because he wanted to leave that title to the present Member of Parliament for Pembroke after he loses his seat at the next election. However, I shudder to think what quango may be found for him to chair if the widely forecast change of Government takes place, involving the loss of his seat. Lord Crickhowell is associated with the Usk valley where he had a house. However, it is a speculative point, and I intend to confine myself to the facts.
Welsh Water was in effect the predecessor of the National Rivers Authority, which came into being six weeks too late to object to the Bill. Welsh Water had no duty to conserve aquatic flora and fauna, but its successor body, the National Rivers Authority, has. Before 1 September 1988, the only body that had a duty to conserve aquatic flora and fauna was the Nature Conservancy Council. As might have been expected, it objected to the Bill. Had the NRA been in existence on 26 July 1988, it, too, would have objected. The view of the NRA's council for Wales staff is that it would have felt obliged to object on the ground that it had a duty to conserve aquatic flora and fauna, a duty that its predecessor body did not have. It is one of those accidents, but the House could remedy it by accepting some of these amendments.
§ Mr. RogersIf my hon. Friend had not been in order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would have stopped him. He attributed motives to Lord Crickhowell, a former Secretary of State—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I was about to reproach the hon. Gentleman when he moved away from that point. I hope that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will not now tempt me to make the reproach that I was about to make then. Perhaps we should get back to the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).
§ Mr. Rogersrose—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We have left the question of Lord Crickhowell.
§ Mr. RogersI accept your admonition, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to refer directly to new clause 6, which says:
the undertakers and water company shall produce and publish a plan".When the previous Secretary of State for Wales granted permission, that requirement did not exist. The then Secretary of State is now a very substantial director of Associated British Ports, which owns 160 acres in the Cardiff bay area. One could not attribute to him a desire to have a statue erected, but he seems to have taken advantage of the revolving door—moving out of Government and into one of the companies that he helped. This kind of thing happens all the time. All Opposition Members criticise Conservative Members for it. We have seen it in the case of British Aerospace. I do not think that the previous Secretary of State for Wales is any better than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit).
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. RogersI have finished.
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend has raised a point that tangentially—
§ Mr. Win Griffiths"Tangenitally".
§ Mr. MorganI do not think that that version is at all suitable.
Nothing that I have said should have given my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), or any other hon. Member, the impression that I approve of the arrangement by which Lord Crickhowell, immediately on ceasing to be a member of the Cabinet, became chairman of the National Rivers Authority and a director of Associated British Ports. From the point of view of the unbiased treatment of this Bill, that is regrettable. It is bound to lead to a problem of perception, even if there is no conflict of interests. We have to accept that there is a problem and that Parliament must try to satisfy people who are worried about water-pollution-related issues. At the time in question, the NRA did not exist, and since then the person widely regarded as the father of the barrage has become chairman of that authority and a director of Associated British Ports.
Some of the amendments that were not selected dealt with this matter. We tried to clean up the act in relation to the barrage and ex-Ministers. We tried to do likewise in the case of British Telecom, but our amendments were not called. A former Secretary of State is a director of British Gas, but again our amendments were not selected. And the 306 same applies to Associated British Ports. No doubt the very judicious decision of the authorities of the House to ensure that such amendments were not called has been proved right by the fact that, today, we have not needed to devote very much time to the activities of former members of the Cabinet.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWill the hon. Gentleman please return to the new clauses that are before the House?
§ Mr. MorganMention has been made of the fact that, when a barrage is built, the inter-tidal movement is broken up. There is fresh water on one side and salt water on the other, but there is no partially saline water between. That partially saline water may seem of little importance to hon. Members, but it is incredibly important as a flushing mechanism. It is called the kidneys of the system because it moves in and out vigorously in areas with high tidal ranges such as the upper Bristol channel. It acts extremely effectively, although not in accord with modern practice, as the kidneys of urban industrial south Wales and Bristol.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsI agree that the tidal range in the Severn estuary helps to flush out many of the harmful pollutants, but we must remember that there is much pollution to be treated and that that flushing process does not make those waters safe.
§ Mr. MorganI am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It was almost a Pavlovian reaction, which I expected as I am aware of his passionate commitment to clean beaches and a clean marine environment. That is a further responsibility of the National Rivers Authority. He took some unjustified and fearful hammerings from Welsh Water but has been proved right. Welsh Water said that EC directives would be unnecessary for the treatment of sewage discharges near public bathing beaches. It said that they did no harm, that it had the right means of dealing with long sea outfalls and that other pollutants would be dealt with by the vigorous action of the Bristol channel.
No hon. Member has mentioned new clause 8—unless I missed it while I was having a cup of tea.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesWhat was in the tea?
§ Mr. MorganI have mentioned the problems with London drinking water, which passes through three kidneys before it reaches the taps.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsSeven.
§ Mr. MorganI did not realise that an expert on kidneys was present.
New clause 8, which has received less attention than the other four new clauses, relates to sewage outfalls. In the same spirit of the other four new clauses, it says:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay"—that is partly dealt with by the Bill—or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay"—that is not dealt with by the Bill, but it was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd—or the tributaries thereof, showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement"—that phrase recurs time and again in the promoters' version of the Bill, which we have improved—and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement"—307 another phrase borrowed from a standard clause that recurs in the handiwork of the promoters and their parliamentary agents.The importance of our additions are twofold. First, we tried not only to make specific the obligations on the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water for water treatment, sewage removal or treatment but to say to the promoters, "Before you impound the barrage you must be able to show how you will do the job." We insisted on that because they have not dealt with storm sewer overflows or with what will happen when the 14 direct sewers are diverted so that they do not discharge into the lake. Where will they discharge into? The Bristol channel. Is that an improvement? It is a bit of an improvement. Obviously they could not discharge into the lake and we do not want them discharging, as now, into very enclosed tidal waters where, because of increasing population pressures, they discharge more and more on the incoming tide, washing raw sewage up the rivers Taff and Ely into the town centre, and then back down again on the outgoing tide. That did not happen in the old days when the population pressure was right. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would agree that they should be got rid of, but diverting them round the corner into the Bristol channel is not the right solution. That is why we have proposed an improvement.
§ Mr. MichaelI am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. I am glad that he has welcomed the diversion of those sewers from Cardiff bay. It is only the introduction of the barrage under the Bill that gives that promise. He suggested that the sewers are merely to be diverted round the corner into the Bristol channel. Will he acknowledge that, due to considerable pressure exerted by my hon. Friend the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and myself, we are to have treatment at the Lavernock works, to which the sewers will be diverted, to meet European standards—an issue on which my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), along with other hon. Members, have fought over a considerable period? I take the point about the fear that he was expressing, but that has been dealt with by assurances given by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Does my hon. Friend also accept that the diversion of sewer outfalls upstream must be a matter for the water authority and the National Rivers Authority to resolve? I agree with him that there should be an onus on the Government to improve water quality in the rivers. We would all unite on that, but it is too onerous a responsibility to cover in the Bill. It is a matter for more general legislation because such a clean-up is required not as a consequence of the Bill but as part of the improvement of water quality of rivers generally.
§ Mr. MorganI am happy to give my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) maximum credit. They worked together to get assurances about the Lavernock outfall and got an improvement on the original intention when we discussed the matter on Second Reading.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would be happy to concede that the key 308 point is the interpretation of the relevant EEC municipal waste water directives. We are all aware that while legislation may be encouraging, the actual experience of walking along our river banks shows that conditions do not always improve according to the legislation. The National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water will say that they have done their best and have spent a lot of money, but that consumers would not pay for more improve-ments. Unless there is compulsion, the authorities do not always do what is required.
Ten years ago, when one walked along the banks of the River Ely in my constituency there was no smell of sewage because there was no discharge of sewage from the Cowslip and Cogan outfalls on the rising tide and the sewage was not carried inland. As more houses were built in the area, sewage had to be discharged at all times when the outfall was covered by water. Then the sewage was carried upstream first and downstream later. As soon as the tide goes down, the banks are hideously ill-smelling. Those are the sort of practical problems. Does the public believe that the job will be done as it is supposed to be in this optimistic legislation? The public want us to try to enforce that lesson by introducing greater compulsion.
§ Mr. MichaelI do not want to take up the time of the House by correcting the odd description that my hon. Friend gave of the results of the Cowslip estate. There are certainly problems there, but they will be helped by the measures resulting from the barrage. My hon. Friend said that it was not enough to have things in legislation or regulation. The fact that EC directives have contained rules has not necessarily brought about the results that we would require—that is certainly true.
The diverted sewers from the Cardiff bay area will feed into Lavernock and, as a result of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment at the last year's North sea conference, a firm undertaking was given with regard to treatment at future outfalls around the coast of Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan and I exerted pressure to try to ensure that that undertaking should apply to the Lavernock outfall and should not be regarded, as the Government then appeared to intend, as something for which permission had already been given. We received an absolute promise from the Secretary of State for the Environment that it would be a treated outfall and would fall within the terms of the undertaking given at the North sea conference.
§ Mr. MorganI accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. The only difference between us relates to the form of treatment that would need to be given. My interpretation of the EC directive on municipal waste water is that it could very well compel Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority to come to an arrangement whereby third-stage treatment—phosphate and nitrate removal—would have to be carried out at Lavernock or any other sea outfall taking municipal waste water.
The undertaking that my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Vale of Glamorgan got from the Secretary of State was that secondary treatment, which does not include phosphate and nitrate removal, would be carried out. That involves biological reaction, oxygenation and the usual treatments that take place in most British sewage works. But my reading of the EC directive is that the Lavernock sea outfall would be regarded as discharging into a sensitive district because 309 there are so many bathing beaches there—it is almost one continuous bathing beach from Lavernock point to Barry island. It is not one of the great resorts of Great Britain, but is a popular resort, which would make it a sensitive water. In addition, the outfall discharges from a population of more than 10,000 people, in terms of coastal discharges, and 2,000 people, in terms of inland population—for which Cardiff, Penarth, Dinas Powys and Barry certainly qualify.
If the outfall requires third-stage treatment, we need an undertaking from the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales that goes beyond the undertaking that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has received. That is the only difference between us. I am happy with the undertaking that he has received so far as it goes, but the very fact that there is a difference of opinion between our interpretation of the EC directive reinforces the reason for the new clauses.
If, as we state in new clause 8, those sewers must be diverted and treated up to the EC standards that will exist in 1995 when the barrage will open for business, and third-stage treatment is required, there is still no undertaking to cover that. That is my understanding of the Secretaries of State's undertaking to my hon. Friends for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Vale of Glamorgan. The undertaking covers only secondary treatment, but I think that the EC directive means that there will have to be full tertiary River Rhine-type treatment, including phosphate and nitrate removal. That is why we argue that the Bill must be specific—the matter cannot be left to the interpretation of the National Rivers Authority and Welsh Water. Those organisations may say, "Who really needs it, you only need that sort of thing on the Rhine. We do not want to mess around with that—it is much too expensive."
§ Mr. Win GriffithsI thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene at last, although I realise that he was pursuing an important argument regarding the intervention by our hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Micheal). During his discourse, before the original intervention when we both tried to intervene, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was making a case about the cost to consumers of all the remedial works which were necessary to deal with this pollution. I merely want to confirm that the chairman of the former Welsh water authority and the current chairman of its successor, the privatised Welsh Water company, Mr. John Jones, is a constituent of mine. Whenever we meet he never fails to remind me that the cleaning up of our act as regards water quality is an expensive business. I therefore stress what my hon. Friend is saying, as that argument needs to be emphasised and to be considered in relation to the incredible extra costs that will be involved in keeping the water in the lagoon behind the barrage to a reasonable standard, if that can be successfully achieved over a long period of time.
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend used the phrase "cleaning up our act" and that is a good description of the set of clauses that we are debating because it is precisely what we are trying to do. I use the word "our" as though we were among the sponsors, which we are not. We are mainly Members of Parliament representing south Wales, who are especially interested in the Bill. I include my hon. Friend the Member for 310 Wrexham as an honorary south Walian, which I am sure he will be pleased about, although I do not know whether his constituents would.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend mentioned the attitude of people such as the chairman of Welsh Water, who say that the consumer will never pay for that sort of treatment. They say that if there can be a conspiracy between consumers worried about the size of their water and sewerage bills, and the Government, who do not want the retail prices index to shoot up again to 8.9 per cent. or whatever and therefore say, "Keep water charges down", a conspiracy to keep the EC out of our water affairs, then so much the better. Our standards will be lower than those of the Germans and the Dutch, but what the hell. We British are a pretty dirty nation, especially we people in south Wales—we live among tips and so forth. People like the chairman of Welsh Water will say that if we can possibly get away with a minimalist approach, let us get away with it, as we have done for years.
I can remember meetings that I attended, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend, with the old Welsh Water—when it included the Welsh responsibilities of the present National Rivers Authority—where the question was asked, "Who needs any kind of treatment in coastal waters?" Five or six years ago there were long sea outfalls and it was said that the vigour of the British channel, the world's greatest natural flush lavatory, with 5 cu km of salt water roaring up the channel and back down again, dispersed the waste. The fact that it undispersed it and brought it back on the next tide did not seem to occur to Welsh Water, but eventually it had to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. However, one can see from his description that that same minimalist attitude still remains, and that is why new clause 8 is necessary to ensure that the promoters are firmly pinned down before impoundment takes place to decide whether these are sensitive waters. If they are, how do the promoters propose to comply with the municipal waste water treatment requirements for tertiary—that is full—treatment? That means that one is able to drink the water when it comes out of the sewage treatment works; it does not contain eutrophicating surplus nutrients for algae, have biological consequences for our beaches, or contain the alleged super-germs, which have driven tourists away from all the beaches in the upper Bristol channel once it became known that they were there.
§ Dr. MarekBefore my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he say a little more about the River Rhine and consider whether what happens there would be effective in the Cardiff bay area? Where are the settlement tanks on the Rhine? How much do they cost? How effective are they? Could such treatment be used on the Taff?
§ Mr. MorganThat intervention is pertinent to new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping. People were panic stricken about the state of the Rhine. Since the introduction of the Bill and the inception of the NRA, I know that the NRA has sent people to the Rhine to see the phosphate treatment works. I do not think that there is one in this country yet. Nobody has yet attempted to apply the higher standards in this country. As the only place where such works can be seen in action is on the Rhine, the NRA went over to see it. It has made a ballpark estimate 311 of how much one would cost, as per the terms of new clause 6. The NRA is not unconscious of the EEC's possible requirement and of the duties that would then fall on the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to comply with any directives because national authorities have to comply with EEC directives and are fined by the European Commission and Court of Justice if they do not.
The NRA popped over to have a look at the many phosphate-stripping works on the Rhine, all of which have been built in the past 10 years, totally transforming the Rhine—except when there is a nasty big chemical spill in Switzerland. The NRA has tried to apply that to the phosphate and nitrate problem on the Taff from the Cilfynydd sewage works and to the problem on the Ely at Miskin, the Taff and Ely being the two rivers that discharge into the bay that we are talking about converting into a lake. It was thought that it would cost about £50 million to apply phosphate stripping at the points where the Taff and the Ely enter the lake. Although one cannot cover money in such a Bill, that is the money side.
Much more important, however—as is evident from the way in which we have worded new clause 6 on phosphate and nitrate stripping—is the location of the settlement tanks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned in the earlier part of his intervention. That issue raises the question whether one has the necessary land or the compulsory purchase powers to acquire the land that would be required to take the Taff and Ely out of their courses, through iron and aluminium deposition tanks, and bring them back on to their natural courses so that they can discharge into the lake. There are no powers under the Bill for the compulsory acquisition of the land needed to bring the Taff and the Ely off-line and back on-line via the iron and aluminium tanks which are the only effective method of phosphate stripping. The treatment could take place at the sewage works, but that would miss out all the storm sewer overflows, or SSOs, which are a colossal localised problem in south Wales where there are hundreds of such overflows.
If hon. Members do not know what an SSO is, there is a superb example on Lambeth bridge. Those of us who live in Kennington can see it when we walk home at night. There is not a big SSO problem in London, which does not get the variations in rainfall encountered in south Wales, where the valley formation and large numbers of people living in enclosed valley communities mean that when the river rises—after rain, it might rise as much as 6 inches in a few hours—after a heavy rainstorm in south Wales, the rivers Rhondda, Cynon, upper Taff and Ely all rise rapidly and the SSOs discharge sewage because that is preferable to sewage being discharged upwards through people's toilets, flooding their kitchens and bathrooms. That problem is local to south Wales, which is why it is important to put it on the record now. It is relevant to the question of how to remove phosphates and nitrates, and to the issue of acquiring the land to take the Taff and the Ely off-course so that the water can be put through the tanks. Without the necessary powers, one is leaving oneself open to the classic Welsh Water and NRA response in Wales —that people in Wales do not really want that sort of thing, that they cannot afford it and would not pay for it, so why should our standards be as high as Germany's? We 312 should be in the lead on public standards, not always having to catch up with what the Germans were doing on the Rhine five years ago.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is relevant because I am extremely concerned about the nitrate and phosphate stripping of the rivers and I do not know where the nitrate and phosphate-stripping works would be located. I have asked several times whether they would be located in Sophia Gardens, next to Glamorgan county cricket club. Is that where they envisage putting the giant third-stage treatment works? If it does not go there, where else could it go? It must go into public playing fields somewhere, which are covered by covenants. If new clause 6 is not accepted, the promoters will not be under any compulsion to show where they would put the works. The same applies to new clause 8 on the sewer diversions. If the sewer diversion powers were applied, the sewage was taken out to Lavernock and secondary treatment was provided, that would be fair enough. We know that that could be done. It would not involve a lot of land.
I interpret the EEC municipal waste water directive as requiring third-stage treatment. That puts the promoters in serious trouble. Where in the Lavernock area could it be sited? Would it involve reviving the old plants for the Cog Moors sewage works near Dinas Powys where my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and I used to live? It is a fine village. In the geography textbooks it is called the largest village in Wales. Between there and the north-eastern suburbs of Barry there was to be a large sewage treatment works. That was about 20 years ago. There was a big campaign against the works in Dinas Powys. People did not want a sewage treatment works, but they accepted it in the end. However, Welsh Water decided not to build it. It said that it did not need it and that long sea outfalls would do the trick.
Now Welsh Water is seeking to build sewage treatment works again. It always tries to get away with a minimalist approach by saying that people in Wales do not want to afford sewage treatment, do not really need it and that the channel is always there. The easy way out is to bung the sewage in the sea. Now everyone has had to wake up to the fact that bunging sewage in the sea drives away tourists and leaves one open to legal challenge from the EEC. Under pressure from Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, local Members of Parliament and members of the public who are anxious about their environment, Ministers have had to give undertakings.
Parents will not take young children to swim at St. Mary's Well bay, Penarth or other places where I took my children to swim in the belief that the salt killed all the germs. People no longer take that attitude. They want to know whether a beach has the EEC blue flag award. That can be achieved only if promoters of measures such as this are tied down to proving that they can meet the standards. The new clause would tie them down and if they could not show to the satisfaction of the authorities how they intended to meet the standards of waste water treatment that will apply when the barrage opens for business through to 2005 or 2015—that is as far as legislators can reasonably look ahead, to our retirement—they could not build the barrage. It would be a dereliction of our duty to allow them to do so. Unless we do that, we cannot bring about the improvements that are required.
313 We must be able to show that we are giving sewage treatment the priority that it deserves, that the south Wales tourist industry deserves and that the local public who want to teach their children to swim deserve.
We cannot always foresee exactly how an environmen-tal problem will turn out. One of the latest problems that has emerged is generation of methane by tips, which was not foreseen. That is referred to in the new clause that deals with the Ferry road tip. That tip is a major generator of methane. The Ferry road tip is the direct subject matter of new clause 17 and the indirect subject matter of new clause 5. It is the biggest tip in Wales and one of the biggest in Britain. It contains 2 million cu m of waste. We were told by the promoters last year, when they proposed to acquire the tip for the purposes of removing it to Bedford, that it contained 3 million cu m, but we are now told that a more accurate measurement is 2 million cu m. We are happy to accept that downgrading, but it is still a very big tip.
The tip is at the peak of its methane-generating capabilities. It is at the height of its decomposition now because the average life of the black bags buried under the top soil is about 10 years. The tip has been open for business since 1972 and is still going strong. It has another seven or eight years of life, if use of it does not stop by Cardiff Bay development corporation acquiring it
The interesting point about the methane is that no one realised until two or three years ago how serious a problem methane generation from tips was. We now know that it is a serious problem. Methane can migrate several hundred metres underground before it suddenly shoots up to the surface where it can he lit by a spark. It can get inside a house. That happened in Derbyshire last year or two years ago. Bells were set off everywhere. There was a major report.
Methane from tips such as that at Ferry road is a major problem which has just crept up on legislators such as ourselves and the regulatory authorities to which we vote money every year. We never realised how important it was. Giant tips generate a lot of methane and Ferry road tip will presumably be a major source of methane.
Cardiff city council is a forward-looking authority which has bought its own gas-testing rig. One result of Cardiff's being good at its job is that when the Department of the Environment collected statistics on the generation of methane from sites—they were published in the newspapers about two weeks ago—Cardiff was shown to have more notifiable sites generating methane above a certain level than any other city. I cannot remember whether Cardiff had 17 and London 19, or the other way round. That does not mean that the sites in Cardiff generate as much methane as those in London. It merely means that the authorities in Cardiff have been doing their job properly and have actively tried to discover where the methane is being generated at old tips, at today's tips and at places which are not even tips but where there is organic material under the soil, and they have found that there are 17 or 19 notifiable sites. That puts it roughly on a par with London, which is 20 times as big. If London had a gas-detection rig, I am sure that it would have 20 times as many methane-generating sites as Cardiff.
Ferry road tip is easily Cardiff's biggest waste disposal site and new clause 17 proposes that it should have major treatment. On the assumption that it is not moved but left in situ, we want to know how it is to be treated.
314 But there is an even bigger problem about the Ferry road tip. New clause 17 specifies that a measure of sealing must be carried out there before impoundment. We have emphasised that because the Ferry road tip is crucial to the Ferry road side of the barrage—in other words, the western edge of the barrage.
As we have heard dozens of times during the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament, the purpose of the barrage is to create a lake which will assist in regenerating the area by producing land for development worth many millions of pounds per acre rather than £500,000 per acre, because it will be a classier environment. That is a lovely theory, but the problem is the geography of the lake.
Development on the east side of the lake near the docks is proceeding anyway. Running from the Queen Alexander dock entrance to the pierhead building, the property development subsidiary of Associated British Ports has said that it is proceeding with the first phase of its £160 million development on its 160 acres regardless of the barrage. It hopes to start in October.
It is only the area near the Ferry road tip on the west side of the barrage that the barrage can possibly make any difference to. That is why, after Second Reading 18 months ago, it was said that the Ferry road tip would be moved to Bedfordshire and fresh top soil brought in so that the land could be used for houses, business parks, offices and so on. There were lovely models of that. That would be the pay-off from the barrage. The barrage makes no difference to the east side near the docks, but it does make a difference to the area near the Ferry road tip.
We are now confronted with the revelations from the Touche Ross report and the discussions between its consultants and the Welsh Office. I note that the junior Minister is writing furiously—no doubt he is evaluating his response to my speech. It is now clear that the Ferry road tip will not be removed, so how does one develop the west side of the barrage?
3 am
Is a high-class property development envisaged near a tip that will be generating methane? That tip must be sealed and the methane extracted from it. We have set out in new clause 17 what should happen to the Ferry road tip. It should be treated, sealed and then converted for the most appropriate low-density land use as a former municipal tip. As in the past, it could be developed as a playing field and, eventually, after 50 years, when the tip is inert and no more methane is being generated, it could be converted for a more high-class use.
At present it is impossible to envisage the exhumation of that tip, its wholesale excavation or the outlandish transportation of it in cross-country trains full of stinking, half-decomposed refuse. The tip should be treated to make it more environmentally acceptable. That means that one must accept that the site can no longer form the centrepiece of a high-class, yuppie development of office blocks. One will not get mega-valuable property development on the land around the Ferry road tip.
If the tip remains, it must be converted for playing field use and similar low-density development, with industrial development around it. That would be acceptable, sensible and safe so long as the tip is made safe as a result of methane extraction and sealing. If one accepts that, one must accept that there is no economic case for the barrage.
315 The sole purpose of the barrage has been to generate high-class property development around the Ferry road tip. If the tip remains, however, sensible, safe development will occur if we accept the strictures of new clause 17. One should not imagine that it is possible to remove the problem from Cardiff to Bedford.
Sludge dumping at sea is covered by the sewage diversion proposal in new clause 8 and by new clause 19. We have had a lengthy, scientific, erudite deposition on algae scum from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and I shall not repeat what he said. He is right to suggest that algae represent a great problem. They are recognised as such on page 36 of the Bill which already specifies the removal of algae growths as a duty to be laid on the undertakers.
Algae growths are a problem in dry summers such as those that we had in 1976, 1981, 1989 and 1990. In general, however, we have an exceptionally dry summer every five years. In those years the entire country is subject to drought and that causes huge algae blooms. When that happens, the oxygen levels crash. Algae require oxygen at the breeding stage; without it they die and decay anaerobically at the bottom of the water. A major fish kill will then result. At one time, it was envisaged that there would be a large coarse fishery in the bay. We are still not absolutely clear whether the promoters still envisage a coarse fishery. One new clause that I tabled, but which has not been selected, stipulated that they must include a coarse fishery. It would be a crying shame if the requisite water quality standards could not be achieved. I am sure that the promoters will want to inform the general public in Cardiff what they are to expect and whether there will be a coarse fishery. After all—and we shall return to this subject on the midges amendment—without a coarse fishery, how will one control the midges? Coarse fish eat colossal quantities of midges and we are informed that there will be 11 billion midges—not in the middle of the lake but above the shallows and around the edges, nearer to where people will be walking.
The problem with algae is that they may crash and cause a major fish kill—if we have any fish—every five years when there is a summer drought. To prevent that from happening, one has to step in and hoover them out. A harvesting machine must be developed to pull the algae out of the water before they reach the blooming stage and cause a crash. In a drought, just the right conditions may be created. The sunlight, the temperature of the water, the nutrients coming in from sewage disposal and so on may all be ideal.
The promoters must tell us what they intend to do to avert the problem of algae. If they accept what most scientists accept—that every five years, when there is a drought, there will be an uncontrollable problem—they must accept, too, that that will mean a major stink in the lake. The lake may have to be drained. All the fish in it will have died and will have to be fished out. We may be talking about millions of coarse fish—which will then have to be taken out and burnt—in addition to the algal scum, which will also have to be disposed of. It cannot be dumped at sea. There is no question of sewage sludge including algal scum being shoved out by way of diverted sewer pipes via the Lavernock outfall. In 1995, that will not be allowed. There will be no method of handling huge quantities of algal scum, and that will result in major fish kills and major problems in the drought summers that we must expect every five years.
316 We want to tie the promoters down now. We want them to make proposals regarding the treatment of the algal blooms and scum mentioned on page 36 of the Bill. We have not invented the subject. We want to see the colour of the promoters' money before we give them permission to impound. How do they propose to solve the problem? At the moment, the only solution that we are offered is a load of waffle—a promise that the National Rivers Authority will extract from the promoters an assurance that they will solve the problem. But the distinguished specialist scientists are saying that they do not yet have a solution. We say, "If the scientists say that there is not a solution to the problem, we must leave an obligation on the promoters to find a solution or accept that they cannot build a barrage." We cannot allow them to build a barrage on trust, knowing of the kind of problems that they themselves admit will arise. The highly eutrophic waters will give rise in drought summers not just to the early-season cladophera-type algae that we see every year in Cardiff but to the later microcystis and to the other nasties that caused the deaths on Rutland Water. Every five years, in drought conditions, we would have a proliferation of blue-greens and therefore oxygen crashes and consequent fish kills. We should then have to face the problem of draining the lake and scraping out and burning dead fish bodies.
The current ministerial sales line, and the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who has moved to the Front Bench, is, "Trust the authorities to extract the right undertakings and to establish the correct and acceptable modus operandi with the promoters." We say that if the promoters cannot show us what that modus operandi will be, we do not think that the barrage should be built. We therefore urge that a permission to impound shall be dependent on the achievement of a specific modus operandi acceptable to the scientists working in the regulatory bodies. We want that informaion to be produced and published with no hole-in-corner negotiations going on between the Welsh Office and consultants behind the backs of the people of Cardiff and their democratic representatives and about which we know nothing—unless, that is, we are lucky enough to acquire odd parts of the consultants' reports. That is not good enough. We want to be specific. We want the promoters to produce and publish a plan that shows exactly how they propose to solve the problem of leachates seeping out of the Ferry road tip and of the sealing off of that tip.
We have not heard yet, but it is obvious that the promoters are worried about the sealing, or they would never have suggested removing the tip wholesale as a sine qua non of any subsequent property development. We think that they are probably coming round to the view that it cannot be moved—in which case they should accept new clause 17, and recognise that it should be treated and sealed. That would be a step towards an acceptable compromise between the promoters and those who feel that the problems have not been solved in relation to the five big issues—leachate, phosphate and nitrate stripping, sewage removal, the sealing of the Ferry road tip and the disposal of algal growth arising from surplus nutrients, which itself arises from the insoluble problems posed by the 250 or so storm sewer overflows in the rivers feeding the man-made lake and their tributaries.
Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said that it was putting the cart before the horse for the 317 sponsors to seek permission for the building of the barrage before solving the problems. I think that I have found the solution. The only time that the cart is put before the horse is when the horse is suffering from galloping gastric dysentery. In those circumstances, in front of the horse is the only place for the cart to be.
The south Wales river system is not yet in a position to avoid galloping gastric dysentery—and with the 250 storm sewer overflows it may never be. The barrage should not be built until a solution is proposed. It has been suggested—my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) heard it, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also mentioned it —that, given its considerable Government backing, if we accept the package the Government will feel obliged to put their hands in their pockets and give a lot of money to Welsh Water, the National Rivers Authority or the barrage. The barrage must have first-class conditions. Never mind what happens to investment programmes elsewhere in Wales; the Treasury must cough up for the barrage—although it may not cough up for many other purposes, such as hospitals.
The Government's sales pitch is "Have a barrage—you may not want it, but we are telling you that it is good for you." We ask, "What will you give us with the barrage? Will you improve the sewerage system?" They say, "Sure —if you are willing to accept the barrage, we will certainly give you money for your sewage disposal system." In the first place, that could not be called honest dealing with the public in south Wales. If our sewerage needs improvement, it should have it.
No improvement of the storm sewer overflows is being offered. People say, "Surely there is a technique. If there are 250 such overflows in the valleys—in the tributaries of the Taff and Ely, and in the rivers themselves, which feed the lake—there must be a solution." I have not heard of one. In the 1970s, a huge investment was devoted to solving the storm sewer overflow problem on the Tyne, the Wear and the Mersey. Those areas were in a way similar they housed the first wave of the industrial revolution, and contain the old sewerage systems. Anyone who walked along the banks of the Tyne in the 1960s and 1970s will remember that in the middle of Newcastle the river stank, due to storm sewer overflows.
I believe that £100 million was invested. That was heavy bread back in 1971, when the Secretary of State for Wales of 1987–89 was Secretary of State for the Environment in the Government led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He authorised the Mersey and the Tyne to have complete new sewerage systems, which included new rainwater sewers about 10 ft wide running alongside the Mersey, the Tyne and Wear. The purpose was to catch all the surplus rainwater to prevent the rivers from always being full of sewage after heavy rain.
As far as I know it is impossible to do that in south Wales. A new rainwater sewer parallel to the Taff and comparable to the system alongside the Tyne and the Mersey to solve storm sewer overflow problems would leave no room for the houses in the valleys. It would be above the road and the houses would dominate the environment. That is because the Mersey, Tyne and. Wear do not have catchment areas with rainfall similar to that in south Wales. Rain in south Wales discharges immediately into the rivers in the 19 valleys.
318 3.15 am
I am sure that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is aware of the level of rainfall on the plateau of the south Wales coalfield from which rivers would discharge into this lake. There are 90 to 100 inches of rain a year there, which is greatly in excess of the rainfall in the catchment areas of the Mersey, Tyne and Wear. The problem is made worse by deforestation because wood was needed for pit props or battle ships. That led to the loss of soil on the valley sides and there are bare sandstone faces on many of the valleys which feed the tributaries. Rainwater on the plateau gushes down the bare sandstone faces. There is no soil to absorb it and it is not taken up by the roots of trees because there are no trees. The water reaches the rivers within an hour. The river rises fast and the pressure on the rainwater sewers is such that if sewage was not discharged into them, it would enter the houses.
A rainwater gutter system similar to that on the Mersey, Tyne and Wear to take surplus water after heavy rain would need to be 10 to 20 ft high and would obliterate the landscape. It is physically out of the question. Municipal engineers who are experts in that field say that such a solution would totally obliterate the living environment of the valleys.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsMy hon. Friend is in full flood on this issue. He is discussing the possible adoption of the scheme that was introduced on the Tyne and the Mersey in the early 1970s. Is there any solution to the storm drain problem? If there is not, what will happen in the valleys?
§ Mr. MorganModest improvements could be made to the storm sewer overflows. The filters could be cleaned and more modern valves could be fitted. There is no proposal to do that, but civil engineers are looking at the problem in south Wales and they say that we could have better storm sewer overflows. There are 250 of them and it is said that we do not know where some of them are. Many of them are private and do not belong to the National Rivers Authority or Welsh Water. Some of them are owned by small private sewerage works, and not all of them are authorised. Some have been built at isolated dwellings.
Storm sewer overflows could all be classified and equipped with modern filters and valves. That solves one problem and might catch some of the solid material, but it will not solve the problem of nutrients because small non-solid bits of material would still be washed into the rivers.
The problem occurs only during spate flows, and some people contend that that solves the problem. Such a suggestion is sometimes made about Rutland Water, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly spoke so eloquently. Everybody panicked after 10 sheep and 20 dogs—or perhaps it was 20 sheep and 10 dogs—died after lapping the water in the summer of 1989. Everyone said, "My God, what are we going to do about this?" The promoters and the regulatory authorities were asked what they intended to do to avoid a repetition of the Rutland Water incident, bearing in mind that it is admitted in the Bill that the waters are highly eutrophicated. They have not tried to deny that. They know that it means that in warm weather there is the potential for massive algae growth. They said that there was no need to worry about the Cardiff bay barrage lake because the water exchange will be so much more rapid than that which prevailed in the Rutland Water incident, where the same water had 319 been present for 18 months. The average exchange in Cardiff bay would take place over about five days. It was said that the storm sewer overflows would work after heavy rain, and retention in the lake would be only one or two days.
Although retention time in a man-made lake will be far less than that in a river system—it might be only five days —any enriching material that is in the water, whether solids or ground-down bits of solids that have passed through the filters, will not be discharged through the sluices, which primarily will be top sluices to suit the fish. Any material that is below the top two or three feet of water in a 30 ft barrage will not be discharged. It will be blocked when it hits the wall. It will drop to the bottom at the speed that the water drops when it hits the concrete wall. It will then be distributed at the bottom of the lake. That, basically, is what the following year's algae will eat. That is what the following year's midges will feed on. They regard enriched mud as a favourable environment. That is the sort of environment that we shall see for the foreseeable future because of the SSOs.
It is true that SSOs do not open unless there has been a heavy shower, but many of them operate frequently in the summer. There might be a thunderstorm in July or August and a massive flow of water. There may be the discharge of 50 or 100 SSOs. The day after the storm might be warm and dry. Indeed, the following week might be dry. The sewage will enter the lake and be distributed on the bottom. If there is a dry spell of about a week thereafter, conditions will be perfect for an algae bloom. It looks as though there is one in the glass of water that I have been handed, for which I am otherwise grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend. I think that it is known as Passing Cloud—my original American Indian name, but that was in a previous life.
§ Mr. Neil Hamilton (Tatton)I wish that it had been Sitting Bull.
§ Mr. MorganI hope that the Hansard reporter caught that interjection. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman prefers that name because Sitting Bull opposed the advance of the railway. The private Bill procedure of the United States Congress was used to advance capitalism and the eradication of the hunting grounds of the Sioux. I remember that when I was a boy I used to pronounce the name of that tribe as Siowax, not realising that French explorers had reached the lands of the Sioux before the Welsh.
Storm sewer overflows represent a real problem, and one which should not be dodged. To avoid that happening, we must incorporate in the Bill the reinforced concrete mechanism set out in new clause 8 dealing with sewer diversion, and the mechanisms that are set out in the other new clauses providing for phosphate and nitrate stripping. We say that in the absence of a reinforced concrete mechanism and without the finding of a solution, there will be no barrage and impounding will not start. As it stands, the Bill is wishy-washy. It states, in effect, "All right, use the best available technology and you should be able to obtain permission to go ahead with the project. If there are problems, people will accept that you did not know as much as should have been known at the time. We hope 320 that a lower standard will be accepted. After all, what could Parliament have been expected to do about this in 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991 when it considered the Bill?"
§ Mr. Win GriffithsI have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West for the past hour and 55 minutes, but he has not yet referred to the fact that once the barrage is built, it will be there to stay. Given what my hon. Friend has said about unavoidable, catastrophic pollution problems, what about the cost implications and the dis-cost benefits of the barrage in view of the pollution problems?
§ Mr. MorganI am not quite sure what dis-cost benefits are. However, as I have already said, we must move on from the present position. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I agree about that. We do not accept that we can continue to use the sea and, in particular, the Bristol channel as the world's greatest flush lavatory for much longer. We accept that the sea does a great job because of the vigour of the tidal action and that it acts as the kidneys of the system in intertidal areas by its saline flushing action and its sweeping out to sea—and the sweeping in of whatever is out at sea, including pollutants. The sea acts as a good, basic "nature knows best" mechanism for correcting the worst aspects of virology, bacteriology and solids and other visually offensive sewage material.
The sea does a job, but we must adopt second and third stage treatment. If we have treatment coupled with the marine flushing action of the sea moving in and out, that is a respectable environment for the standards that we anticipate for the 21st century.
Development would then progress very much along the lines envisaged by Sam Pickstock, the chairman of Tarmac Homes, in his epic interview in Country Living. He said that he thought that the future of Cardiff did not lie with trying to make it a mediterranean playground as portrayed in those wonderful artists' impressions. Those artists were hired by the promoters to draw brilliant iridescent blue lakes with little white boats bobbing up and down on them manned by people wearing green tee-shirts, black sunglasses and red shorts. That is all very pretty, but as Sam Pickstock said, what has that got to do with south Wales or Cardiff? Cardiff is not the mediterranean. Why can we not accept the environment in which we operate? If it is a little misty, grey, brown, or whatever the appropriate pastel shade might be for the south Wales environment, why try to compare it with the mediterranean or with Baltimore?
§ Mr. MorleyMy hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has made a pertinent point about the image and the reality in terms of the technical problems that he so ably described to the House. With regard to the overflows from the storm sewers, I assume that there would be a build-up of organic material on the bottom of the lagoon. In the summer, the water will heat up. As it is accepted that there will be periods when the oxygen level in the lagoon would be extremely low, would not hydrogen sulphide gas be produced? Everyone knows that the smell of that gas does not fit in with the colourful mediterranean picture presented by the promoters. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
§ Mr. MorganI had intended to make that important point. The promoters say that they thought of it and that 321 they have provided a solution, but they do not know whether it works because it has never been tried anywhere else. One of the few good features of the Bill is that it includes a specific commitment to provide 5 cu litres of dissolved oxygen per gallon of water. I do not remember the precise standard, but it is to be found in the NRA protective clauses.
During a summer drought, river flows would drop. The proportion of river flows represented by treated sewage would therefore increase, in which case eutrophication would become not just a problem but an acute problem. Highly enriched water would enter a warm, shallow lake and provide perfect conditions for the multiplication of algae. The regulatory authorities would pursue the undertakings that they had obtained from the promoters when the oxygen level looked as though it would drop below the required standard. At that point the oxygenation machines would be introduced—standard machines that one sees in all sewage works. Cardiff bay lake would then become one of the world's largest sewage works. Artificially injected oxygen would be introduced to neutralise the highly enriched treated sewage water.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsMy hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred to the deposition of the pollutants on the bed of the lake. Might not the oxygenation process be similar to what happens in a jacuzzi? Apart from the unpleasant smell of hydrogen sulphide, would not an unpleasant scum form on top of the lake?
§ Mr. MorganMy hon. Friend raises an important point. He anticipates what could easily happen but what is not intended to happen. The promoters intend to get in first. When they realised, having consulted their monitoring equipment, that the oxygen level was dropping to the point where anaerobic fermentation takes place they would introduce oxygenation equipment to increase the oxygen level. Healthy bacteria, rather than anaerobic bacteria, would form the metabolic process in that enriched environment.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsIs not that the counsel of desperation? Large amounts of oxygen would be pumped into the lagoon. We face the same problem in the River Towy in Carmarthen. Poorly treated sewage enters the river upstream, which leads downstream to low oxygen levels in the summer and to the pumping of oxygen into the river. We have the equipment to pump oxygen into the river. Is not it similar to artificial respiration? A lagoon would be created where there could be low oxygen levels. Having created a problem, we should then have to devise a technical "fix." Would not it be much wiser not to create the problem in the first place?
§ Mr. MorganI was about to make that point. Oxygen would not be introduced for a known amenity purpose. We should have to cope with the deleterious side effects on the environment.
This is being done on the basis of the sales pitch that it is good for the environment. How are we to turn the environmental promise into reality when we know that the proposed solution to the problem of detritus is a kind of mobile boom that is supposed to collect floating bits of log and the doors that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd sees passing as he looks down on the River 322 Taff? What might be described as a lorry without wheels will be one of the intrusions into the lake. This machine will grab at bits of detritus. Then there will be the algae-harvesting equipment, whose purpose will be to prevent the algal blooms from getting out of hand. Those machines, too, will have to be able to get into the shallows as the algae will grow in a big way around the fringes. In terms of raised water temperature, sunlight has a much more drastic effect at the edges than in the middle, where the water may be 20 ft deep. Major algal blooms will not occur in the middle, but at the edges—in the correct conditions of nutrients and sunlight—a couple of algae could become a billion in about an hour.
In addition, there will be the oxygenation equipment. I still have a very deep scepticism about the nature of this equipment. It is reckoned that there will be fixed oxygenation points, as well as mobile points whose purpose will be to do a "fire brigade" job. Obviously, the lake will have a very variable bed. If patches of water look as though they are about to have an algal bloom, the oxygenation equipment will be rushed in on a "fire brigade" basis.
So, in the middle of a drought, in a hot August, there will be three things rushing around the lake at the same time. That, of course, is the very time at which the lake, as an amenity, should be at its most attractive. When do most people go out walking? On a fine summer evening. When do most tourists go round the world? In August. Whether what is proposed might produce an acceptable environment on a freezing February day, shortly after a furious rain storm, is hardly relevant. The question is whether it will be an amenity when most people will want such an amenity. The early artists' impressions on the basis of which this scheme was sold depicted a shimmering, blue lake with lots of little dinghies bobbing about, and the occasional person water-skiing. A fleet of mobile oxygenating machines and an algae harvesting boat sucking up algae, or cutting it away from stones, and then discharging it on to some beach or jetty provide a very different picture. People will think, "This is a pretty rum lake. What was it made for? Is that big concrete wall for the pupose of generating electricity? It certainly prevents us from seeing the winking lights of Weston-super-Mare." They will come to the conclusion that the people of Cardiff have been sold a bum deal, and that the people who thought the scheme up should have been told, after about six months of study, that while it looked nice on paper —especially when depicted by an artist in the most favourable possible light, with lots of bright colours and pretty scenes—the environmental problems would not be manageable.
From time to time, including tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has referred to the Bute East dock. He has said that the water coming into this lake will be the same as that in the Bute East dock. He has made the point that if that dock constitutes an amenity, the man-made lake resulting from this barrage will surely be an amenity. It is important to put on record the fact that there are many problems in respect of the Bute East dock. The water is drawn in from the feeder at Black Weir and flows down through the town centre. That comes from the same source—the River Taff—but there are some differences, the biggest of which is that Bute East dock is a 10 ft deep square box whereas the Cardiff bay lake would be a sloping shallow-edged lake. Most of it would be shallows, but there are no shallows in the Bute East dock, 323 so there is no potential for warming in sunlight. Water 1 ft or 2 ft deep provides ideal conditions for algal blooms; water 10 ft deep does not. Algae are still in Bute East dock, but not huge blooms.
In August 1989, algal blooms were worse in the feeder than in Bute East dock. Complaints to the city environmental health officer resulted in his having to warn the owners of Bute East dock—South Glamorgan county council, Tarmac plc and Cardiff city council—that they must get rid of the algae because they were clogging the feeder, which is about 4 ft deep. The algae were apparent in the dock. Employees at the county council's new headquarters, which adjoin the dock, could see that something strange was happening, but it was not a bloom; the real bloom occurred in the feeders.
Bute East dock is not as shallow as the proposed man-made lake will be, but lorryloads of algae were removed on the instructions of the city environmental health officer in order to comply with the complaints of residents of the new Tarmac housing estate, which was built with the assistance of the Welsh Office through the highest urban development grant ever given in Britain of £8 million. It is a good development, but occasionally it causes problems with eutrophication and algal blooms, of which August 1989 was a prime example.
The second difference between Bute East dock and the new man-made lake is that the dock was directly locked with the sea. As a result, it is not all fresh water but has a salt water cell at the bottom. Approximately 1 ft of pure salt water has deposited itself on the bottom of the dock because salt water is heavier than fresh water. To some extent, that would control some of the problems that would arise with the man-made lake. The promoters accept that salt water will occasionally enter the lake by accident, which is why there will be a bottom sluice to get rid of it. That has the beneficial effect of being a modest form of biological control on the worst biological problems of salt water flowing from the Taff via the feeder.
The third difference between Bute East dock and the lake is that the input can be controlled. Water from the Taff and Ely cannot be controlled, but what flows into the Bute East dock can be controlled. Flows can be cut off or increased because the feeder acts as a control. There is no control over what comes down the Taff and Ely, so Bute East dock has fewer management problems. The few problems that have been experienced act as a warning, which is why we have emphasised the need to ensure that the barrage cannot be impounded until the promoters find solutions to the problems that we have raised. The city environmental health officer has expressed great concern about the use already of Bute East dock for rowing purposes even though it is not conventional rowing where one might capsize. It is dragon racing in large galleys which are unlikely to capsize. Nevertheless, there is still potential danger from Weil's disease; although it is a rare disease, it is fatal. Therefore, the environmental health officer has asked for strict controls, but he does not have power to ban the use of the dock. He can warn the public, but he cannot ban them from using the dock.
3.45 am
The same problem occurs with salmon in the River Taff. Salmon have returned to the Taff since the sewage works at Cilfynydd were opened and they have also 324 returned to the River Ely since the Miskin sewage works were opened because the oxygen levels in the rivers in the summer have improved. But the National Rivers Authority warns people who catch the salmon not to eat them. I remind hon. Members that there are no trout in the Taff or in the Ely because trout are non-migratory fish which eat while they are in a river. Salmon and sea trout migrate; they are in a spawning mode when they are coming up the river and in a migrating mode when going down, and they are not interested in eating. They breathe oxygen in through the water. That can taint the flesh and pose certain problems, but they can survive because they are not eating.
I was shocked when Lord Crickhowell, on Second Reading in the other place, did not mention that. He said that the fact that salmon had returned to the Taff showed that the answer had been found to our prayers and that we now had a clean river. He forgot that we had a re-oxygenated river because of the building of the sewage works at Cilfynydd. However, that did not allow salmon to eat in the river; it meant that salmon could make a spawning run when they were already well stoked up with food from their transatlantic migration. Official advice to the public was not to eat those salmon. The River Taff and its tributaries meet the standard for salmonic fisheries because it considers only oxygen levels, but they do not reach the standard of allowing people to consume their products because of the tainting of the flesh and the carrying of virological diseases. Rivers which pass through urban areas such as Cardiff and Pontypridd are bound to have rats, and, if there are rats, there will be virological side effects.
Those are some of the environmental problems of water quality involved in the five new clauses which have been grouped together. We must nail the promoters down on them because the Bill was represented before the establishment of the National Rivers Authority. Now that it has come into being we are trying to put into the Bill what we think it would have been negotiating for had it been in existence. We see the evidence of that in what it is asking for in the Usk Barrage Bill. It is too late for the NRA to do the job on this Bill so we are trying to do it. We hope that there will be some movement later today when we complete the debate.
§ Dr. MarekI listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) had to say. He said it succinctly, but used such a lot of material that his speech took some time in total. He demonstrated very well the purpose of the five new clauses, which are grouped together and are all important. It is a pity that we have not yet had any comment, either from the Bill's sponsor—who has just walked back into the Chamber—or the Minister.
Reference has been made to the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary. I shall not read it all out, but at the end of the first paragraph the Secretary of State for Wales talks about the Cardiff bay barrage. He states:
I see it as a vital component of one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe, whose completion will bring enormous economic benefits to the whole of South Wales.One might have thought that we would have at least one word uttered from those on the Treasury Bench this evening, but we have not heard anything. In the leaked document, the Secretary of State for Wales describes the 325 barrage as one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects. I should have thought that a Minister would have come to the Dispatch Box to say so.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsWould not my hon. Friend go even further and say that, although the Treasury Bench has been graced by the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, given the release of the letter, the Secretary of State should have been here to defend the letter and comment on the fundamentally important debate that we have been having on the conditions under which we can consider the building of the barrage?
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend makes a valid point. I thought that I saw the Secretary of State for Wales drifting in through the door into one of the Lobbies. At present, government is done by fiat because the Government majority is huge. There are other people to do the Government's work and sit there on the Front Bench. I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but he has no doubt been told that his job is to sit there and say nothing. It is a great pity because we are debating a private Bill that will affect the lives of many tens of thousands of Welsh citizens in the Cardiff district. At this consideration stage, we should be fashioning the Bill into a better piece of legislation.
We had a Division on the closure motion on the clauses and the House decided not to close the debate. I always believe that there is a purpose in what the House does and if it decided not to close the debate, why did it do so? Its purpose must have been either that there is some sense in the clauses and they merit further debate or that the Government have lost control of the House. The Whip has clearly been put on because of the leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary. The Government have lost control of the House and are no longer able to summon 100 of their Back-Benchers or payroll vote to force the Bill through.
What are the Government doing? It is a Government Bill as I see it; the Secretary of State for Wales said that he regards it as one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects. It is not difficult to discern from that what the Government should be doing, and have been doing secretly—giving the Bill their vigorous support.
Mr. Alan WilliamsIs not this a curious debate? Hon. Members decided a couple of hours ago that we needed
more debate on these clauses, yet no one from the
Government has said a word about the pollution consequences of the barrage and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who is the sponsor of the Bill, has not been in the Chamber. It is a very one-sided debate. We could keep putting forward the arguments, but no one is here to try to reply.
§ Dr. MarekI agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We are not here merely because we want to block the Bill. Let me make my position absolutely clear; I should like to see the right form of development in that part of Cardiff, and that probably goes for many of my hon. Friends who sit on these Benches. However, we are worried about the way in which it is done.
It is treating the House with disrespect to a certain extent when the sponsor of the Bill is not here to listen to our arguments and seek to put us right or to make helpful observations, or for the Minister and other members on the Treasury Bench merely to sit there—no doubt on 326 instructions. They are not going to say anything publicly in the House because they have a large majority and prefer to govern in secret by writing confidential letters from one Secretary of State to another. That is not the way in which we should legislate.
§ Dr. MarekI think that it is disgraceful and if the Government had any integrity they would at least talk to the sponsor of the Bill, take it away and come back with it another day, having thought about it afresh. If they will not do that, all that we can do is to continue to press our reasonable arguments to find out whether concessions can be made, the arguments find favour or are right or until the sponsor of the Bill or the Minister stands up and tells us where we are going wrong in our arguments.
There are five new clauses in this group and they are governed by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Although I raised the question earlier with one of my hon. Friends, it would help me if the sponsor of the Bill, or the Minister, could give me the present terms of reference for the Cardiff Bay development corporation and say exactly how it approached the Bill. Did it table the Bill because it wanted to make a lot of money out of it? Was it because certain landowners in the area would become extremely wealthy? That is unlikely to be the case on its own. If there was a term of reference relating to the benefit of the people of Cardiff, how strongly has that been put in the articles of association or in the setting up of the development corporation? Only after finding that out can we place some trust in what is in the Bill, and can we believe what we are told, where the Bill does not spell out the details.
All the new clauses are similar and they have rightly been grouped together. The first clause states:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.".My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke at length on that clause and made many pertinent points that I do not want to repeat. However, I do not think that he has been answered succinctly or effectively by the Minister, by other Members on the Treasury Bench, who have said nothing all evening, or by the sponsor of the Bill.What is wrong with the undertakers producing and publishing a plan
pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate."?The new clause does not state that all leachate must be removed, simply that proposals for the removal, relocation and improvement of such sources must be drawn up and published. It does not mean complete removal, relocation or improvement. It is a straightforward, simple and helpful new clause which, if agreed to by the sponsor or on the Government's recommendation to the sponsor that it is a helpful clause, would enable us to finish our debate on this group much earlier. New clause 5 is thus eminently sensible.327 4 am
New clause 6, which is grouped with new clause 5, states:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.Again, it is a helpful new clause. Although it refers tocompliance with future water quality objectives",there is no commitment to action apart from producing and publishing a plan. The new clause relates purely to the provision of information and the undertaking of research.We have not received a sensible reply to our request for new clause 6 to be passed and added to the Bill. The Minister could have told my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that he thought that sensible. The public—the people of Cardiff and of Wales—should know. The Minister has simply sat on the Front Bench and remained quite. Indeed, my hon. Friend is not in his place to tell me why those provisions cannot be accepted.
§ Dr. Kim HowellsDoes my hon. Friend agree that the main reason why the promoters do not agree with new clause 6 is that it exposes the inadequacies of the preparation for the barrage in the Bill, which refuses to acknowledge that there are problems which, at the moment, appear difficult to solve but which, if admitted to in the Bill as drafted, would mean that the promoters would have to call a halt to these proceedings. As hon. Members have already said, it is a bit like praying that a solution to a major problem will somehow come along, provided that one keeps the momentum of the development going, and that the technical problems will be solved when it is convenient to do so. The basis of our objections, as expressed in new clause 6 and the new clauses grouped with it, is that we believe that the solutions should be clear before the development proceeds any further.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend makes a helpful point.
What am I to think? I can only think and surmise along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. In the absence of any counter-argument, there can only be the supposition that there are serious problems over what happens to the water. Indeed, I go further and say that the development corporation is probably in this for the money. People working for the corporation are probably earning good money. The chances are that they will make their money selling the houses before the lake is full, and that when it is full, they will be away and the people who bought the houses will have to put up with all the problems. By then the employees of the corporation will have left the job or retired. They would no longer have any responsibility. That is probably too cynical a view. Certainly at this stage, I do not wish to ascribe that view to people working for the corporation. But surely it is up to the Minister—it is now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, as Ministers seem to be taking it in shifts and to be under strict instructions not to say a word.
§ Dr. MarekI hope that he is writing a reply to set our minds at ease. It is up to the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to prove to the House that what I have asserted is not the case.
New clause 6 is entirely sensible. It asks for nothing other than the production and publication of a plan.
One might think that new clause 8 caused a problem and would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds. But it says:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay or the tributaries thereof, showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement thereof and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement.A certain amount of action is required by the new clause. It asks first for a plan to be produced and published. No action is required in that part of the new clause. It is simply a question of doing some research, finding out the position and producing and publishing a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls. No one in the House would object to that. There cannot be anything wrong with knowing the location of the sewer outfalls which discharge into the river. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West brought out that point forcefully in his speech. He said that there are serious problems with storm sewer overflows and that they should be mapped and charted so that we know where they are. I am sure that every citizen in Cardiff would say, "Hear, hear" to that.The first part of new clause 8 asks for a plan to be produced. The second part of new clause 8 asks the undertakers to show the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement of each outfall. Some of the SSOs or sewer outfalls may be entirely innocuous. Of course, many of them are not innocuous, so something would have to be done about them. But if a fresh water lake is to be dammed up, every citizen would think it absolutely right for the Cardiff Bay development corporation to examine each of the sewer outfalls and either remove or relocate them. At the very least, it should improve them. There is nothing whatever wrong with new clause 8. Yet we have heard nothing from the Minister. Nor, indeed, have we had a comprehensive reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
§ Dr. Kim HowellsI do not know whether my hon. Friend has enjoyed a tour of the docks with the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The undertakers of the Bill make great use of the fact that there are some particularly noisome, vile sewage outfalls at present. They take one to Pier Head and point down and show a vermin run and an outfall that flows out through the old dock. They say, "How long do you want that to continue?" Then they cast their hands up across the mud flats that stretch out towards the channel and denounce all the mud flats as though they were an extension of the sewer.
As one of those who visited the docks and was shown around, although not as part of the great freebie which I understand took place at a different time, I drew a different conclusion. My conclusion was that those sewage outfalls must certainly be eradicated, but as part of the general eradication of outfalls to which the Government are now pledged. There is an indefinite time limit, but they are pledged to that. The lesson to be drawn from it is that the mud flats should be cleaned up and that they are not 329 something to be abhorred. I have found them quite attractive at times. If the course line and river were cleaned up they have the potential to be very attractive.
In pushing this, we are making our overall argument that the clean-up of the estuary can be achieved without the construction of a barrage and we just have answers about what exactly will happen to the sewage outfalls.
§ Mr. Ron Daviesrose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)I want to be absolutely clear that the House knows what we are doing. I will put the Question again on the closure.
§ Question put, That the Question be now put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 52, Noes 8.
| Division No. 117] | [4.11 am |
| AYES | |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Boswell, Tim | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Bowls, John | Lightbown, David |
| Brazier, Julian | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Bright, Graham | Mans, Keith |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & CI't's) | Michael, Alun |
| Burt, Alistair | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Moss, Malcolm |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy) |
| Flynn, Paul | Ryder, Rt Hon Richard |
| Foster, Derek | Shepherd, Cohn (Hereford) |
| Gale, Roger | Stern, Michael |
| Glyn, Dr Sir Alan | Stevens, Lewis |
| Golding, Mrs Llin | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Grist, Ian | Thurnham, Peter |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Tredinnick, David |
| Harris, David | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) | Wood, Timothy |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | |
| Hunt, Rt Hon David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Irvine, Michael | Mr. Allan Rogers and |
| Jackson, Robert | Mr. Elliot Morley. |
| NOES | |
| Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) | |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Nellist, Dave | Dr. John Marek and |
| Rowlands, Ted | Dr. Kim Howells. |
§ Whereupon MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).
§ Dr. MarekI have never before had the privilege of being cut off in full flow by Members on my own side, but it has been an instructive exercise. The Government have now abandoned the Bill.
§ Dr. MarekLet us see some evidence. I shall be happy to regret it, if it happens.
Only 52 Members wanted to close the debate. I shall be happy to sit down immediately if the Minister, or a sponsor of the Bill, attempts to answer some of the questions that have arisen under the new clauses, but so far 330 nothing has happened. The Minister remains silent, perhaps because his troops are not behind him: only 52 are here. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth were present to answer some of my questions.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsBefore the Division, my hon. Friend was talking about new clauses 6 and 8. All that we are doing in those two new clauses is called for a plan. No work or expenditure would be needed; it is a precautionary principle. The building of the barrage will pose a danger of serious pollution problems. Our request is very modest. How can hon. Members claim any "green" credentials while refusing to adopt a precautionary plan?
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has returned: I beseech him to answer some of our questions. It is a great pity that he was not here for most of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West.
Anxiety has been expressed about the cleanliness of the lake and the health aspects. The Minister refuses to open his mouth. He has been given strict instructions by somebody not to speak.
§ Mr. MichaelI am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing pleasure at seeing me and I am pleased to be here for his speech. I was present for large chunks of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and found them enjoyable and enlighten-ing. Some hours ago I answered the questions that are raised by the amendments. My answers were contained in brief and modest interventions and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) heard some, if not all, of them. They were brief and to the point. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with the points that were made.
§ Dr. MarekI am grateful for that explanation, which is better than what we have had from the Minister, who has not said anything.
§ Mr. MichaelThe Minister must account for himself. He does not represent a Cardiff constituency. I do, and my constituency includes the whole of the Cardiff bay development area, although that development has serious implications for other Cardiff constituencies, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). That is why we take such a positive interest in the matter.
§ Dr. MarekI appreciate that, and not for a moment do I think that it could be otherwise. However, the Welsh Office has a central role because it is responsible for almost every facet of administration in Wales. The leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary states that he sees
the Cardiff Bay development as a vital component in one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe.In view of the serious problems raised by some Opposition Members about pollution that could be caused by the barrage, Treasury spokesmen should have given their view. That is done for most other private Bills and I do not understand why the Welsh Office should write 331 secret letters to other Ministers and not be prepared to account for its secret action in the full glare of television and the other media.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend is quite wrong to describe these letters as secret. They are extremely public and everybody seems to be repeating like a mantra references to them. My hon. Friends obviously intend to be helpful, but they are giving the Secretary of State publicity for supporting the Bill. The matter is important and I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the co-promoter of the Bill is Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council. That positive support comes from the members and leaders of that authority, and those people live in the area of the proposed development. I accept that it may be difficult to perceive that from the long-distance perspective of Wrexham, but I assure my hon. Friend of that positive support. I hope that that will encourage him to support that Bill, even if my earlier comments did not.
§ Dr. MarekI am extremely glad to have that reassurance. I hope that my hon. Friend will remain in the Chamber, because I intend to direct my speech principally at him. He cannot pretend that the Government have nothing to do with the Bill. The letter contains the names of many Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but I will not detain the House by reading out all of them.
§ Mr. MichaelI have written to hon. Members asking them to support the Bill. Why does not my hon. Friend give me some credit for what I have tried to do? Why is he so concerned to give publicity to the Secretary of State for Wales? My hon. Friend's attitude is most unfriendly.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend put it straight into the bin.
§ Mr. RogersTalk of the letter is obviously disturbing some of my hon. Friends because they find themselves in the same camp as the Tories. It is clear that the Government have a strong locus in these matters and that is why the Under-Secretary of State should answer some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. The Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds of public money into the venture and much of that money will be spent on works that are included in the Bill. Surely the Minister should justify that expenditure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will understand that Back-Bench Members, for whatever reasons, may or may not support the Bill, but if the Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money they should answer to Parliament for that expenditure.
§ Dr. MarekI agree with my hon. Friend.
Two of my hon. Friends have proposed closures of the debate and those motions have not been carried. I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to admit that there is some substance in the arguments that have been advanced or at least to recognise some of the fears that are reflected in the new clauses and 332 to promise to consider the new clauses carefully, or even perhaps to accept some of them. If it is not possible for that to be done on the spur of the moment, he could at least get together with the Government and say, "The Bill has not passed through the House as we thought it would when we embarked on our consideration of it at 7 pm. We had better adjourn the debate so that we can consider what must be done. Perhaps we should meet my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to discuss the best way of proceeding with the Bill."
§ Mr. MichaelI made it clear earlier that serious issues were being raised by hon. Members, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in opening the debate. As I said to him, however, the issues are covered by the wording of the Bill as far as they should be, and that other more general items should be covered in more general legislation. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that we shall have the opportunity to deal with the more general items when, in the near future, we have a Labour Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said in his intervention, the Bill involves a massive public investment in my constituency. If the money is not spent in that way, it will not be spent elsewhere in Wales. Instead, it will remain in the coffers of the Treasury. I wish that my hon. Friends would allow the investment to take place in my constituency. It will do so much for the housing, the environment, the jobs and the well-being of my constituents. Surely that is the basis of our debate. I remind my hon. Friends, as they seek to debate important issues, that the benefits to which I have referred will be at stake at the conclusion of our debates.
§ Dr. MarekIn principle, I do not dissent from that, although I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is shaking his head. if we can get the Bill right, I would not be against the redevelopment of this part of Cardiff. I have been round the area, although not on an official tour. I have carried out research and I believe that the Bill contains much that could be put right.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will believe that I approach this debate constructively. I am not speaking just for the sake of it. I should like answers to my questions and in the absence of satisfactory answers, there will have to be a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth needs 100 hon. Members to force the closure and he and the Government cannot achieve that. I believe that I have raised serious points and if they can be answered I will willingly finish my remarks.
§ Mr. RogersMy hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is asking my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to answer his points and those answers are not forthcoming from my hon. Friend or from the Government Front Bench. Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and give him one of the answers that he seeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that huge sums of public money had been invested in his constituency. That is true. However, one would have thought that he would have asked for a return on that money. The returns do not arise from extra building land or land for houses. If we consider the matter 333 carefully, we see that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would be adversely affected.
The direction of the profits on the public money is revealed in a report of a consultant employed by the Cardiff bay development corporation. The report states that the projected land value in the area with no barrage, simply with regard to business space, is £130 million. Fjowever, with the barrage, the consultant expects the same building space to be worth more than £1 billion. It is worth £900 million in land values alone. With respect to the total of business space, industrial space, retail space, residential and leisure space, the land value in the area as a result of the massive investment of public money to the company will rise from £211 million to £1,300 million. That is where the profit on the public money is going. That is one of the answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was seeking and he was unlikely to receive such an answer from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is more interested in his constituents than in the money-grabbing people involved in the venture—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will confine himself to the new clauses.
§ Dr. MarekI am sure that we shall be able to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda later. I will not dwell on the point now, but the point is significant and it should be considered. If large profits are to be made, they should go to the people of Cardiff and not be siphoned off somewhere else. That point should be answered, preferably by the Minister.
Mr. Alan W. WilliamsMy hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) appears to have described a strange new Government strategy. It seems that public money is being used to generate inflation. Is not that a strange departure? I know that there has been a change of leadership in the Conservative party and the Conservatives do not know which way they are going, but this is a strange philosphy.
§ Dr. MarekIt might generate inflation, although I do not suppose that it would generate inflation if it went to Majorca.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was led away because he looked at the returns. My point is that the returns on public investment should relate to housing, jobs, the environment and the economy. The environmental issues that we are debating in this group of amendments are very important, but they are satisfied by the provisions in the existing clauses. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary.
4.45 am
Job creation is not just in the interests of the city of Cardiff; it is also in the interests of the rest of south Wales, including the constituents of many hon. Members who object to the Bill. Their constituents come now and in future will come in larger numbers to work in the city. I do not begrudge such a benefit to local communities and economies.
§ Dr. MarekI do not intend to deal with the economy, which is the subject of a later group of amendments. My 334 hon. Friend maintains that the new clauses are otiose because these matters are already included in the Bill. New clause 8 states, as do the other new clauses:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay or the tributaries thereof".Does the Bill contain a provision that states that before any work starts a plan shall be produced showing the sewer outfalls discharging into the area? If the Bill contains such a provision, I can dispense immediately with that part of my speech. If, however, it contains no such provision, it cannot be wrong to include a clause that would give to the people of Cardiff the right to know exactly how many sewers are pumping sewage into the rivers and surrounding areas. They ought to have that information.The second half of new clause 8 says that a plan shall be published
showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement thereof and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement.If the Bill already provides for that, I hope that someone will point to the page and line of the Bill that says so. If it does not say that, what is wrong with adding the new clause to the Bill? It is a simple question and it demands an answer. I am sorry to say that at this stage the Minister, hiding behind his secret letters, intends to say nothing. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth can say something about it, I shall be grateful.
§ Mr. MichaelThe point is that diversion of sewer outfalls upstream of the barrage must be a matter for Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority. It does not arise directly from the creation of the barrage. We have already undertaken to divert the sewers that feed into Cardiff bay. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was here when we debated that matter at an earlier stage. Had he been here he would have heard that that is not a matter of dispute between local Members of Parliament. The new clause goes way beyond
what is appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. It deals with matters that we should all like to see resolved, but they ought not to be loaded on to the back of this Bill.
§ Dr. MarekI am reassured to some extent. At least something will be done in the area of the bay. As I am not an expert in water treatment, and as there seems to be no objection from any of my hon. Friends, I am quite happy to take my hon. Friend's word in respect of that amendment.
New Clause 6 says:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.The second part of the provision is simply an explanation of the need for the first part; it does not demand any action. Let me repeat the words from the first part:the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping".Can my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth tell me why there should not be published a plan indicating what provision has been made for these activities?
§ Mr. MichaelMr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to stretch your patience by repeating points that I made earlier, but my hon. Friend almost demands that I do so. Currently, Welsh Water and NRA do not consider that phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping are required from the outset to achieve the necessary water quality. However, as I said earlier, paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 69(13) cover that situation where works are required upstream of the inland bay. The undertakers are required to meet the cost of any works that are necessary, over a period of 20 years, to satisfy water quality standards. This provision could include phosphate stripping if the water quality standards so required. The point, which has been well made by my hon. Friend, is covered in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that, too.
§ Dr. MarekIt is a reassurance to a certain extent. However, there is no absolute guarantee of phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping in any of the waters coming in from the head waters.
§ Mr. MorganIf phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping become necessary within the first 20 years, the development corporation, as co-promoters, will have to pay Welsh Water and the NRA to do the job. A great fear is that if that responsibility can be dodged for the first 20 years, it will be dodged. There may be arguments about variations in climate conditions, the appropriate technol-ogy, the compulsory acquisition of land, and the location of phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping plants. Are the plants to be located at the sewage works as add-on components or will the people concerned do the much more ambitious, but possibly necessary, job of locating them where the waters actually enter the bay so that all possible sources are covered?
Nineteen years could easily elapse before a plan is agreed. With a little delay, the 20 years could be gone. In that event, who would pick up the tab? It seems that that is left completely in the air. Will the Cardiff city council, as the legatee body, pick up the bill or will the NRA, as the monitoring body, be responsible? The NRA will not have the necessary capital funds for a scheme costing £50 million. Or will Welsh Water—a private business—have to meet the cost? If so, its shareholders will not be very pleased. This fear has been expressed to me by very senior people in the NRA in Wales.
§ Dr. MarekI am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I shall read carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. He mentioned complying with standards. Will he say that those standards will be complied with on time and not 20 years later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West suggests?
§ Mr. MichaelI assure my hon. Friend that I intend to be around for more than 20 years, during which time I shall ensure that compliance is not dodged. It is in the interests of my constituents that I ensure that it is not. I hope that the NRA will pursue vigorously the requirements of the Bill and that future environmental legislation will make the requirements more stringent and will insist on timeous compliance with them. The Bill offers a series of tight and testing requirements—they have been described as draconian—and I and others who have supported the Bill will ensure that they are enforced.
§ Dr. MarekI shall weigh those remarks carefully when deciding how to vote on the new clause.
New clause 5 provides:
Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters … and its proposals for removing, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.There may be no proposals for the removal, relocation or improvement of such sources, but what is wrong with producing and publishing a plan pertaining to the sources of leachate? I am sure that the citizens of Cardiff would like such information at their fingertips. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth any helpful comments to make on that?
§ Mr. MichaelI hope that all my comments are helpful —they are certainly intended to be. My hon. Friend has misread the Bill. The Bill requires outfalls from Ferry road tip, Cowslip, Cogan and Penarth dock to be removed, relocated or diverted, to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority. There is a requirement on the developers to satisfy, by one or other of those means, the requirements of the NRA.
I do not want to go into detail on the drafting of new clause 5, but there are deficiencies as it asks for a report. It is not clear what is meant by sources of
groundwater in hydraulic contact … and proposals for removal, relocation or improvement.The Bill is quite clear.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West could perhaps enlighten us on the meaning of that phrase. Before I invite him to do so, may I say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is right and there are only three sources of leachate, we already have half the answer to the question raised in the new clause. If the NRA were to publish its proposals for the removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate, the new clause would be otiose. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West seek to intervene?
§ 5 am
§ Mr. MorganYes, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that he did not understand the wording that I had drafted in the new clause about hydraulic contact with the barrage. It is simple. The structure on which low-lying Cardiff is built used to be drained by artificial drainage ditches, rather like the Dutch polders which I am sure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have seen on your trips to the tulip fields. Those have been built over and cannot be seen, but there is water flowing under the ground from the rivers when the tide is in.
If we retained a high water level, water would flow back and forth permanently along the old drainage ditches and under people's houses. Therefore, all the time there would be washing out of any pollutants from a tip or any other chemicals which might drain down from the clinker which was used as a standard building material to provide foundations over the 100 years or so when there was massive use of coal. Clinker, of course, contains all manner of polluting trace elements which will drain down into the ground water in the old drainage ditches with the impounded water in the lake.
§ Dr. MarekI am grateful for that explanation. I will bear carefully in mind the statements of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
The conditions of new clause 17 may well be satisfied. In any case, I do not see any reason why the new clause should not be added to the Bill. It is similar to new clause 5. It says:
Before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.I should have thought that that was an important new clause and that every citizen of Cardiff would wish to be satisfied that that would happen. If it is anywhere in the Bill, I hope that the Minister will tell me where it is, and I will be delighted to say no more about it. It is a sensible provision. I am sure that citizens of Cardiff will want to be satisfied that there is no material risk of infiltration. The new clause does not ask for the impossible. There could be immaterial risks of infiltration because there is no such thing as 100 per cent. success in such matters. I commend the new clause to the House and hope that it will be passed in due course.New clause 19, which deals with algal scum, says:
Before the commencement of impounding, the undertakers shall commission and publish proposals for the proper disposal of algal scum arising in the inland bay that are consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal and in adjoining waters.That is probably the most difficult of the new clauses. It certainly asks for no more than that the commission should publish proposals for proper disposal—but exactly what does "proper disposal" mean? It can mean different things to different people.When the clause says that the proposals must be
consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal",that is also open to interpretation. That new clause is perhaps a little too loose and I would have made it tighter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall listen carefully to see whether he can illuminate the matter for me.I wish to bring to the attention of the House the book first referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) entitled "Toxic Blue-Green Algae". It is a report by the National Rivers Authority published in September 1990. On page 79 it states:
Knowledge of the environmental effects of the toxins"—produced by the algae—is largely based on circumstantial evidence.If the document is to be believed—and I think that it should be because it is a scientific paper:Toxic blue-green algae have been recorded from UK lakes for many years, although no major ecological perturbations have been attributed directly to the effects of the toxins. Their potential for causing problems is well documented. Toxicity data obtained by intra-peritanial injection indicate that toxins produced by blue-green algae rank amongst the most toxic compounds of biological origin.The next statement is important;The main uses of water which are most affected are those of general amenity, recreation and livestock watering.I am concerned that a scientific paper states, first, that evidence about the environmental effects is based largely 338 on circumstantial evidence and, secondly, that the main uses of water most affected are those of general amenity and recreation. That is precisely what water in the barrage will be used for. I think it right—and I hope that you, Mr.Deputy Speaker, will also think it right—that those matters should be raised. It would be, not a terrible calamity, but very sad if the Cardiff barrage were built merely to increase the capital value of the land by £900 million—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said—and it was then discovered, with hindsight, that nobody would have built it because of the environmental and toxic effects of the algae that could develop in the lake.It is difficult to prove the case. All that we can do is listen to the arguments—I have done so—and make up our minds at the end of the debate about which way we should vote.
Paragraph 12.16 on page 81 states:
The clear message, however, is that there are no easy options and many of the control methods currently available are not likely to be effective in the short term. The possible exceptions to this are whether there is sufficient depth for destratification to be effective.I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to be able to give us the answers all the time, but I should like to hear that there is sufficient depth for destratification to be effective. However, listening to my hon. Friends' speeches, there seemed to be much concern about whether the control options that are being proposed—certainly as described by them—will be effective. It would be wrong to build the barrage and then have to say with hindsight, "Sorry, we did the wrong thing. We shouldn't have built it." That is the crunch question.Of course that area of Cardiff has to be developed. Let me pay tribute to the Government. On occasions they have recognised that there is problem there and that the area needs developing. I do not think that that is at issue in the House this morning. What is at issue is, have we got it right, are we going about it the right way? There are serious questions about the barrage and the problems of controlling algae and they have not so far been dispelled to my satisfaction.
One issue that pertains to the new clause regards the management of the lagoon, which is important. We are talking about pollution in the lagoon and ensuring that it is clean, healthy and contains good water. I should like to compare two Bills, as there have been more than one. I have here what I hope is a copy of the latest Bill. The trouble is that it does not say which one it is—it would be a lot easier if it had a date on it so that we knew which copy was which. I also have a copy of a previous Bill. The only way that I can identify it is that on the new copy, on the second page, underneath the heading "Cardiff Bay Barrage [H.L.] Arrangements of Sections", "50/3" is printed and "50/2" on the old Bill. Therefore the "50/2" Bill must be an earlier version than the "50/3" Bill, but I am sorry that I have not been able to find out precisely how early.
Clause 54 of the old Bill—
§ Mr. MichaelI am trying to follow what my hon. Friend is saying, but he has thrown me a little with his references to the lagoon, which is not dealt with in the new clauses before us at present. If I am wrong, perhaps my hon. Friend would draw my attention to the part of the new clauses that he is referring to. I have a feeling that I am missing an important point.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I was getting slightly worried when the hon. Gentleman seemed to be dealing in some detail with the lagoon. I think that it would be more appropriate to discuss that when we come to amendment No. 115 and those grouped with it, which specifically deal with the lagoon.
§ Dr. MarekWe shall certainly come to that consideration, and I understand that it is different. I shall explain this in detail later as there is a significant change in the management of the lagoon in the old Bill when compared to what is stated in the new Bill.
§ Mr. MichaelThere may be some mistake. Would my hon. Friend tell us what he means by "the lagoon"?
§ Dr. MarekI mean precisely what it says in the Bill —not the lake and the waters coming from the Taff. I do not want to dwell on it at this stage, because, as Mr. Deputy Speaker says, it would be more appropriate to discuss it later. The lagoon affects cleanliness and the environment, which is why I have raised the matter at this stage.
There are significant differences between the old and new Bills. Although I shall not do so now, I had intended to seek to develop an argument in relation to the new clauses on the waters and leachates from the Taff and the Ely, to see whether the development corporation has made any other changes in its philosophy towards fulfilling its functions under this Bill, compared with what it was seeking to do under the older Bill. I suspect that there is plenty of time left in the debate and that we can return to that matter, which I shall certainly do at the appropriate time.
5.15 am
My next point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, who talked about money and about who would benefit from the development. I should like the people of Cardiff to benefit from it—but I must be careful not to stray from the scope of the new clauses. I hope—I am sure—that there will be an opportunity later to discuss this matter when we take a quick look at the clauses on land acquisition. If my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is correct, a large sum will flow from the building of the barrage, so money should be put back into the scheme to make it absolutely clear to everybody that there will be no leachates and no build-up of nitrates and phosphates, that all the SSOs will be dealt with and, especially, that algae will be dealt with effectively. That is a difficult issue. I know that the Bill contains proposals on dealing with algae, and that that is a matter for conjecture, but other aspects of the Bill are not the subject of conjecture.
If money is to be available because of an increase in land values, I should like to know where the money will go. Will it be siphoned off, perhaps by a few wealthy people who probably do not or will not live in the Cardiff area? Will there be any return to the Welsh Office? If so, we should know. If the Welsh Office is to have some return, perhaps it should spend some money to make absolutely sure of these points and to satisfy the people of Cardiff on them.
If the return is to go to the development corporation —I do not know its term of reference although I have asked—who will have the money? Where will it be distributed? Is the local authority to have any money? Will 340 South Glamorgan county council get any money out of the development? It should, if £900 million is to result from the development. Whoever gets the return, a decent amount of money should be spent to make absolutely sure that the people of Cardiff are satisfied that they will have a top-class environment.
§ Mr. MichaelI should be grateful if my hon. Friend would leave the satisfaction of the people of Cardiff to those who represent them. I am sure that he will agree that principles are important, not just sums of money, so may I ask him for the assurance that he will ask the list of questions that he has just asked about any public investment in his constituency and that he will look forward with interest to all of us asking such questions with equal stringency before any money from the public purse is spent in his constituency in the future?
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend misunderstands me. I am not criticising the spending of money. I do not criticise anything. I am asking a question. Some £900 million is to be created by this development. I repeat for the third time that whether there should be development in the area is not at issue. I give my full backing to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I want development to go ahead in the area.
§ Mr. MichaelWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Dr. MarekMay I finish this point?
I do not criticise the spending of money. I welcome any advice that my hon. Friend has to give me at any time. There is no problem about that. But if a lot of money is to be made, who will make it and will the people of Cardiff benefit?
§ Mr. MichaelI understand my hon. Friend's difficulty in answering a straight question. If a road is built in his or any other constituency which creates access to land or if infrastructure works are undertaken, value is created. My hon. Friend asks stringent questions about this proposal, but will he apply the same stringency to each item of public expenditure in his area? Did he apply such stringency to the building of roads in his constituency in the past? Consistency would certainly require it. I have always sought to ensure that public money is used to good advantage and bring development to the area. My hon. Friend asks a series of specific and demanding questions, it seems with greater stringency in relation to my constituency than I suspect that he would do in his own.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend does me a disservice. Few matters, certainly under local government administration should be secret and confidential. Of course, personal information and certain commercial information has to be confidential, but nothing on the strategic scale of who is going to make money out of a development, how much and where it is to go should be kept confidential.
In Wrexham I have difficulty obtaining answers for many of my constituents about what local government undertakes there. I do not say that in any pejorative way. Unfortunately, it is a habit of administrators from John o'Groats to Lands End to keep matters confidential to avoid unnecessary questions and trouble.
§ Mr. MichaelWe are not talking about confidentiality. In the past I have had responsibilities on Cardiff city council as chairman of finance, chairman of economic development, chairman of planning and deputy chairman 341 of the central area development committee, which dealt with a project of major importance, indeed the most important project in the city. If one is to boost an economy and create success in the area, an element of opening up possibilities is required. Infrastructure has to be built. Roads that open up sites, create access and allow things to happen have to be built. Sometimes it is necessary to invest in the future without seeing exactly the shape of that future.
For example, in Wentloog not far from the areas that we are discussing, originally it was hoped to bring in a single major employer. Clearly, such large investment does not arrive very easily. So now the same area, with some infrastructure works completed, is being considered for development in a more piecemeal manner. I assure my hon. Friend that one cannot say that this person or that person will benefit from a development. But we can ensure that the result has a pretty good likelihood of bringing a return to the whole community in jobs and improvements to the economy of the area.
By moving forward over time one can see the development of an economy. That is what we have succeeded in doing in Cardiff to build the economy of the city to the point at which it can sustain the tremendous development that is now taking place in south Cardiff where the city has been brought back into its heartland. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that those issues are basic to the development proposed in the Bill. They are not matters to which we come lightly. That is why I feel that some of the questions that my hon. Friend is asking are a trifle naive and that he might not ask them when he seeks to promote development in his own area.
§ Dr. MarekI shall not enter into an argument about our respective experiences. I have simply been asking one question. If my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is right that the barrage will result in added value of £900 million, it is not naive to ask where that sum is going, who will get it and will the people of Cardiff benefit. The people of Cardiff will want answers to those questions. Of course they will see benefits from the development in many of its facets. It will provide more housing, jobs and infrastructure. It will give a general impetus to Cardiff. I must not bore the House by repeating myself for a fourth time, but there is no issue between us on that. We all see that. I hope that my hon. Friend will not doubt me any more on that. But it is right and proper in a legislature performing a scrutiny role for us to be able to see exactly what is going on. Such things should not be confidential, nor should they be brushed aside. People should not be told that the NRA knows best and that they need not worry. I have always fought for the public to have the right to know.
§ Mr. MichaelWho has said any of those things?
§ Dr. MarekThat is the interpretation that I put on some of the discussions that we have had on the new clauses. For example, my hon. Friend said that the requirements of one of the new clauses would be met since any conditions would have to satisfy the NRA. Leaving something to the requirements of the NRA at some time in the future might be acceptable, but it is not as good as spelling it out straight away.
§ Mr. MichaelI hope that my hon. Friend will accept that his remarks were a pretty comprehensive misrepresentation of what I have said at various stages in the debate. At present, the NRA has statutory responsibility in these matters and the Bill places power in the hands of the NRA to require certain standards to be met. That has certain consequences for the undertakers.
As I agreed earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), there might be a number of improvements in the way in which environmental matters are dealt with and enforced in Britain and the way in which water quality is dealt with, and which we look forward to enacting in due course. But the arrangements in the Bill are appropriate to the present circumstances and it is a trifle unfair for my hon. Friend to ask for something which goes way beyond the general requirements of the law and becomes a burden on Cardiff and the developments that the people of Cardiff see in prospect. Many of the arrangements in the Bill go ahead of what is currently in legislation and that is certainly the case in many of the agreements that underpin the Bill. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to be a trifle more generous to the care with which we have pursued these matters in reaching this point in the legislative process.
§ Dr. MarekI am sure that in the course of time I have misrepresented my hon. Friend because my memory is not word perfect, but I have not done so wilfully. Any misrepresentation has been simply because of my inability to remember precisely what he said.
We have reached the crux of the argument between us. I am sure that the Cardiff Bay development corporation and my hon. Friend have considered the matter carefully, but how far do we go? My hon. Friend believes that it is sufficient to accept the Bill, and that that should satisfy the people of Cardiff and hon. Members. I believe that we should go further by accepting the new clauses, which make it clear that the people of Cardiff have nothing to fear because the environment will not be harmed as a result of any works undertaken should the Bill be enacted.
5.30 am
New clause 17 referred to sealing the Ferry road tip to the satisfaction of the NRA and the environmental health officer. I should prefer that obligation to be spelt out in the Bill, but I understand the other view.
We should know how much money will be involved and where it will come from. We should know how much money will be created and what will be spent and where. Every person in Cardiff has a legitimate interest in those answers, as does every hon. Member, as we have the important function of scrutinising public finance. Those questions are not naive and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda can enlighten the House about them later.
We have had an interesting debate, but there are still a few more speakers to come. There is much agreement between the two sides about the development of the city of Cardiff. There is also much agreement on the new clauses. Hon. Members may place a different emphasis on different items. The Secretary of State spoke about undertaking
one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe".I should be pleased if every storm sewer overflow were considered in a similar spirit and either removed, relocated 343 or improved. If the proposed barrage is the most exciting in Europe, that should be spelt out so that every storm sewer overflow is attended to.The people of Wales have put up for years with the pollution of their rivers; it is time that it stopped. It could stop because of the biggest and best project of urban regeneration in Europe. Can we have a statement from the Minister or the promoters of the Bill to say that there is enough money to clean all the rivers? A commitment to that effect would receive three cheers from everyone in Cardiff, Wales and the rest of the country. If a start were made in Cardiff, it would not be long before other areas demanded similar improvements.
§ Mr. MichaelThe cleaning of the sewage outfalls into the Cardiff bay will happen as a result of the development of that bay, which is a positive improvement. I should not have been a whit surprised to hear hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd say that the knock-on from that development should be the clean-up of the sewage outfalls in his area. I am sure that my hon. Friend would press the Government for that. Then there would be no difference between us.
The difference between us in the present debate arises from the fact that those who support the new clauses seem to wish to place excessively onerous requirements on those undertaking the project. They seem to take a beggar-myneighbour approach and to say, "You cannot have improvements in Cardiff unless we have improvements in our area"—even though that has nothing to do with the barrage. My hon. Friend asks that positive developments in Cardiff should have a knock-on effect elsewhere. I think that that is already happening.
§ Dr. MarekThen let us see it happening. Let us have a cast-iron promise that every SSO will be attended to.
There is a difference between Cardiff and places further up the valleys and in north Wales. In Cardiff, there is the possibility of regeneration and the ability to create wealth and income through the construction of shops. The money created could be spent on environmental benefits. That will not be possible in Pontypridd. It is a pity that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has gone out to get a cup of tea. I am sure that he seeks for his area the benefits that I seek for Wrexham, but we shall not get those benefits because there is never enough money to go round to allow one to do immediately everything that one would wish. The Cardiff scheme is unique because it will release money to achieve such aims. I am concerned that a decent proportion of the money thus released should go towards environmental benefits and improving the quality of life for the people of Cardiff and the surrounding area. One does not get the impression from the Bill that all the money —or anything like all of it—will be spent for the benefit of the people of Cardiff.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend must look further than the requirements of this one Bill, to the developments worked up in co-operation between the local authorities and the development corporation and with the statutory undertakings. He must look at requirements in the Bill that have developed, following agreement, as the process has evolved, in an attempt to ensure that positive environmental and other benefits ensue in the area. My hon. Friend is a little unkind not only to the development corporation but to the local authorities and other bodies that have sought ways to achieve positive improvements, 344 and incremental as well as direct benefits, from the changes. Many of us have taken part in that process, which is happening around the Bill. The results of the process are contained in the Bill and I have already referred to some of them.
§ Dr. MarekI thank my hon. Friend.
The problem is that the development is taking place at a time when we have a Tory Administration. My hon. Friend is right that councils wish to serve their areas. They are always on the look-out for ways to find jobs for their people, for ways to develop and for ways to build houses. Under the present Administration, that has been very difficult. We started with a recession in 1980–81; we are in a recession now, in 1990–91. We have learnt nothing in 10 years. Meanwhile, local authorities do not have any money and cannot build houses, and that brings us back to the Bill, because I am told—certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda voiced this supposition some hours ago—that the barrage is required if houses are to be built and sold at a good enough price, to people from I know not where, to make money for the scheme to go ahead —and, presumably, for the £900 million to be realised. There may be sense in that, if the Bill is held up for a few months; perhaps only until June, when there may well be a Labour Government. There must be a general election by July 1992.
§ Mr. MichaelIf my hon. Friend has read the documentation that I sent him and other hon. Members some time ago, he will have noted that the economic benefits will become that much greater with the barrage. He is, of course, right to hope for the return of a Labour Government, but we want the barrage to be built so that Cardiff can benefit as quickly as possible from the improvement in the economy that will accompany that Government. I am surprised that my hon. Friend is not willing to support us on that basis, if on no other.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend must not say that I am not willing to support him. As I have said, I support the regeneration of Cardiff. It is really a question of getting it right. I do not know the time scale; it could well take a year for it to get out of the House of Commons and progress towards the statute book.
Life would be much easier under a Labour Government. No doubt, the Minister has pricked up his ears at that. I do not want to be misrepresented. No Labour Government would suddenly rush off to the Minister at Llantrisant and say, "Print us another £100 million; we want to help Cardiff and the barrage." However, local authorities would have more freedom to spend their capital housing receipts and would therefore have a greater input on the type of housing that would be available. I am not an expert and I have not examined the details, but I hope that by and large the housing provided would benefit the people of Wales in general and those of Cardiff in particular.
§ Mr. MichaelThe resale price of properties in the bay area shows that that is happening. Furthermore having spoken last weekend to people living in a development in the area, I note that there are many local people there. It is not a yuppie paradise, as some of my hon. Friends have regrettably suggested.
The support of the local authorities, and the leading role of South Glamorgan county council, resulted from 345 their appreciation of the benefits, such as economic development and the regeneration of the area, that will result. The environment will not be disregarded, however, as the new clauses make clear.
I remind my hon. Friend that those matters have been dealt with and negotiated. Interesting, constructive and complimentary though some of his remarks may be, and much as both of us may look forward to the advent of a Labour Government, they basically have nothing to do with the new clauses or, indeed, with the Bill.
§ Dr. MarekI beg to differ with my hon. Friend on that. The new clauses critically concern the barrage. The questions are: has the development corporation got it right, so that the barrage can be built without all the problems caused by algae, phosphates or nitrates, or by flooding? Will the people of Cardiff be happy with it, and not regret it? Is there a case for waiting before going ahead with the whole development? My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West raised many concerns in his long speech.
§ The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts)The hon. Gentleman mentions a long speech. He ha. s been speaking for well over an hour and it is now 16 minutes to 6 o'clock. He challenged me to comment on the Bill. He said that he was trying to improve the Bill. Is not he trying to block it? I have listened to him on and off during the night and I am sure that he is participating in a blocking exercise.
§ Dr. MarekNo. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth for excelling himself in answering my questions. He has reassured me on many issues, although not on all.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend spoke about the clearance of algae. Such matters should be kept in perspective. We all know that algae can cause problems and that research and management are required. Can my hon. Friend give an example of public demand for a stretch of water on which the problem has arisen to be drained?
§ Dr. MarekThe Rutland Water incident springs to mind, but the simple answer is that I do not know of an example. I am reluctant to say that algae bloom is common, but it has certainly become more common in the past 20 years. I do not have expert advice or evidence before me, but I think that it is likely that the problem will increase unless we are able to diagnose exactly how to control it. The National Rivers Authority document deals with control options and states on page 81 that the clear message is that there are no easy options.
§ Mr. MichaelMy hon. Friend seems to accept that algae occur in nature, and that they need to be investigated, tackled and managed. I agree with my hon. Friend on that reasonable approach. The Bill places responsibility for management and its financing on those who will manage the stretch of water. That is entirely reasonable and I am sure that my hon. Friend and I can agree to dispose of that little point and of the others that we have explored successfully in the last hour.
§ Dr. MarekI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I shall finish soon because my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is itching to speak. As I have said, the occurrence of algae is increasing.
§ Mr. MorganIt is.
§ Dr. MarekMy hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West agrees. That increase means that we have to be extremely careful. Should we go ahead with the development? Is there any profit in accepting the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) that properly cleaned mud banks are attractive? Perhaps they would be more attractive than the barrage. It is up to hon. Members to decide.
§ Mr. MorganWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. MorganIt was precisely for that reason that in February I circulated to members of the Cabinet a photograph of, and a letter about, the exposed mud banks. We could clean up about 99 per cent. of the sewage and leave the mud banks as a feature. They would be covered twice a day and then uncovered for 15 to 20 hours, depending on where they are. The purpose of my sending the photograph and letter—they were referred to much earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), was to draw attention to what would be covered for ever. In effect, I was saying, "You may have heard that the mud banks are awful. Here is a photograph of them at low tide when they are supposed to look awful. The photograph shows what would be covered up permanently."
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North implied that my letter and photograph had a status equal to that of the letter of the Secretary of State. There was a Pavlovian reaction from the Under-Secretary of State, who produced that wonderful laugh of his. He seemed to forget that my letter does not carry authority and was not able to bring the payroll vote into the Chamber. The Secretary of State for Wales thought that he had that authority, but in the middle of the night it became clear that he did not. The sole purpose of my circulating the photograph and the letter was to produce evidence to members of the Cabinet. I took the view that they probably did not visit Cardiff bay at low tide and that they did not know what it looked like, it being a characteristic of the camera that it does not lie.
§ Mr. MichaelI know that my hon. Friend has an eye for these things. Does he agree that many photographs show beauty in industrial dereliction and other aspects of misery? A photograph can be a form of misrepresentation in the same way as any other form of documentation, unless one takes the context as a whole, including the environment in which the photograph was taken, and has regard to the appropriate filters and other devices that are used to ensure that the result is as attractive as possible.
§ Dr. MarekI take that as a riposte to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). There is a subjective element. We must reach decisions as individuals. If we are allowed to divide the House on some of the new clauses that are before us, I shall vote for them. I should make it clear, however, that I would vote against some other new clauses.
The crucial decision is whether we can go ahead with the barrage. Are we sure that we would not be making a mistake by so doing? I ask the question on the basis that the decision would not be made on the ground of being 347 able to sell houses around the foreshore. Alternatively, should we say that, because of the uncertainties that have arisen during the debate, we should hold back from building the barrage but go ahead with the rest of the development? There may be other ways to improve the river and make it desirable, so that it becomes a magnet and a centre for a regenerated part of urban Cardiff that we all wish to see.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsThe debate on the new clauses has continued for eight hours. I have been in the Chamber for more than seven of those hours, waiting patiently to be called to contribute. In the past 40 minutes I began to wonder more and more whether I would be able to slip out of the Chamber to have a shave and avoid appearing on television with rather more than a 7 o'clock shadow at almost 6 o'clock in the morning. I was reminded of another valiant, stimulating and informative effort that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) during my days in the European Parliament and its Committees.
I recall that speeches in the European Parliament had specific time limits and I am sure that some hon. Members would have liked such limits on speeches in our debates today. However, in Committees in the European Parliament Members could speak virtually for as long as they liked. I recall our Italian friends saying—in various ways—that they were concluding their speeches at least half a dozen times over a period of 40 minutes or more.
Having sat through our eight hours of debate, I have found the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) and for Wrexham most stimulating and informative.
I need not dwell too long on the new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has done a signal service to the House in the way in which he has prepared the brief, concise and effective new clauses which, if accepted, would considerably strengthen the environment of the area being redeveloped in Cardiff.
The new clauses highlight important and specific problems about the sources of leaching. They also refer to phosphate and nitrate stripping, the difficulties relating to sewer outflows, the way in which the Ferry road tip will have to be dealt with and the proper disposal of algal scum.
New clause 19 states:
'Before the commencement of impounding the under-takers shall commission and publish proposals for the proper disposal of algal scum arising in the inland bay that are consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal and in adjoining waters.'.Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that the developers have raised that issue and have properly identified it as a problem. In fairness to the Bill's proponents, there has been an effort to deal with the serious environmental problems arising from the proposal to build a barrage.We believe that the proposals are not adequate and that they need to be tightened up and sharpened to make them truly effective. However, the Bill contains a reference to algal scum about which no mention has been made so far. That part of the Bill highlights a serious problem.
348 Clause 70(9) states:
If it reasonably appears to the City Council that amounts of algal scum are present in the waters of the inland bay, or there is infestation by vermin or pests in or about the inland bay then, upon the City Council giving notice in writing on any such occasion to the undertakers, the undertakers shall on each such occasion with all reasonable despatch take such steps as are reasonably required at their own expense to remove and properly to dispose of the same.6 amIt may be said that that would deal with the problem, but we should look at it again. The subsection seems to imply that such events will occur regularly—that frequently during the summer algal scum will be present in the water and that there will be infestation by vermin or pests with almost monotonous regularity. Our amend-ments would ensure that the spectre raised in clause 70(9) was dealt with much more effectively.
New clause 17 provides that
before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.That is related to new clause 5, which provides thatbefore the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.Standards are changing and improving all the time. That is well illustrated by the guidance issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution during the past few years on landfill gas. Guidance was issued at the beginning of 1989. In January 1991, about two years later, HMIP found it necessary to issue revised guidelines for dealing with landfill gas.Last October, in Eastbourne, there was an important conference on issues relating to refuse tips and landfill gas. At that conference, Mr. John Nicholson, principal inspector of pollution, pointed out that environmental protection legislation will prevent landfill operators from surrendering their site licence at any time, by requiring them first to obtain a certificate of completion from a waste regulation authority after demonstrating that their landfills have stabilised and no longer pose a hazard to the environment or to human health. Mr. Nicholson suggested that landfill site operators are likely to have a continuing commitment to their sites for 15 to 50 years after closure. The Ferry road tip is still in use. It has seven years of life left. At this stage in the legislative process we are still not certain what will happen to it.
§ Mr. MorganThis matter has a close connection with something which, at one time, I thought of including in my contribution. In the end I did not include it, but, with my hon. Friend's permission, I should like to expand on the point that he has made.
Obviously, Cardiff city council is extremely anxious to get the development corporation to decide whether to acquire the Ferry road tip. If the tip is acquired by the corporation, will it be leased back to the council for landfill use, or will it be removed, or treated and sealed? If the city council retains it, up to £12 million will have to be spent to seal it and remove the methane permanently. All the methane will have to be captured, and the by-products of 349 organic decomposition will have to be prevented from causing damage elsewhere. If the bay authorities buy the tip, the city council will not have a landfill tipping site. In that case, the bay authorities will be obliged to make good, and the city council will have the monitoring role. That is precisely the decision that the city council wants. Indeed,
it has been waiting for more than 12 months to find out what the co-promoters will do about Ferry road. There has been no decision yet.
§ Mr. GriffithsI thank my hon. Friend for his invaluable background information, which underlines my observa-tions about the management of landfill sites. In the case of Ferry road, will tipping be carried on for another seven years? We heard that 2 million cu m of decaying wreckage could be transported.
Just before my hon. Friend's invaluable intervention, I referred to Mr. Nicholson's comment that landfill sites will require 15 to 50 years of after-care to ensure that the gases being emitted are safe and that the leachate problem and all the other problems associated with a completed site are dealt with successfully. He pointed out that those requirements will have significant implications for the design and maintenance of gas controls and for post-closure site management.
On the period between site closure and the issuing of a certificate of completion, Mr. Nicholson said:
Access to the control system will be essential for monitoring, adjustment of valves and maintenance, the gas wells, pipelines and the necessary enclosure for the pump and flare stack will therefore restrict land usage. Around the site, access will be necessary to all monitoring bore holes and any monitoring points within services or buildings for most of the time that the site is actively gassing. However, it will be impossible to determine with any degree of accuracy how long the monitoring outside the wastes will be necessary, and one should therefore be pessimistic in quantifying any time scale.He also said that control systems may need replacement every 10 to 15 years. Indeed, some controls have failed and have had to be replaced within five to 10 years.The revised guidance includes advice on maintenance of control systems and on landfill settlement, which has proved to be a major cause of problems in maintaining the efficiency of the control measures.
The revised paper, which has now been issued, will encourage landfill operators and waste regulation authorities to adopt standard gas monitoring regimes so that comparable results are obtained. A minimum temperature of 600 deg C for gas flares was suggested in the 1989 paper, but a higher temperature has been recommended. More detailed advice will be given on gas monitoring in buildings and on sampling from bore holes and wells.
The advice deals with the properties of landfill gas, gas protection and measurement and monitoring techniques. When a landfill site has reached the end of its useful life, quality standards for its management are likely to rise, but the Ferry road site could be under post-completion management for up to 50 years. The monitoring procedures will mean not only that the site will be sterilised but that tests will have to be carried out on land around the site to ensure that it is safe.
Research has recently been carried out on landfill gas sites to extend our knowledge of health and odour nuisance risks. Those studies were sponsored by the Department of the Environment. The information I have comes from ENDS report No. 180 of January 1990. The findings are such that all hon. Members should be aware 350 of them. We are told that measurements of trace gas emissions from landfill sites by Harwell laboratory suggest that workers may be exposed to concentrations of toxic substances which exceed occupational exposure limits.
§ Mr. MichaelI do not want to disturb the flow of my hon. Friend's contribution, but I have been following his argument with interest, and I am not sure to which new clause he is referring or which one addresses the specific point that he is making.
§ Mr. GriffithsObviously, my hon. Friend was not listening to me earlier, when I said specifically that my comments relate to the publishing of proposals under new clause 17 for the sealing of the Ferry road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the environmental health officer of the city council, and also to new clause 5, which deals with the publication of a plan about sources of leachate in inland water. I will speak about the leachate problem later.
My comments relate to the safety of the management of the Ferry road tip or any tip while in operation and following closure. The study to which I was referring was sponsored by the Department of the Environment and was carried out by the prestigious Harwell laboratory. It showed that there was a danger to workers on site. The study also revealed that the dilution of landfill gases may be several orders of magnitude too small to prevent odour nuisance beyond landfill site boundaries. Of course, that has important implications—
§ Mr. MichaelI have been listening to my hon. Friend. He has referred to new clause 17 and to new clause 5. They deal with leachates in ground water. He is talking about research on the gas emissions risk resulting from tipping. I agree that it is an important issue which has wide and general application, as shown by the research to which he referred, but how do the two new clauses deal with it?
§ Mr. GriffithsThere are two aspects to new clause 17. First, it contains a proposal to seal the Ferry road tip, which leads to the question of the proper management of the tip when its working life is completed; secondly, it addresses the issue of the risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of ground water by leachate from the tip.
The study is concerned with a tip not only during its operation but when it closed, because the odours from the gases which are released are shown to be of such power that they would constitute a serious nuisance beyond the boundary of the tip.
§ Mr. FlynnI am sure that my hon. Friend is not deliberately misleading the House, but new clause 17 refers to
the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority".That does not suggest that it can be wrapped up in a cellophane bag in order to stop emissions of methane gas. The only way to control methane gas is to vent it. That has nothing to do with the rivers authority, whose sole interest is leachate.
§ Mr. GriffithsMy hon. Friend has failed to read the rest of the new clause because the sealing is done not merely to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority, but of the environmental health officer of the city council who, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, has a wide 351 range of duties relating to landfill sites and their management while they are being worked and after they are closed. It is not just a matter of venting the methane gas when the tip is closed, because other gases can be emitted from such a site.
§ Mr. MichaelWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. GriffithsNo, I shall not, because I think that the point has been sufficiently explored in interventions. I now feel that an attempt is being made to filibuster, so I shall continue with the serious findings of the study sponsored by the Department of the Environment.
The findings were presented at a conference in London in January last year by Dr. Philip Scott. We are told that they have significant implications for landfill operators. The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 impose a duty to demonstrate that gases evolved from decaying refuse do not pose a significant health risk to site workers. That will apply to workers managing the site after it has been filled when post-site management work is being done.
Harwell identified a total of 136 trace gases present immediately below the surface of the landfills, of which 109 were common on all three sites where the investigations were carried out. The relative abundance of different groups of gases varies markedly between the sites and, following changes in operating regimes, at individual sites. I can only lament the fact that the Ferry road tip was not one of those at which the Harwell laboratory conducted its studies. Harwell also followed a procedure recommended by the Health and Safety Executive—
§ Mr. MichaelWill my hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. GriffithsNot now, but when I have completed this point I shall certainly do so.
The procedure assessed the impact of mixtures of toxic substances that exist when the site is operated and when it is closed and there are post-management problems. That showed that workers would be exposed to health risks for up to 1,000 days following the deposit of refuse, when trace gas emissions are at their most hazardous.
The Ferry road tip could be hazardous and in the immediate future—the three years after its closure—it may be a distinctly hazardous place for those workers managing the site on its completion. I can only say "may", because the Ferry road tip was not one of those investigated—I only wish that it had been.
§ Mr. MichaelOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend has referred to the wide powers of environmental health officers, the dangers to employees and gases below landfill tips, but the new clauses to which he is speaking are specifically limited to the requirement that
no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur.In order to understand his point, I have asked my hon. Friend to show how his remarks relate to the new clauses, but I cannot see how they do.
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)The hon. Gentleman is not challenging his hon. Friend but is, 352 in a way, attempting to challenge the Chair. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is in order. However, I understand that he is bringing his comments to a close.
§ Mr. GriffithsI was a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was trying to gag me on this important matter. [Laughter.] It is nothing to laugh about. It is an important matter and concerns a health risk to workers on the site when it is in operation and in the three years after its closure. Also, there is the less dangerous but unpleasant nuisance of odour detected in these studies for people living in the vicinity of the site both during its operation and after its closure.
§ Mr. GriffithsI shall not give way on this issue any more. I want to deal with it and move on to the proposed European Community directive on the management of landfill sites when they have finished their useful life.
The report continues to say that at the three sites studied, a dilution of the order of 435 times sufficed to reduce gas concentrations below the hazard threshold and that such dilution generally appears within one metre of the surface. Sampling to measure the exposure of site operators is nevertheless required under the 1988 regulations and Harwell is now working with a leading landfill operator and a toxicologist to develop suitable monitoring techniques.
At two of the study sites, between 39 and 64 per cent. of the compounds detected were present at levels exceeding odour thresholds. The most prominent of these were methanethiol and ethyl butanoate. I am sure that everyone is familiar with those two gases.
According to Dr. Scott, a dilution factor of 100 million would be needed at the periphery of the study sites to reduce the concentration of these compounds below the odour threshold. In practice, that was never attained. Dilutions of I million were often observed, but 100 million is needed. In several instances, the dilution factor was as small as 60,000, so the odour was really bad.
Those figures demonstrate a substantial potential to cause odour nuisance—a conclusion confirmed by a recent Harwell analysis of public complaints about landfill sites in Essex, which show that complaints about odours are by far the most common. I have received many complaints from constituents about the odours from one of the landfill sites at Stormy Down. These complaints come from villages up to two miles as the crow flies away from the site, which shows how unpleasant the smell can be. Those dilutions were never obtained, and so the smell was bad, and that has been confirmed by further research in Essex.
Associated research by Harwell has shown that certain cover materials, notably pulverised fuel ash, can remove a large proportion of odorous compounds from the landfill gas. Absorption and microbiodegradation are thought to be responsible, but Harwell is hoping that Department of the Environment funding will be forthcoming to advance our understanding of the processes involved.
§ Mr. FlynnI understand the case that my hon. Friend is trying to make, but he has quoted a report from Harwell, and, stripping away the gobbledegook and the language in which it is presented, the report reaches the devastating conclusion that rubbish tips smell. Could he relate that in some way to Ferry road? Rubbish tips smell when they are 353 new and when they are a few years old. They smell when they are covered and they hardly smell at all if they are ancient tips in an exposed area where there are strong winds. Could he tell us how the Ferry road tip matches the ones described in the Harlow report?
§ Mr. GriffithsI am surprised that my hon. Friend has not managed to grasp the seriousness of the situation that was revealed in the Harwell studies. For his elucidation, I repeat that they show that for three years—1,000 days— after a site has been closed, there is a danger of the gases being toxic to the workers and managers on the site. If my hon. Friend feels that that is inconsequential, I am sorry that that is his interpretation. In addition, terrible smells emanate from the sites—but not for as long as three years, as far as I can gather, although the studies do not go into details about the longevity of the lingering smells. The point is that the smells constitute a nuisance to the people living in the neighbourhood. From my own experience, those smells can result in complaints from people living up to two miles away, which I should have thought sufficient—
§ Mr. RogersI have great sympathy with the way in which my hon. Friend is trying to present his argument on a difficult report, with technical terms. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has adopted a cheap way to participate in the debate, which is to pick on specific sentences in my hon. Friend's speech. He has now interrupted him at least half a dozen times. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) now proceed with the report? I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West rises, he will catch the eye of the Chair and be able to present his counter-argument. Some of us would welcome my hon. Friend's positive contribution to the debate. Some of us are also interested in the exposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and are trying to follow his argument closely. I wish that he would now proceed with it.
§ Mr. GriffithsI shall not be diverted again from the issues that I am raising. I shall now deal with the issues relating to the management of a landfill site, especially when it has been completed and sealed, which gives rise to problems that can last from 15 to 50 years.
As I said at the outset, standards are changing all the time. Let us consider the European Community proposal for a landfill directive, which is a most instructive example. I have the fifth and sixth drafts of the proposal with me. If I were seriously interested in holding up our proceedings, I could discuss at length the way in which the two directives have been developed to deal with landfill sites when they have been completed and sealed off and the leachate problem is being tackled. However, I shall not do so, because I wish to concentrate on the sixth draft, on what we know about it and on the way in which it might affect the management of the Ferry road tip when its useful life has ended.
The sixth draft directive proposes a ban on the landfilling of liquid waste, and lays down extremely stringent permeability standards, which are important when dealing with the issue of leachates and penetration through the substrata into the underground water, and uniform limits on the hazards of waste components that are permitted within landfill sites.
354 The draft could also require that charges on landfill waste sites be paid into a special environmental clean-up fund. I am not sure how the fund would work, but money from such a fund might become available to the Cardiff Bay development corporation to buy the land at the site and manage it in the last few years of the life of the site, or, if it decided to close it, to take the necessary management steps to make the site safe and deal with the leachate problem in particular.
The proposal for a special environmental clean-up fund might be of some benefit to the corporation, but if it continued to operate the site for a few years, there would be a special levy on the refuse taken to the site. In effect, the corporation might find that the people using the site, such as Cardiff city council and others wishing to dispose of refuse, had to pay much more to enable the valuable and essential work of cleaning up the environment of the completed Ferry road site to be completed when that stage is reached.
It is still possible that the European Community landfill directive will be amended. Of course, the Government may have their own ideas about what needs to be done. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers the Government's view of the draft directive and how they feel that it might impact on the Ferry road site when it is completed. Obviously, that has some bearing on the way in which the site and the general area will be developed.
At this stage, the draft directive is couched in general terms but key selections of it will have a major impact on current landfill engineering standards in the United Kingdom and significantly restrict the range of wastes accepted into United Kingdom landfills. That may well be useful in coping with the leachate problem referred to in both new clause 17 and new clause 5. By introducing restrictions, the proposal could take out those substances which cause most difficulties when attempting to seal a site to ensure that the leachate problem does not occur and that potentially hazardous substances and gases do not mix with the groundwater and cause who knows what environmental damage. We hardly want to dwell on the possible consequences of such substances leaking into the Rivers Taff and Ely.
The general intention of the proposal is to harmonise technical standards for landfilling in anticipation of opening the Community's internal frontiers in 1992. The Commission even envisages cross-border movement of waste, although we do not need to dwell on that.
We have not had a statement from the Government in the House on this matter. The press seems to be their favourite way to communicate policy. They do not like to bring it to the House. We had a prime example this evening. The Secretary of State could have been here backing and explaining the Bill and responding to our amendments because he considers the barrage such an exciting prospect for both Cardiff and the whole of Wales. Instead, he was speaking in the Lobby to the Western Mail Lobby correspondent. It is only a pity that the Secretary of State could not have come in and shared his thoughts with us here, either yesterday evening or this morning.
From what I can gather, the United Kingdom Government and the waste disposal industry is likely to argue that the Commission is taking its proposals too far in many respects, although it can be expected to insist that the Commission should not concern itself so closely with what goes into landfill sites and to leave room for the variable technical standards which take account of the 355 different hydro-geological and environmental circumstan-ces within and between member states. To a certain extent, that is self-evident, because each site has its own particular hydro-geological properties, and the management en-gineering in sealing the sites will need to be adapted to each place depending on the permeability of the rocks and soil in the area.
That line of argument would clash with certain aspects of the Commission's approach. Therefore, there must be some doubt whether the United Kingdom will succeed in having the basic thrust of the proposal amended. Those closely involved in the environmental issues seem to feel that the United Kingdom's approach to the problem might not be the one to win the day. The current draft is based on article 100A of the European Community treaty and therefore would be open to adoption by a qualified majority vote of the Environmental Council. There would be no question of the Government being able to use a veto in that case. They would have to bow to the majority.
The draft text would therefore lay down certain basic engineering and operational standards for all types of landfill. Therefore, the general requirements for sealing the tips relating to the fencing of the site, nuisance prevention, important water ingress in the light of the leachate problem and the presence on site of a suitably qualified person responsible for the operation of the site, would be laid down.
On some issues, the draft is more specific. There are measures to control landfill gas and leachates. The draft directive on landfill gas insists that it must be collected and properly treated or used. It is not clear whether that would permit gas migration control measures such as passive vents or barriers, or whether it would require an active pumping system. Similarly, water and leachate would have to be collected under the terms of the draft directive. Therefore, that has some significance to the management of the site when it is finished.
I will not dwell on what is a suitable location because we are dealing in Ferry road with a tip which is already there. The draft directive would set up uniform numerical standards for the permeability of the non-saturated geological formations below the base and on the sides of the landfill. This is relevant to ensuring that the tip is efficiently sealed when work there has been completed.
The values for both hazardous and municipal waste landfills are set at 10 to the power of minus nine metres per second for a sub-stratum thickness of 3 m being measured under saturated conditions. The Ferry road site is likely to have such saturated conditions because it is located in a low-lying area and given its proximity to the rivers Taff and Ely.
The draft directive has outlined the values that would be required to manage the site and to cope with the problems of sealing it and dealing with the subsequent leachates. Those values would have to engineered on those sites where they do not occur naturally. I am sure that such standards occur naturally in the Ferry road site, but I should be interested to learn from any hon. Gentleman present whether the value of 10 to the power of minus nine metres per second for a sub-stratum thickness of 3 m measured under saturated conditions pertains to that site.
§ Mr. RogersI assure my hon. Friend that it does.
§ Mr. GriffithsI am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had hoped that the sponsors of the Bill would have such information at their fingertips.
The permeability co-efficient is 10 to the power of minus nine metres per second and it is exceedingly tight. I am no expert on such matters; I just take the advice of experts. It is so tight that it might allow landfilling only on an exceptional basis. I wonder whether any hon. Gentleman knows whether the Ferry road site meets the permeability co-efficient. If it does, it makes that much easier the task of sealing the site and dealing with the leachates once that site has completed its useful life.
Natural lining materials, such as heavy clay, often have a permeability of 10 to the power of minus eight metres. If that was not the case at the Ferry road site, an artificial lining system would have to be introduced to meet the desired standard.
I have already said that the draft directive will exclude waste from the landfill site, but it is important to study the annex to the directive. It contains a series of values and concentration thresholds that must be met before a particular waste can be deposited in a landfill. Two fixed parameters relate to those values. One concerns the weight loss of the waste when it is heated to 900 deg C in the dry state—that should not exceed 10 per cent. The other parameter is that the waste should not contain more than 4 per cent. by weight of lipophilic substances. That is important when dealing with the problem of sealing a site.
Wastes would also be subject to a shake test based on the 1984 west German din method. Effluent containing concentrations of contaminants in excess of those in a table that I have before me will be subject to certain conditions. I hardly dare read that table, as it is so technical, but I may feel compelled to do so later depending on how I feel the argument is developing. There are exceptions allowed for inorganic waste. The table also refers to hazardous waste. As far as we know, the Ferry road tip does not contain a great deal of hazardous waste. I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that part of the tip may contain asbestos. If that is so, all of it was properly contained before being put into the tip. Perhaps hon. Members will be able to tell us that there are definitely no hazardous wastes involved, in which case the problems of leachates and of sealing the tip will be made that much easier to solve.
You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will probably be delighted to know that I do not feel bound to read out the inert waste standards for 20 or so different types of waste.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerI am delighted to hear it, and I should be even more delighted if the hon. Gentleman would make a more determined effort to relate his remarks to the new clauses before us. I have been listening carefully to what he has had to say.
§ Mr. GriffithsMy point, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that the European Community is to introduce a proposal relating to the management of landfill waste sites. An important part of that process involves the management of a site after it has been filled in. New clauses 5 and 17 make particular reference to the need both to seal the site to the 357 satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority and the environmental health officer of Cardiff city council and to deal specifically with the leachate problem.
Those matters are dealt with in the European Community draft proposals on the management of landfill sites, and although those proposals are not yet law, they could become law before the Bill completes its passage through the House and are very likely to be law before the Cardiff bay barrage is built. That makes the new clauses requiring the developers to bring forward proposals to deal with sealing the site and with the problem of leachates even more important.
The monitoring of the site after it has been completed is most important. As I said earlier, Mr. Nicholson, the principal pollution inspector of HMIP, said that the site would need management for from anything between 15 and 50 years. The EC proposals suggest that the management period should be 30 years, and we must bear that in mind.
The monitoring proposals specified in the text include daily checks on a range of meteorological paramaters and of leachate volumes and regular measurements of leachate and surface water composition and gas emissions, when the site is in the operational phase, with less frequent measurements being required in the aftercare phase with which the new clauses are principally concerned.
Ground water levels and composition would also have to be checked, at least every six months, using at least three boreholes on the site. That gives some idea of the scale of the work that will be necessary. For ground waters used or usable as a source of drinking water—this will probably not apply, although we can never tell how ground waters get into the system from which we ultimately take our water—the draft directive requires that concentration of substances on the so-called grey list in the 1980 EC directive on ground water protection should not exceed the maximum admissible concentrations laid down in the 1980 directive on drinking water quality. The precise implications are not yet clear, because the draft does not specify at which point in groundwater below a landfill the limits must be observed.
The directive has important implications for the management of the site. I should dearly love a response either from the Bill's sponsors or from the Government Front Benchers who have made it clear that they back the Bill to the hilt, in words if not in terms of strength: they have dismally failed to persuade Conservative Members to stay.
I should like at least to know—not just in the context of our new clauses, but in the context of what the sponsors propose—how they think that the European draft directive will affect issues relating to the sealing of the site after it has completed its useful life, and what they consider to be its implications for dealing with the leachate problem. Those who harried me when I was speaking about important safety aspects for workers on the site do not appear to be prepared to make any useful comments about something that I thought might have already been drawn to their attention.
New clause 17 refers specifically to closure procedures, which are dealt with in the draft proposal. We are told that, before a closure, there must be a report on the condition of the site, together with proposals for monitoring and control of leachate and gas emissions. They would have to be submitted by the operators to the authorities. That is exactly what we are asking for in new 358 clause 17. I hope that the sponsors will say that, as this will appear in European Community law in the next couple of years, it would make a good deal of sense at least to accept new clause 17.
That is a positive note on which to end my speech. I am anxious not to take up too much time, although I assure the House that I could talk for at least another 15 minutes about the European Community proposal, because it is so important. I will not detain the House, because I know that other hon. Members are keen to speak; I hope that the sponsors are among them.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesI have listened closely to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He has spoken for well over an hour, and I understand that he has supported new clause 6.
§ Mr. GriffithsNo; I have been supporting new clause 17 in particular.
§ Mr. GriffithsNo—new clause 5.
§ Mr. GriffithsI have not supported it.
§ Mr. JonesI am seeking some information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me. He seems to be distancing himself from new clause 6; let me read it to him:
Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.The main point appears to be the "event" referred to at the end. That is the point on which I seek information. What event might come about? What are the quality objectives and who would set them? I urge the hon. Gentleman to go further into new clause 6 to help me to understand it before we enter upon serious debate on it.
§ Mr. GriffithsThe hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) has been present for most of the debate. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber when I started my speech, when I did so I referred generally to all the new clauses. I said that I wanted to spend most of my time dealing with two issues. They were algae scum, which I dealt with briefly, and new clauses 5 and 17, on which I spoke at greater length. I did not want to speak to new clause 6 because it was dealt with at length by other hon. Members. The Official Report will contain a great deal about new clause 6.
§ 7 am
§ Mr. RogersI understand the problems encountered by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). However, it is implicit in all that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) has said that there is to be an EC directive on these issues. At the end of new clause 6 is the phrase:
in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay.The meaning of that is self-evident. As a result of Parliament's decisions, the future control of pollution will 359 rest with the European Community. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North should have been provided with the information that we have been able to obtain.The chief executive of Cardiff city council has prepared a report and, out of common courtesy, that should have been given to the hon. Gentleman to enable him to check on the problems that have been mentioned. Page 7 of the report states:
Current leaching and landfill gas problems at the existing site need to be remedied under the provisions of draft landfill directives being proposed by the European Economic Community.That is the basis of the new clause, which should be adopted by the promoters. It is a constructive amendment to the Bill.
§ Mr. GriffithsThe hon. Member for Cardiff, North should recognise the growing role of the European Community in environmental matters, and that draft Commission proposals are likely to continue to have a major impact on the control and management of landfill sites, such as that at Ferry road.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
§ Mr. Ian Grist (Cardiff, Central)I deplore the fact that we are where we are in the debate. It underlines the difficulty of launching legislation such as the Bill under the private Bill procedure. Some hon. Members have sought to wreck a measure that is designed for the public good. The Bill is for the good of Cardiff, and of Wales as a whole, and, as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said, it is designed to shine in Europe as a whole. Some Opposition Members have deliberately sought to wreck the measure and their weasel words about the Bill carried little weight with most of us. They have also caused embarrassment to their hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn).
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth on his extraordinarily hard work over a long time in the interests of his constituents and his city. He has been tireless in his efforts—as tireless as some have been slipshod in their attacks on the work that he has represented. The amendments have been carelessly framed. They have been ignorant and destructive. At the very least they have been obstructive, and designed to be so. Everybody has known it. This public Bill—
§ Mr. RowlandsIt is not a public Bill.
§ Mr. GristAll right—it is a private Bill that has been brought forward for the public good. It has Government support. It has been supported by a Labour-controlled county council, by most Labour councillors on Cardiff city council, and by the Liberal party. It is a generally accepted and widely welcomed measure. The Bill has given enormous publicity to south Wales and Cardiff in the media throughout the world. Against that background, windbaggery has threatened to damage the good name of Cardiff as well as the good name of Wales.
§ Mr. RowlandsDoes the hon. Gentleman support the motion that has been proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means?
§ Mr. RowlandsWill the hon. Gentleman support it?
§ Mr. GristMost certainly. I would not dare to do otherwise when a motion is proposed by the Chairman of Ways and Means, he being an old acquaintance and friend.
§ Mr. Gwilym Jones (Cardiff, North)I ask my hon. Friend, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether we are debating the motion of the Chairman of Ways and Means. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are in the Chair, and there can be only one person in the Chair at any given moment. Surely the Chairman moved the motion merely as the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), just another Member of this place.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerThe motion was moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and it was in order for him to do so. The motion was, That the debate be now adjourned. It was a dilatory motion, and it is open for debate.
§ Mr. GristThe actions that we have witnessed have been extremely short-sighted. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, the money which has been made available by the Bill for Cardiff bay is not available elsewhere. It is not as though the envious glances from Merthyr or wherever in the Rhymney valley will lead to the money being redistributed. Instead, it will return to the Treasury. That may be thought to be a smart move by certain people in south Wales, but I cannot imagine why.
Some Members who represent English constituencies would say, "Why is all this money going to Wales? Why is it going to Cardiff?" They would not necessarily be sorry to see us lose it. It is so short-sighted of Opposition Members to look a gift horse in the mouth. Have they not considered that the name of the proposed development has spread through the business world, through our European partners and further afield to north America and Japan? Yet they try to trip it up at this stage.
Do they believe that the development of the bay without the barrage would be half the animal that it would be with it? Are they not aware of the economic studies that have shown that for every £1 that is put in in the absence of the barrage will generate £3 of private money, whereas £7 will be generated with the barrage? Do they not understand and accept that form of arithmetic? It would be one of the best possible returns on the investment of public money. I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that it would be a much better investment than the urban aid moneys that we rightly direct to his constituency and the valley community generally. The valleys initiative is taking about £800 million. That is the answer to those who think that the Government have overlooked the valleys.
§ Mr. RogersThe hon. Gentleman is making extremely cheap political points. He knows—[Interruption.] Unlike his hon. Friends who are cackling, at least he has been in his place to listen to the debate. He will have heard Members say that they support all aspects of the Bill, including investment for the industrial regeneration of the Cardiff docklands area. We do not deny the fact that the money is going to that area for development—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) is making a very long intervention. He might catch my eye in due course, but will he now bring his intervention to a close?
§ Mr. RogersThe hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) referred to my constituency. He knows that we object only to the construction of a barrage. Some of us have yet to he convinced of the worth of investing hundreds of millions of pounds of Government money in the construction of the barrage when the results might be dubious.
§ Mr. GristThe hon. Member for Rhondda must have overlooked or missed what I said about the difference in the financial returns with the barrage as opposed to without it. That point has been tested on several occasions with different economic possibilities, taking into account the higher interest rates and slower economic growth of the past two years. That consideration has revealed the tremendous return available from the waterside develop-ment. Indeed, it is so exciting and interesting because it is a waterside development, and one need only visit Swansea to see the value of a waterside development and what it can do to an area.
If the support of the hon. Member for Rhondda for the proposal is as pristine as he makes out, he must have been a little naive. The amendments and new clauses would have wrecked the powers of the Cardiff bay development corporation to take steps in certain circumstances. Powers of compulsory purchase and other powers that he supported earlier would have damaged the corporation's capacity to operate. He tried to interfere with the planning process that has been working extremely well between the corporation and the two planning authorities that the corporation covers.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) spoke for two hours and 48 minutes. His speech was intended to obstruct and damage the Bill, and that was not in the interests of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The growth of Cardiff, in particular south Cardiff and the more deprived areas, much of which he and I represent, depends on the rebirth and growth of the derelict areas which grew up with the port in the last century and which have been looking for a role ever since.
Hon. Members who refer to the mud flats as a centre of beauty have not lived beside them. I am sure that they would not choose to do that. We can all see beauty—
§ Mr. Elliot Morley (Glandford and Scunthorpe)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. GristThe hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthope (Mr. Morley) is very interested in birds, but I doubt whether he would choose to live by the mud flats unless he was particularly wedded to the bird scene.
§ Mr. MorleyI have been in the Chamber for most of the night, but I did not wish to interfere in matters that concerned Cardiff. However, there are local, national and international concerns about the ecological effects of the barrage. Does the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) accept that many local people in Cardiff appreciate the value of the mud flats and many business people are investing their money in the regeneration of Cardiff? Firms such as Tarmac Homes have argued that the mud flats 362 would not deter them from investing in the area or in the regeneration that everyone wants. The mud flats can be an integral part of that without the barrage.
§ Mr. GristTarmac Homes is building homes on developments that are nowhere near the mud flats. The homes are near the Bute East dock and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth explained—although no one paid any attention to him—that the water in that dock is the kind of water that would be behind the barrage. It may not be the kind of water we would want to swim in or swallow, but it is perfectly good for fish, for birds and for water sports and boating, all of which take place on the Bute East dock. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) painted a picture of the nature of the water that was a travesty of the truth. He painted it in the most lurid colours for headline purposes in order to scare people and put them off. It was neither an objective nor an honest approach.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesThrough you, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that one consequence of adjourning the debate at this stage will be that we shall be prevented from hearing more from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is the most noted expert in the House on birdlife in this country. I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands in his company. He made my visit much more instructive and memorable by taking me on a conducted tour of birdlife in the Falkland Islands. The House ought to hear more about the birdlife before it continues its debate on the Bill.
§ Mr. GristMy hon. Friend surprises me by expressing that interest. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe must have been a very engaging companion. I hope that we can look forward to a slide show in the Grand Committee Room to underline the point. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly is also a noted supporter of both bird and other forms of wildlife. We accept him on that basis. Therefore, we should have respected him more had he sought more clearly to express his opposition to the development along those lines. At the end of the day I should still have thought his opposition wrong, since the promoters have gone out of their way to try to find an answer—a most ingenious one at that—to the problem. They have approached the effect of the scheme on both fish and birdlife with the greatest seriousness.
Hon. Members may not be aware of the fact that the promoters have considered the amendments most carefully—in my view, with more care and seriousness than they deserve. When we continue the debate, they will find that the promoters are ready to accept many of the amendments. Had we proceeded, we might have found that that fact led to slightly faster progress through the Amendment Paper, though I accept that it is open to any hon. Member to jigger it up, if he or she wants to do so.
The concerns expressed in the amendments need to be aired and will be aired. I hope that Opposition Members will adopt a more constructive approach and will stop obstructing the scheme, thereby damaging the good name of Wales and Cardiff. They should say plainly why they dislike the proposal. They ought to stop scaring quite unnecessarily both their own and other people's constituents.
§ Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South)Is not the most grievous lesson to be learned from all this the Labour party's divisions in Wales? As the Leader of the Opposition is a Welsh Member, does it not surprise my hon. Friend that he is not here to listen to and to contribute to the debate? Does it not show the lack of firm leadership for the good of Wales that my hon. Friend so eloquently provides?
§ Mr. GristI was seeking not to embarrass my right honourable neighbour in Cardiff and my other neighbours in south Wales. However, his absence underlines the manifest split in the Labour party that my hon. Friend has underlined, though it underlines itself. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not given some sign of his support for the proposal. I am sure that my disappointment is shared in other quarters.
Locally, the Labour party has supported the proposal, which is all to its credit. It understood that this is an unparalleled opportunity for a rundown area in a great city to be improved. Cardiff was one of the greatest coal ports in the world at the turn of the century. However, during the past 30 or 40 years the area has declined and rotted. At last we have been given the chance to rebuild. It will be a modern, pretty and exciting development that will provide plenty of work. It is estimated that this development will result in the creation of about 30,000 jobs and in the building of about 6,000 houses, a quarter of which will be housing association and public authority dwellings. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has tried to involve the people of Tiger bay. It has tried to promote training and to involve people in the rebuilding of their area. It has given life back to the area by all sorts of means, such as painting railway bridges and cleaning up places. Involving local people has all too often been an uphill task.
What does the corporation get from the Opposition? It gets suspicion and a refusal to recognise that certain powers are required. It is sniffed at when it requests investment. What happens in the capital city is reflected in the valleys, and sends a beacon out to the whole of south Wales. Following a previous failed city centre develop-ment project in the 1960s, we now have a great concert hall in Cardiff. I defy Opposition Members not to be proud of St. David's hall. Performances there are broadcast frequently. It is one of the finest concert halls in the country. Music performed there is broadcast throughout Europe and is carried by the BBC World Service. The same will apply to this development if only hon. Members will take the blinkers off, stop scaring people, and contribute constructively to the debate.
§ Mr. MichaelPerhaps I can be a little kinder to my hon. Friends than the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist)—my neighbour—has been. At this stage, I speak more in sadness than in anger.
Some of my hon. Friends do not understand the danger in which they have placed the future of my constituents, the future of the city of Cardiff, and an imaginative future for south Wales. Some have shown a degree of sympathy. Some may have hoped to exercise their right of criticism to the full, but that in the end their attempts to prevent the Bill's progress would be voted down. In view of the kind way in which the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has referred to these matters, I shall say no more about them.
364 However, in view of the numbers of Government Members who voted in this debate, Conservatives are not in a position to make remarks about divisions among Opposition Members. The absence of support for the Secretary of State for Wales is an indication of a sad lack of confidence in the very positive development that this Bill represents. I hope that all hon. Members will reflect on the dangers that will be created by the delay in the Bill's progress that is now proposed.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central for his kind remarks. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have supported the Bill at all its stages. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was born in Grangetown and appreciates more than most the precise effects that the barrage could have on the creation of a positive future for people in the area, including his own neighbours and friends of earlier days.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who represents a valley constituency, and Members from Newport and Swansea do not see this opportunity for my constituency—indeed, for the city of Cardiff—as an alternative to development in their own areas. They see it not as a price that they have to pay, but as a positive development, in which they, too, should delight.
It is sad that we have not made more progress. The new clauses and amendments that we have considered were either unreasonable or were already covered by the Bill. I did not support the Bill without giving deep thought to its implications, and I think that my hon. Friends will accept that that has been my position. I ask other hon. Members deeply to consider their objections to the Bill and the way in which they have sought to use up much time by placing obstacles in its way, and allow it to proceed, for the benefit of my constituency and the wider area.
Opponents of the Bill have referred to the excitement about the Cardiff bay development. The development depends on the barrage to attract investment and secure the future of the city. Many of us have considered the type of city that Cardiff will become in the future. We do not want ribbon development until the city meets Newport, West on the one hand and Bridgend and Barry on the other, or goes north until it meets Caerphilly. For years, those on local authorities looked southwards to the land that was owned by the British docks board and sought to bring Cardiff back to its old heartlands and to bring back new life and communities to the south Cardiff area. That is the purpose of the Bill.
The development of the city has continued apace in recent years, not accidentally but because local authorities, and the people who represent the people of Cardiff on those local authorities, have sought redevelopment of the city. I am proud to have played a small part in the development of the city centure. At one time, people left south Wales to shop in Bristol and other places, but now people from the other side of the Bristol channel come to us.
The capital city of Wales is a place of which the people not only of Cardiff but of south Wales can be proud. I still believe that the barrage will help us to ensure its future.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesI appreciate that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter. I served with him on Cardiff city council for more years than we care to remember. We served on the central area committee and 365 the finance committee. Since the failure of the central area development, through the development of St. David's hall and of south Cardiff, there has been steady progress and a bipartisan approach by responsible members of the community. If the Bill were frustrated, it would be the greatest tragedy, a dire frustration and a dreadful betrayal of our city.
§ Mr. MichaelI agree. We have been fortunate in our representatives on local authorities. They sought to develop Cardiff airport and attract new investment to the area from Bosch and other firms. Those local authority representatives had the vision to see that the development of Cardiff bay and of the barrage would take the future of Cardiff into a new dimension that would not be available without it, as St. David's hall gave Cardiff a new cultural dimension and the development of the city centre changed Cardiff from a rundown older city into one that has been fittingly described as the youngest capital in Europe.
We know there that are firms waiting in the wings to see whether the barrage proposal goes through and, if so, to bring jobs and economic development to the city. That development will bring about a growing capital city in the heart of a resurgent economy in south Wales. It will bring my constituents positive developments in the environment by replacing the old and derelict heart of the city with new, living communities. It will bring housing to areas where it is desperately needed. It will bring jobs back to the deprived communities in the south of Cardiff. Having worked in those communities before election to the House, I have seen a good deal of the misery of unemployment which far too often has been concentrated in those areas of the city.
7.30 am
Before this and earlier debates, I circulated hon. Members with information on a number of occasions. Many right hon. and hon. Members are fed up hearing about the Cardiff bay development and are tempted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself, "A plague on both your houses."
I do not seek division with colleagues within the city and certainly not with members of the same party, but I cannot stand back and see massive public investment for my constituency and my city being put at risk. I state again, lest any of my hon. Friends is in doubt, that if that public investment, which would bring after it private investment in the heart of the capital city of Wales, does not go ahead, that money will not go to other Welsh constituents but will go back to the Treasury and will be lost to Wales.
I tell my hon. Friends that I will not take the same approach to developments in their constituencies when the opportunity arises. I will seek to bring investment to my constituency, but I will also seek to do what I can to bring investment to the valleys of south Wales, to the rural areas of Gwent and Gwynedd, and to the communities in every part of Wales that need investment. I do not believe that stopping development in another constituency can possibly be for the benefit of my constituency. I invite my hon. Friends who have sought to take so much time on the Bill today to reflect on that and to consider whether they really want to stop such vital development for the city of Cardiff.
My constituents will ask why the investment and their future may be put at risk by the procedures of the House.
366 I think that on one thing at least we can all agree: that the procedures of the House in relation to private Bills need a drastic overhaul and need to be dragged into the 19th century, if not into the 20th century. That is no criticism of yourself, Mr. Speaker, or of the occupants of the Chair who have had to preside over the sitting. They have had to operate within the system, as I, as the sponsor of the Bill, and other hon. Members have had to operate within the system that currently applies. I plead with the House not to be slow in bringing about changes and more logical ways of dealing with these matters.
However, we have to deal with the procedures of the House as they stand. The promoters of the Bill had to go through the private Bill procedure in order to make the progress that we all wanted. The opponents came prepared to debate through the night and the following day. Their dedication to opposing the Bill, which I am sure is sincere, was strong enough for them to do that. I came prepared to debate through last night and today, and tomorrow night and the following day, if necessary, to complete consideration of the the Bill. I am sad that it appears that we will not now have that opportunity on this occasion, but there will be a future occasion.
I make a plea to all hon. Members to remember that this little Bill, which has been a great irritant to so many hon. Members, carries with it the key to the future for my constituency, my city and—as I say to other hon. Members —our city. I make that plea not just to those who represent Cardiff constituencies but to all who represent Welsh constituencies and, indeed, to English and Scottish Members who also have shown an interest in and support for the development.
It is a sad point to reach but I hope that what we have now is a temporary setback that may give people the opportunity to reflect on their opposition to the Bill and the barrage. I hope that the Bill will go ahead, and do so with the united support of the House. I am certain that it is the right measure for the city and the future, so I leave the House with that plea for support.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesI am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate immediately after my respected colleague and neighbour, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
This is the first time that I have spoken on a dilatory motion of this sort. I am not familiar with such a motion. I was surprised when the motion came; I thought that it had been moved by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), but Madam Deputy Chairman, who was in the Chair before you, Mr. Speaker, corrected me on that point and explained that it had been moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I was surprised at that because, earlier this morning, I had been looking through "Erskine May" and found, on page 333, that:
urthermore, the Speaker has power under Standing Order No. 34, if he believes that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on it to the House".It struck me as odd that the occupant of the Chair could put forward such a dilatory motion while seemingly having the power to exercise a veto over that motion. I could not immediately see how a separation of the functions could be achieved between the Chairman of Ways and Means proposing the motion, although not from the Chair but from the Treasury Bench—
§ Mr. SpeakerPerhaps I may help. The Chairman of Ways and Means is in charge of private business and it is his decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising that decision.
§ Mr. JonesFar be it from me, Sir. I would not want to criticise that and I hope that you will draw me to order immediately, if necessary. I only plead my lack of familiarity with this motion, which I have never debated before. I would have appreciated it if it had been in order —perhaps it would not have been—if the Chairman of Ways and Means could have explained why he brought the motion before the House. Perhaps he is allowed to say only as much as he did.
Whenever I try to debate a motion, I am always concerned about why we should adjourn. I feel a great frustration now, which I think is shared by other hon. Members, not least those from the capital city of Wales. There will be frustration in that city, and throughout south Wales, if it is thought that we are unnecessarily frustrating the progress of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I should like to know why it is felt that we should adjourn.
I have sat here patiently for almost the entire time since 7 pm last night, and have been wanting to speak on the Bill. However, I felt frustrated that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) so eloquently put it, we have been subjected to a filibuster since 7 pm last night. That filibuster has prevented me from speaking on the Bill, because I knew that, if I spoke needlessly, I would only contribute to that filibuster. I so wanted the Bill to progress that I resisted, almost entirely, the temptation and confined myself to one or two pertinent interventions to try to bring the debate to a much more appropriate stage.
This most regrettable and inappropriate filibuster should never have happened. We have been debating the Bill since 7 o'clock last night—about twelve and half hours. I seem to remember that the last debate on the second group of new clauses began at 9.53 pm. There were two closure motions during that debate, moved by different sides of the House. There was a will to make progress.
Unfortunately, the House has rules that are not always readily understood outside it. We believe that all our rules are good and try to observe them, but many people will think that there was something wrong when the first closure motion was carried by 97 votes to approximately 20, but we still could not make progress because we were a mere three votes short of the minimum required for a closure.
§ Mr. RowlandsI am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. He is referring to the length of speeches. May I remind him that there are a number of interesting precedents? One was the four-hour speech made by the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the present Secretary of State for Wales, in a debate on the Mersey Passenger Transport Bill, a private Bill. It is a precedent that many hon. Members have followed.
§ Mr. JonesMy hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has reminded me that, as this is a private Bill, there is no set rule that speeches have to be only 10 or 15 minutes. On occasion, something longer than 15 minutes can well be justified.
§ Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford)The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) spoke in the debate on a private Member's Bill, and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is a private Bill. The circumstances are different, and I thought it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to set the record straight.
§ Mr. JonesI am grateful for that intervention, which sets the record straight. We can only reflect on the almost complete lack of progress that we have made, although all those hon. Members stayed up throughout the night for a twelve and a half hour debate. What have we succeeded in doing? We have disposed of one out of 25 groups of new clauses and amendments. We were only on the second group, although the debate began at seven minutes to 10 o'clock, and we still have not concluded them even though there were two closure motions.
We have already commented on one closure motion, when there was a slight technical hitch because it was three votes short of the minimum required to achieve a closure. There was an even more remarkable closure motion in the early hours of this morning, which, if I remember rightly, was moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who must have changed his mind more than once about wanting to make progress on this Bill, because he moved that motion and could get even fewer of his hon. Friends into the Lobby.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesAs the hon. Gentleman has referred to me directly, I think that it is appropriate that I explain to him precisely why I moved that motion in the early hours. It was our belief that the Secretary of State had failed to gather the support that he was seeking from the Government. We know that the Secretary of State wrote to every member of the Cabinet urging every Minister, junior Minister and Parliamentary Private Secretary to stay present through the night. We were aware that the Secretary of State had failed in that endeavour.
We knew from the previous vote on the closure that the supporters of the Bill did not have 100 Members present to achieve the closure. We believed that, during the later part of the night, there were not 40 members present to achieve a quorum in the event of a Division. Therefore, I moved the motion. My hon. Friends deliberately stayed out of the Lobby to ensure that we could identify precisely those members of the Government and the few Opposition Members who were supporting the measure, and test whether the House was quorate. There were just over 40 hon. Members, not quite 50, so we were nearly successful in our endeavour.
§ Mr. JonesI am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a candid Member of this House, and at least he has frankly explained that the closure motion was nothing more than another procedural device to try to sabotage the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—if he could not filibuster it out, he would try to wreck it by finding out whether we were without a quorum. Again, that was not a positive contribution to the debate, despite some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues trying to claim that they were being positive.
§ Mr. Colin ShepherdIs it not also true that that Division took up another 15 minutes and that although only 52 hon. Members took part in it, of whom my hon.
369 Friend and myself were numbers 51 and 52, that 15-minute Division was another method of stalling for time? It was purely a procedural play to spin out time.
§ Mr. JonesMy hon. Friend is absolutely right.
In response to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I advise the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend was not whipping the Bill. It is not his job to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about his letter?"] Anyone can write to anyone. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) wrote to me and to many other hon. Members to encourage me to stay in the House throughout the evening to support the Bill. I know full well that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also wrote to hon. Members, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who wrote a round robin to Cabinet members. Perhaps that was the original, because the hon. Gentleman wrote that letter in February, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be guilty of copying him when trying to put the record straight.
§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)May I assure my hon. Friend that I have been here all night, largely because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The Palace of Westminster is multi-roomed, and I have been here all night because of my hon. Friend's request for support for a Bill which I believe to be of great importance. That has nothing to do with other letters. It is simply due to the admirable work of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to ensure that the Bill, which is so important to Cardiff, has a chance of going through.
§ Mr. JonesI thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I should like to make another point about the intervention of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—[nterruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will doubtless pass on what I am saying to his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman added confusion to confusion because, having voted against a closure motion at about I am, he then proposed a closure motion between 3 and 4 am, and proceeded to vote against it. How many times can he stand on his head amid all the procedural devices that he tries to implement?
§ Dr. MarekI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and I shall not now seek to make a speech in my own right. However, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is now behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. He has not entered the Chamber during our debates on the Bill, but he is alive and well and able to issue a press release to the Press Association, criticising Labour Members and telling it exactly what has been happening here. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber.
Will the hon. Gentleman please go to see his right hon. Friend and the Ministers? We would have made a lot more progress if, just for once, Ministers could answer some of our questions, such as what is happening to the £900 million, and of about the environmental considerations. If they had answered a single question, we could have made some progress, and I say that in all sincerity. Can the hon. Gentleman please use his influence?
§ Mr. JonesI do not need to go to see either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friends the Ministers in the interest of making progress on this Bill. Instead, I direct the charge back to the hon. Member for Wrexham, who made a not-short contribution during the past twelve and a half or 13 hours on the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been much more succinct and to the point with his words, we could certainly have made progress. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) had a 20-minute slot immediately after the first closure motion that did not succeed, just after 1 am.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and certainly for Cardiff, West went on at some length. Naturally I would not wish to leave out the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who also spoke. Compared to some of his hon. Friends, he was a model of brevity. At one point, he confined one of his speeches to a mere one minute. If more of his hon. Friends had emulated the hon. Member for Rhondda, we could have made progress. I am glad that he has come back into the Chamber.
I also include in the catalogue the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who felt it necessary to speak at some length, as did several of his hon. Friends. In all fairness, I should not do as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) suggests and see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friends the Ministers in the Welsh Office. Instead, I should address my remarks to Opposition Members and the hon. Gentlemen who filibustered, spoke for far longer than necessary, repeated themselves time after time and dealt with the irrelevant and extraneous and all sorts of material, as well as material that floated down the river.
I must also include the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), whom I see standing behind me. He made a lengthy contribution to the debate last night. All those hon. Gentlemen will find that what they have done is a great disappointment in south Wales, not only in the capital city but much further afield in their constituencies. I am sure that their constituents will ask why they frustrated—or tried to frustrate—such a positive development and the best prospect for the whole of south Wales.
There certainly was a filibuster. On many occasions, the Chair had to try to bring Opposition Members to order and ask them to relate their remarks much more closely to the matters under debate. The last remonstrance was by Madam Deputy Speaker with the hon. Member for Bridgend towards the conclusion of his speech. She sought to bring him back to order. The Hansard record will show that, so wide of the mark were some of the speeches made, that, even with the gentle patience that the Chair traditionally displays, Madam Deputy Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers were moved to seek to bring Opposition Members to order.
I have looked at the timings involved. The hon. Member for Pontypridd might like to know that he contributed one hour 26 minutes to our proceedings. The hon. Member for Caerphilly took one hour and four minutes. The hon. Member for Wrexham took one hour and 49 minutes, but the record holder was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I wondered in the early hours of this morning whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to exceed the record held by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the longest speech, which he made in the last Parliament in the 371 fluoride debate. That was another all-night debate through which I sat on these Benches. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West tailed off after a total contribution of two hours and 48 minutes. He has spent 168 minutes out of the past 13 hours frustrating, filibustering and stopping the progress of this excellent and important Bill.
In the vote on the closure motion moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, only eight hon. Members voted against. That was the weight of the opposition. Eight hon. Members have kept the House up all night long. We have been at it for almost 13 hours. We had 25 groups of amendments to debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and we have reached only the second group. We have been stuck on the second group since 9.53 pm yesterday.
§ Mr. Colin ShepherdHaving gone through the catechism of the time spent on the Bill over the night, does not my hon. Friend agree that, after investing so much time it might be as well to continue the job, let the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) put his questions, listen to the answers and try again to make progress on the Bill?
§ Mr. JonesI am trying to explore my thoughts on that. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend because I, too, have a sense of frustration about not making progress tonight. As we have made the effort to sit all the way through the night debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and as I have not had the opportunity to hear why the Chairman of Ways and Means moved this dilatory motion —he may have good reasons which I do not readily understand having not debated such motions before—my inclination is to press on and reach Third Reading. That is what the capital city of Wales and the people of south Wales deserve.
Already, as I think Opposition Members have said, the Bill has spent too long going through the House. Granted, we must give it the best proper examination. We should not be guilty of leaving stones unturned and we should examine the Bill as well as possible. But there comes a practical reasonable limit, and we have exceeded that. My desire to see progress is shared by others. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, I am inclined to believe that we should carry on debating this morning, this afternoon and this evening, and throughout the night if necessary, so important do I think the Bill for my constituency. It is not directly within the development corporation's area, but the Bill will be very much to my constituency's advantage, as it is to the rest of the capital city of Wales and to all the other constituencies of south Wales. Instead, we are at this point now because eight hon. Members have chosen to hold us up and use every delaying tactic in the book.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth back in his place. He obviously had important business outside to attend to. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has handled the Bill. He has worked fantastically hard in mastering the Bill. He has a complete mastery of it and he fully understands it. If only some of his hon. Friends had listened to him closely they would have understood that he was able to reassure them fully on all their points, so deeply has he studied the matter.
372 I know that that is typical of the hard work that the hon. Gentleman does, not just since he has been in this place since 1987, but all those years previously when he served on Cardiff city council. He is a dedicated Labour politician from his fingertips to his boots. He cares more passionately and more sincerely about his party than most other Opposition Members. But at the same time he has the broadest common feeling for anything that need not be treated in a party political fashion. He has been the first to extend a hand in the interests of making progress for our capital city. He is very much a credit to his party and I am sure that all his hon. Friends wish to emulate him in that.
In conclusion, if it is not too late, I appeal to the eight Labour Members and a few others who have spent far too long delaying our proceedings by indulging in a filibuster since 7 o'clock last night, to raise their sights higher and to eschew the petty, the jealousies and the mean-minded things that can surely be the only reason for their attempt to frustrate this important Bill for the redevelopment of south Cardiff, the benefits of which will spread so far beyond. We have a tremendous opportunity in the House. Perhaps we could achieve that before the day is out. We clearly should achieve it. I appeal to Labour Members to put aside those petty things and let us join hands and go forward together.
§ Mr. RogersI join Conservative Members in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his diligence in pursuing the Bill. He has done remarkably well. I would not impute any motive to my hon. Friend other than his desire to achieve the best for his constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has also been motivated by his constituents' interests. It would be mean and petty-minded for any hon. Member for impute unworthy motives to my hon. Friend. He does not have a large majority so he cannot relax and do things without remembering his constituents' interests. He has served those interests well in the manner in which he has approached the Bill.
Things have gone wrong since we began discussing the motion to adjourn because of a polarisation of attitudes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for saying that I spoke briefly during the night. I did not make a set speech during our 12 hours of deliberation. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to know that the motives of those of us who represent the valleys are just as sincere as those who represent Cardiff. We are not saying that we want the money spent not in Cardiff but in the valleys—
§ 8 am
§ Mr. RogersThat is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it. The hon. Gentleman is worthy of other things than such casual remarks. If he had listened to the debate he would have heard things to the contrary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows that I would support the total expenditure of the money allocated in the Bill on the redevelopment of the docks. In common with the valleys, those docks have been desperately deprived of industrial development in the past. They are in desperate need of regeneration. We do not dispute that, but the fact is that £150 million of public 373 money will he spent on a barrage that will not add one single square foot of land available for industrial development, housing or leisure activities in the Cardiff bay area.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) made a mean speech and said that the barrage represented a multiplying factor in terms of the land development of Cardiff bay. I accept that that factor exists, but it will not benefit the local people, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has already admitted in its report, however, that the projected land values in the area will multiply—that is the multiplying factor to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
There will be no return on the public investment in the area. Any profit accruing from that public investment will go to private companies. The corporation has already said that, once the barrage is built, projected land values will go up from £200 million to £1.5 billion. I do not believe that those enhanced land values will benefit the people of Cardiff, or the people of south Wales.
If the promoters came up with an amended scheme, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central could have his Swansea waterfront development. There were proposals for a mini-barrage and the development of a water landscape on the east side of the estuary. That would enhance any development, but, for some peculiar reason, some people say that the only waterfront that can be developed is that by the lagoon behind the barrage. Many of us do not accept that. We accept the sincere motives of others on the Bill and I wish that they would accept that we have similarly sincere motives.
The valleys communities have put a lot into development in the Cardiff area. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the airport. I remember the history of the airport perhaps as well as the hon. Gentleman does. The reason why the airport took off —[Laughter]—was that it was situated in the old Glamorgan county council area. The main proponent of the airport was not Cardiff city council but Glamorgan county council. It cannot be claimed that the airport belongs to Cardiff alone.
§ Mr. Michaelrose—
§ Mr. RogersThe hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has had his turn. He referred to developments in the area and he was right. I do not understand why such praise is not carried through into pride in the activities of the city council and South Glamorgan county council, which have done, and will continue to do, a good job in the interests of the area.
We do not oppose the Bill in a nihilistic way. If the promoters came up with an amended Bill that did not require a full barrage across the estuaries of the Ely and the Taff rivers at the point at which they enter the Bristol channel, I would give it my wholehearted support. The only item in the Bill that I oppose—all my hon. Friends seem to oppose it, too—is the full-scale barrage. We are certainly not against the development of the Cardiff docklands area and anyone who suggests that we are is being less than just. We have participated in the debate from a point of view just as sincere as that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
374 Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West for the way in which he participated in the debate on his constituents' behalf.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)I too have been here all night. I attended tonight's debates because I had listened carefully to previous debates about this imaginative proposal. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) the details of the proposals which are expected to bring about the rejuvenation of Cardiff and bring more jobs, housing and businesses and an improved environment in the city.
We eventually reached only the second group of new clauses out of a long list and did not even finish that. What this whole sorry episode has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that windbags are not confined to Islwyn. What has happened tonight is disgraceful. We have been treated to schoolboy tactics—to a debating society approach to these important matters. We have been treated to dead horses floating about and to blue-green algae. It has even been suggested that water treatment is about nothing more than gargling. Such discourses went on for hours of the debate—if "debate" is the right word.
I wonder whether Wales will be proud of what has happened tonight. It is clear that the Labour party does not have a clue what it wants for Wales. Were it not for a few Labour Members—notably the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—the Opposition would attract nothing but shame for what they have done in the face of the imaginative proposal that has been before the House.
§ Mr. MorganI am glad to have this opportunity to speak at the conclusion of our proceedings. I wanted to be offered the chance simply to say on my constituents' behalf that there will be many smiling faces in Cardiff, West this morning. There will also be an overwhelming sense of relief. The message that hon. Members—all of us with five o'clock shadows—should take from our proceedings tonight is that Bills such as this should try to achieve their development objectives without damaging other objectives.
I say this primarily to the other Cardiff Members who are here today. If we have derelict areas—which we do in Cardiff—we must find ways of developing them that do not damage the housing areas in my constituency and the others that lie on the plains near the Taff and the Ely. I hope that the barrage obsession that the development corporation inherited from the Secretary of State of 1979–87 will go out of the window, and another form of docklands development will be adopted that does not damage the houses in my constituency—
§ Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned.
8.10 am§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain now how the Government intend 375 to react to the failure of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill to make progress during the night, after prolonged earlier consideration.
In view of the time spent on debating the first two new clauses, the large number of groups of amendments still to be debated and the limited remaining opportunities at this stage in the Session for the Bill to be considered as opposed private business, I wish to announce now that the Government will be introducing their own Bill to permit the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting on its contents as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)The Leader of the House has not raised a point of order; he has made a statement.
§ Mr. MorganFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to such appalling sleight of hand on the part of the Leader of the House. The truth is now out: this was always a Government Bill, masquerading under a false prospectus. The Serious Fraud Office would have intervened had it been a commercial matter.
The Leader of the House has revealed the truth behind the Bill. It has been rigged by the private Bill procedure. An honest version would have involved the Government's using the proper public Bill procedure from the beginning, and would have avoided the waste of time over four parliamentary Sessions in two Houses. That disgraceful waste of time can now be laid firmly at the door of this incompetent and dilatory Government.
§ Mr. MacGregorAs you have described what I said as a statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can respond.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If that was a statement, we now have the opportunity to ask questions of the Leader of the House. If it was a point of order—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I said that it was not a point of order for the Chair; it was a statement. I thinkit right to allow a brief period of questioning, which must be confined to that point.
§ Mr. MacGregorIn view of the ruling that you have just made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me make it clear that that is not the case. We should have much preferred the Bill to go through as a public Bill, which would have ensured that the Cardiff bay barrage procedures came in much more quickly. It was, however, a local issue initiated and supported by local interests, and we consider it entirely right for those interests to promote it through the private Bill procedure. Many other local developments have been handled in this way.
As I have said, there is now little opportunity for the Bill to make progress in the current Session. That is why we thought it right to make an announcement.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesOn a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What my right hon. Friend has just announced will be warmly welcomed in the capital of Wales, and throughout south Wales. May I urge the Government to produce their legislation at the earliest possible opportunity so that there is as little further delay as 376 possible? The only reason the Bill has already been delayed so much is the obstructionist filibustering tactics of Labour Members.
§ Mr. MichaelThe Leader of the House said that the Bill was initiated and supported by local interests. An enormous amount of time was spent on consultation and discussion and, at times, people leaned over backwards to satisfy some of the objectors. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the interests of the area and those of my constituents will be carefully considered in formulating the Bill that the Government intend to introduce? In the light of the spirit of the discussions over the past couple of years with local authorities, the development corporation and the Welsh Office, will the Government seek the consensus of those who wish to see Cardiff's future guaranteed? I hope that we shall see a positive development on the lines of the conclusion that I sought in the debate.
§ Mr. MacGregorI thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for their contributions. I assure the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that all the work that has gone into the preparation of the private Bill and the debates on it will be valuable in developing the Government's Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will consult and will, of course, take account of all that has gone before. He will hope to introduce his Bill as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher)My right hon. Friend's announcement is welcome, especially by my hon. Friends who have worked so hard in the interests of the Bill, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) who in a former capacity was a candidate for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
Those of us who have been in the House all night to support the measure are frustrated about the lack of leadership in the Labour party. The Leader of the Opposition represents a Welsh seat, and it is absolutely absurd that he cannot instil some sense into his Welsh colleagues. He has not been here for the debate, has shown no leadership in the matter, and has given no indication of his interest as a Welsh Member. That has caused disreputable behaviour in the House. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on that. I hope that we shall not see such behaviour when the Government introduce their Bill.
§ Mr. MacGregorAll of us who have been here through the night would have liked to see the Bill make progress and be accepted in its present form. That would have been greatly in the interests of people in Cardiff and south Wales, but, as it was not possible, we have decided on the course that I have announced. That will be greatly in the interests of most hon. Members and of the area.
§ Mr. Ron DaviesWill the Leader of the House remind his hon. Friends that we were debating a private Bill and that it would have been quite inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition or any Opposition Member to try to influence or dragoon hon. Members into voting against their wishes?
How long does the Leader of the House intend to consult about the preparation of the Bill? Will he undertake to consult such reputable bodies as the Royal 377 Society for the Protection of Birds, the National Rivers Authority and the new Countryside Council for Wales? Will he take seriously their environmental reservations?
§ Mr. MacGregorMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will make it clear how he intends to consult and he will, of course, consult widely.
§ Mr. Win GriffithsWhere does the announcement leave the environmental assessment procedure which can be applied to major planning developments? Will bodies such as the National Rivers Authority now get opportunities that they did not have under the private Bill procedure because they were not set up in a way that allowed them to object to or comment upon a private Bill? Will the slate be wiped completely clean in terms of participation by the House of Lords in the original Bill? Will the start be from scratch?
§ Mr. MacGregorThe hon. Gentleman had better await my right hon. Friend's announcement. We recently had to take a decision on the matter. My right hon. Friend has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments about consultation.
§ Mr. RogersWill the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Wales, when he is engaged in framing the new Bill, to consider the alternative mini-barrage, which was proposed and discussed as part of the original thoughts of the development corporation some time ago? Will he take on board the statement of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), which was made in a disgraceful speech, criticising the Opposition for tabling so-called frivolous amendments?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We cannot have a post-mortem on the debate. I have asked the House to confine itself to questions on the statement made by the Leader of the House.
§ Mr. RogersYou will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said during an Adjournment debate—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The Leader of the House does not have responsibility for that speech.
§ Mr. RogersThe hon. Gentleman said that the promoters were prepared to accept many of the constructive amendments that had been tabled by the Opposition. I ask the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Wales to take on board what the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central said, and to accept some of our constructive amendments in framing the Bill that he will bring to the House. Can the Leader of the House tell us when he will introduce the guillotine?
§ Mr. MacGregorThe hon. Gentleman's final point does not arise.
Obviously, in the consultation my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will take account of what has been said during the progress of the Bill. That will include consideration at least of some of the amendments that might have been moved. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. We shall introduce a Government Bill to achieve the main objective of the private Bill, which a few opponents have frustrated by preventing it from making progress.
§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)Those of us who have been voting on the Bill throughout the night and who have seen our endeavours to ensure that the Bill makes progress frustrated are gratified by my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that we have noticed throughout the night the absence of the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Welsh Member, and the lack of interest that he has taken in the Bill?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. That is at least a gross discourtesy. It is an irrelevant and needless discourtesy.
§ Mr. GaleI think that there are some in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who consider it a gross discourtesy that the Leader of the Opposition, who is a Welsh Member, has not been in the Chamber for at least part of the night.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should so blatantly disregard the advice that I offered him. He will have regard to the guidance that I have given.
§ Mr. GaleIf I am guilty of a grave discourtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
The Opposition have suggested that the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is a move to come out of a disguise to pick up what was a private Bill. May I say to my right hon. Friend that many of us who have heard the arguments advanced by the promoter of the Bill and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) have been impressed by those arguments? It is clear that the Government have been impressed by them and have taken them up. I hope that the Government's Bill, and the project, will make rapid progress.
§ Mr. MacGregorI am grateful to my hon. Friend. We would have much preferred the private Bill to pass through the House, and that was the process on which we embarked many hours ago.
§ Mr. MorganWe?
§ Mr. MacGregorThat the House embarked on—that we in the House embarked on during the past year. Many of us have been present throughout the proceedings to demonstrate our position on the private Bill. We would have much preferred it to go the way that I have outlined, but as that was not possible we have taken the action of which I am glad my hon. Friend approves.
§ Mr. RowlandsMay I seek clarification of the time scale for the introduction of the new Bill? It is already mid-April, and I should like to know whether it is intended to introduce the Bill during this Session.
§ Mr. MacGregorYes.
§ Dr. MarekIs the Leader of the House aware that none of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench spoke throughout the debate? Is he further aware that it is the barrage part of the Bill that causes the most argument? I suspect that there is general agreement on both sides of the House about the overwhelming majority of the other measures in the Bill, which could be carried over without any problems. When the new Bill is framed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult widely and meaningfully on the barrage, for that is causing the problem.
§ Mr. MacGregorThat is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, as I have already said, I am sure that he will be consulting.
§ Mr. MorleyConservative Members' comments have shown what a sham and how corrupt is the private Bill procedure. At least the Government are being forced to show their hand. Having done that, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will comply fully with EC directives on conservation of important wetlands and SBA and potential SBA sites when they consider the issue?
§ Mr. MacGregorI disagree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the private Bill system, which provides an opportunity for opponents as part of a long-established procedure. However, it is equally right, where there is heavy public investment, for the Government to introduce their own Bill. I have already made it clear that we would much have preferred the Bill to proceed as a private measure.
§ Mr. CryerDoes the Leader of the House accept that it is perfectly proper for hon. Members to exercise scrutiny over matters like the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill when important environmental issues are involved? It would have been a dereliction of duty if no amendments had been tabled and there had been no debates on the very important issues involved.
Now that the shabby conspiracy between the Secretary of State for Wales and the rest of the Cabinet has been revealed, it is time that the Leader of the House introduced the long-overdue changes to the private Bill procedure that the Government found convenient to delay because they have used that private Bill procedure as a way of pursuing Government policy. Today's events are the first honest developments that we have seen with regard to the private Bill procedure.
§ Mr. MacGregorI reject the hon. Gentleman's final point. I have already made it clear that we would have preferred the Bill to have proceeded as a private Bill.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first point about the right of hon. Members to scrutinise private Bills. However, it is clear that the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has received long scrutiny in both Houses, and I have the details of that scrutiny before me. We hoped that the Bill would progress with greater speed, and if it had made faster progress during the night that would have saved prolonged further consideration.
380 I reject absolutely the claim that we are delaying the introduction of reforms to the private Bill procedure. I have already made an announcement to the House about that. Mr. Deputy Speaker has introduced changes to the Standing Orders that will take effect next Session, and I have made it clear that further announcements will be made shortly. We are pursuing reforms of the private Bill procedure.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Why will not the Leader of the House admit that, throughout the night, as on previous occasions with regard to private Bills, the Government lost control? They have staggered from one crisis to another under John the ditherer. When the Leader of the House introduces the new private Bill procedure, will he bear in mind that we need not just some trimming at the edges but a system that allows private Bills to be introduced which are not tainted by the whatever party is in government, so that writs can be issued to Cabinet Ministers and PPSs and the private Bill procedure is what it says it is and does not involve Ministers shuffling into the Division Lobbies in their carpet slippers in the middle of the night to help the promoters who are making money hand over fist whenever private Bills are introduced?
§ Mr. MacGregorIgnoring entirely the hon. Gentleman's final comments, let me say that all hon. Members are entitled to participate in votes on private Bills, and to some extent that happened during the night. I reject the hon. Gentleman's charge. We have concluded that it is right to introduce a Government Bill to promote the Cardiff bay barrage. It is clear from the response and voting in the House, as well as from the response in the local area, that this decision, taken by the Government in the light of events, will be widely welcomed.
§ Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud)I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement, but, when he prepares the Bill, will he bear in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? Will he ensure that the title of the Bill is printed in very large letters? The hon. Gentleman spoke at length on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but only recently when we considered the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill that affects his own constituency he—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. We are dealing not with that Bill but with the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill.