HC Deb 25 November 1991 vol 199 cc720-30

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and
  2. (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. David Hunt.]

10 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I rise to draw to the attention of the House the considerable significant public expenditure consequences of the Bill. For a long time and in so many previous debates, it has been difficult to obtain information on that aspect from any source, but particularly from Government sources. The money resolution provides a good opportunity to explore in some detail what will be the financial consequences of allowing the Bill to proceed.

I welcome the public Bill in one narrow, specific respect. It at least makes an honest instrument of the last Bill. The private Bill that has been promoted for the last two to three years could not be considered private legislation when it came to the question of its financial consequences. It had significant public expenditure consequences, but because it was introduced as a private Bill, almost no one took responsibility to explain to the House in any detail, or with any certainty, its public expenditure consequences.

Given that the Government have adopted the Bill now before the House, and given that the name of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury appears on it, I had hoped that we would receive a detailed explanation of its public expenditure consequences. Earlier, I interrupted the Secretary of State for Wales in the hope that he would be able to provide the House with such an explanation. We heard only one perfunctory sentence at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to the effect that he would give more money to the development corporation— £22 million, making £130 million over three years. That is the sum total of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of a Bill that has significant public expenditure consequences.

I do not believe that the House should let the money resolution go through without endeavouring to explore further the Bill's financial implications. It is even more astonishing that we should be asked to approve this money resolution, when one realises that the carry-over motion that has just been passed touched on the channel tunnel—which involves two major Bills that the Government said would have no public expenditure implications.

Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the channel tunnel, it represents a huge item of public infrastructure of international consequences. The Bill that made it possible forbade any public expenditure to arise from that project. The King's Cross Railways Bill, part of the debate on which I just heard by accident, also has attached to it Government statements to the effect that it will have no public expenditure consequences.

Yet a large sum of public money is to be devoted to a high-class private project comprising a marina incorporating high-class residential and commercial accommodation. Many of my hon. Friends could have an interesting discussion about the merits of the barrage if it were the subject of a private Bill. It is anything but private, in that it will be wholly dependent upon public expenditure to make it work.

It is a curious fact that some of the driest support in terms of the people who trooped through the Lobby, and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—who is not renowned for his "wet" views in the spectrum of the Conservative party—will also be supporting a Bill that will have public expenditure consequences of the kind and character that I seek to clarify. If nothing else, we should know the Bill's financial consequences before agreeing to the money resolution. We have not received such an explanation yet—certainly not from the Secretary of State this evening.

Apart from the money attached to the Bill, and the reference in the Bill to the money that will flow from it, we know of the broader public expenditure involved—what is known as the barrage-related public expenditure. We know, for example, that 1.5 miles of a road that is an intrinsic part of the scheme will cost more than £90 million. It will go down in history as one of the most expensive roads in Britain, but it is part and parcel of the Butetown link. It is not envy, surely, that prompts me to compare the cost with that of building the Conwy tunnel.

We have been given some amazing figures relating to jobs. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) must be the most gullible Member in the House; like the Under-Secretary of State, he trotted out the figures for what must have been propaganda reasons. I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State accepts the truth of those figures, but if the experts can actually forecast to a square metre—almost to a job—the consequences of investment in the scheme, the Government should immediately employ them in the Welsh Development Agency, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and the Welsh Office. They appear to be better at the job than the National Audit Office.

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)

As local authorities have discovered over the years, presenting precise job creation figures requires some care.

My hon. Friend has referred to the importance of the road. I have worked in the Butetown area through which the road passes. Butetown is one of the most deprived areas in Wales, by any criterion. Does my hon. Friend accept that the decision to make the road a cut and cover road, thus ensuring that the two halves of Butetown will be united rather than divided, is one of the most positive community decisions that could have been made, regardless of the cost?

Mr. Rowlands

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I feel that we should acquaint the House with the enormous expenditure consequences. The expenditure may indeed be justifiable, but many roads divide many communities, and many such developments may be environmentally sensitive. I do not think that expenditure of £60 million a mile has been involved before. I do not quarrel with my hon. Friend; I am merely explaining the physical cost of carrying out such an important piece of social engineering.

Mr. Michael

I accept what my hon. Friend has said. I think that we agree about the importance of such roads, whether they are in Cardiff, in the valleys or in rural communities. My point is that such road building, although it may have a positive result, is not relevant to or dependent on the development of the barrage. The calculations of the House and the Treasury lead to the inclusion of the money in the financial memorandum; in fact, it is not related to either the barrage or the developments that are dependent on it.

Mr. Rowlands

My hon. Friend continues to educate me on a host of issues. However, whatever the money relates to, and however it is accounted for, it adds up to £60 million a mile, which is a lot to spend on road building in any community. If expenditure involves the language of priorities, we must consider the consequences of building a road at that cost. We need a public expenditure remit. When the Bill is considered in Committee, we need to know the expenditure commitments.

What is the grand total of barrage-related expenditure? In earlier debates, the Cardiff bay barrage-related expenditure was agreed to be £547 million, the Welsh Office share being £335 million. That figure was agreed in February of this year. We have been told that this expenditure will create very many jobs. Earlier I made the point that the sooner we have these advisers, if they are so good, in the Welsh Office, the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board and elsewhere, the better.

I did not intend to deride WIDAB or Welsh Office estimates, but when selective financial assistance and investment grants are given it is almost impossible to attach the number of jobs created to such sums of money. The National Audit Office told us only what we already knew—that there is a great difference between job creation figures and investment. I accept that; it has been part and parcel of our lives for the last 20 or 30 years and more. I do not wish to rub noses in it, but a great deal of the National Audit Office's analysis is fairly superficial. I do not therefore rest my case on that basis. We ought not, however, to be gullible and accept figures down to the last square metre and the last office worker job that will be created. We should not accept them as conclusive proof that all sense of financial accountability must be abandoned.

I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us whether we are still talking about barrage-related development amounting to £547 million. Furthermore, will £335 million of the £547 million fall on the Welsh Office vote? When we last debated the matter, we were told that the Cardiff bay barrage costs amounted to £125.55 million. When the Bill was originally published, that figure was about £82 million. I accept that additional expenditure has been added to it as a result of arguments that have been put forward both in the House and elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figure is still £125.55 million? If so, how does that figure square with the financial effects listed in the Bill?

Three figures are referred to in the explanatory and financial memorandum: £113 million for the cost of constructing the barrage, £2.5 million for acquisition of land and rights, and £37 million for groundwater and water quality protective provisions. That amounts to a total of £152 million. Is that figure equivalent to the quoted figure of £125 million? I see that the Minister nods his head. In other words, since we last discussed the Bill, costs have increased by £25 million. When we debate the Bill in, say, July, will the figure have increased again? Should we consider merely inflation, or will additional costs be incurred? What are we buying under the money resolution? We have witnessed fantastic increases under a Government who are supposed to be prudent. They do not want to spend a penny on the channel tunnel or on the King's Cross Railways Bill, yet they have happily agreed to a further £25 million being spent on the Bill.

The Secretary of State did not explain the financial consequences of the Bill. I am a good amateur historian —one needs to be with this Bill because it has a good historical pedigree. If I remember rightly—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will correct me if I do not—the original net operating loss of the barrage was estimated to be about £400,000 a year. After all the yachtsmen had paid their fees and moored their boats, after houses had been built and after this wonderful scheme was operating, lo and behold there would be an operational loss of £400,000. I remember the debate vividly because my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth told me that that was nothing compared with how much we spent on maintaining parks in Cardiff.

Mr. Michael

Will my hon. Friend define "loss"?.

Mr. Rowlands

The "Financial effects" section of the Bill states that the annual cost of operating the barrage … will be a net £1.6 million a year.

Mr. Michael

Does my hon. Friend accept that the word "loss" contains an element of criticism and that public expenditure on something that is worthwhile should not be defined as a loss?

Mr. Rowlands

Will my hon. Friend accept the word "deficit"? If the word "loss' is loaded, I shall use "deficit".

We originally debated the £400,000 deficit that would be borne by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and then, presumably, by the poll tax payers of the city. We were then told that the operational deficit was £1.3 million. The "Financial effects" of the Bill mention a net deficit of £1.6 million. We have moved from a net deficit of £400,000 a year to one of £1.6 million a year. It is reasonable for me to say—this is riot the politics of envy—that the deficit was originally estimated at £400,000 a year, then £1.3 million a year and now it is £1.6 million a year. If the bill were borne by the people of Cardiff, it would be up to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others who represent Cardiff to come to terms with their electorates. It is not for me to quarrel with an operating deficit of £1.6 million if it is to be paid by the people of Cardiff. The Bill states: These costs will be borne by the Secretary of State. The costs will be borne not by the people of Cardiff but by the Welsh Office, presumably through a grant to Cardiff Bay development corporation. The money will come from the Treasury.

The Bill does not say that the costs will be borne for one, five or 10 years, there is an indefintie commitment. There are rumours that the period could be 20 years. We are asked to endorse in principle expenditure by the Welsh Office of £335 million out of £546 million, another £152 million through Cardiff Bay development corporation and a net operating deficit of £1.6 million for an indefinte period.

Leaving aside the Bill's principles, objectives and merits, Welsh Members, who often have arguments with the Welsh Office about various kinds of public expenditure, have a right to ask questions and to confirm figures, as I am trying to do.

Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

Will my hon. Friend help me? He gave a long list of the charges that will eventually be borne by the taxpayer or the Treasury, but he did not mention the other side of the equation—the income that will accrue to the development corporation and other interested organisations such as Associated British Ports.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) gave a long list of the benefits that will result from building the barrage as opposed to not building it. One benefit is the enhanced finance that will accrue to the interested parties —the development corporation and ABP, who are extensive landowners in the area. My hon. Friend is saying that, if there is a deficit, the costs will fall on the taxpayer. Let us suppose that there is a profit. What will happen to it? Will ABP pay anything towards the costs which my hon. Friend mentioned?

Mr. Rowlands

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important issue. In a previous debate, I asked whether repayments would be made to the Welsh Office if enormous profits were made. At the moment, I am interested in a narrower point to which the financial resolution binds us. Are we to accept a scheme leading to a £1.6 million deficit which will be borne by the Welsh Office year in, year out if the deficit continues as expected?

Mr. Michael

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) raised an important issue in relation to Associated British Ports. Am I right in saying that, when we were dealing with a private Bill, ABP could say, "As petitioners, we will do what we can to delay the Bill unless our requirements are met"? Therefore, if there is a benefit for Associated British Ports—and there is—the fault lies not with ABP for seeing the opportunities but with the private Bill system which has, in effect, held the city of Cardiff as well as the Welsh Office to ransom because the development could not proceed without the agreement of the petitioners at that time. It is one of the ironies that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is raising some important issues, but had we not had to go through the private Bill procedure but been able to deal straight away with the hybrid Bill that we are now debating, such issues would have been on the surface. Instead, they have been dealt with and decided during the course of the private Bill procedure.

Mr. Rowlands

My hon. Friend raises some profound questions, but I suspect that if I pursued them I might go beyond the financial resolution that we are now debating.

I am concerned merely to identify the public expenditure consequences of the Bill as we are being asked to agree to the financial resolution. I have drawn to the House's attention what I believe to be interesting and fascinating circumstances. They are not unique because there are precedents and I am sure that the Minister will have a stack of them. He had better, because I want chapter and verse. How many other schemes in Wales is the Welsh Office currently financing with an unlimited commitment on an operational deficit, year in and year out? I should love to know.

I know a great deal about and understand the capital expenditure grants that Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney receives through the agency for its land clearance schemes. I understand the modest amounts that we receive under three-year urban aid schemes. There are often tens of thousands stretched over three years and they are accompanied by the strict notion that any costs, burdens and deficits of the society, community, organisation, community centre or swimming pool, or whatever, will at the end of that period be borne by the community's tax payers, not by the Welsh Office.

I want to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary a specific question before we approve the resolution. Will he list the other schemes for which the Welsh Office has committed itself to such an operational deficit in expenditure every year? I should be grateful for that information. As I said, I have examples on my own patch. We understand capital expenditure extremely well and we know that it is funded from the Welsh Office. That involves a one-off, large-scale investment to transform the infrastructure of our society and our community.

I thought that this Government, more than any other, were never willing to commit themselves for any length of time to covering operational deficits. I thought that operational deficits were dirty words to them, whatever we think about them. I thought that they were dirty words according to the Government's philosophy, but the financial effects of the Bill, which many Conservatives have trooped in to support, would involve a £1.6 million operational deficit. The tab will be picked up not by the yachtsmen who moor their boats in the area or by the developers whose investments will increase, and not even by the people of Cardiff who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, keep their parks and recreation areas well, but by the taxpayers of Wales, by the Treasury and the Welsh Office.

How many more schemes can we introduce which will allow operational deficits to be carried indefinitely by the Secretary of State? That is an extremely serious and interesting consequence. Why should the Secretary of State bear the operational deficits of such a scheme? Why from the start did not the Government take the line that if we wanted to build a barrage to create the marina and the rest, and if the scheme was so good, the cost should be raised by the private sector? The public infrastructure of much of the docklands redevelopment should be a mixture of private and public investment. That is the equivalent of what Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney are doing with land reclamation schemes.

If we came along with such a fanciful scheme, expected large capital expenditure and said that the consequence would be a £1.6 million deficit every year, what reaction would we have got from a Tory Secretary of State? I am willing to be educated. If the Secretary of State will give us a list of equivalent schemes for which the Welsh Office is financing operational losses of that order for a period that is unknown, I am willing to decide whether we should endorse the expenditure required under the resolution. My questions are more than justifiable when we are asked to pass the money resolution.

10.30 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

May I help my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) by giving one example of a scheme which will never run into profit, but which will be financed out of public funds? It is the London docklands light railway extension—[Interruption.] Let me finish. We were told by the Secretary of State that it would be financed by the Treasury. I have spent the past few painful months chairing the Committee on the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham etc.) Bill. The scheme is going forward and it will not, in the foreseeable future, make a profit.

I am not as surprised by the way in which the Thatcherite philosophy seems to be expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney as I am by the more enlightened philosophy coming through, which says that one does not have to make a profit on each scheme. To talk about deficits or profits on a scheme such as the Cardiff bay barrage is like asking people to make a profit on the library service, on opera or on art. We do not believe that society should be organised with profit as the prime virtue. That was the grave error of the past 12 dark years of Thatcherism. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney does not accept that some schemes are so important and of such universal benefit—in this case, for the inhabitants of Cardiff and of Wales generally—that they are worth considering as eligible for public money at some point.

Mr. Rowlands

I accept my hon. Friend's interesting observations, but I will make two points. First, the Bill is introduced by the Government. Secondly, even my hon. Friend will agree that we must make some comparison between the marina scheme being suggested, and essential developments for libraries and for the culture of our whole community. There is a great deal of difference between the two.

Mr. Flynn

I remind my hon. Friend that there is celebration in heaven over one sinner doing penance. The Government's act of penitence on the scheme is to be welcomed.

I can speak with some knowledge of Cardiff because I was born there and I lived in the area for the first 30 years of my life. Some people from outside the area have a false idea of it and of the people who will benefit from the scheme. We have heard talk of the boat owners and the yuppies moving in. There was an area close to where I lived in Cardiff called Madras street and Thomas street which was destroyed in a slum clearance programme. We did not regard them as slums; we thought that it was a vibrant, robust and tough community full of strong personalities. When the area was knocked down, the people were decanted to a block of flats called Channel View at the end of Channel View road. Most of them have stayed there and have not come back to the new and much improved homes that have been built. Those people are definitely not yuppies. They are very much part of Cardiff because they have lived there and have their roots deep in Cardiff, and are part of the tough community in that town.

The rest of the people who will benefit from the barrage have a magnificent view of the great surging tide that comes in—the second highest tide in Europe—which is a moving cliff of water. It offers great drama and excitement. However, for 18 hours a day all that is provided is an unattractive mudscape. The popular view is that people would prefer to live by an area of reflective water. People find that an attractive sight, as is proved in Baltimore and throughout the world.

If one analyses how the money will be spent, one discovers that just one fifth of it will be spent on the barrage. I note with great pleasure that £95 million will be spent on environmental improvements, because generations of Cardiffians have treated the area in a disgraceful manner. I used to work at the Esso refinery at Victoria wharf and for many years I worked at steelworks in the Cardiff docks. I used to trudge across the area every morning and it was a slum. It was a mixture of old factories and derelict housing. Cardiff had turned its back on the area and it was despised and shunned. For many years its residents had a poor deal. We now have a chance to rejuvenate the area and to create a vast, attractive lake.

People must not be negative about the changes. I welcome the large amount of money that will be spent on water treatment. When I was a boy, the Taff, at the height of summer when there was a low flow down river, consisted of nothing but coal slurry and sewage. The Taff was virtually an open sewer; it was a disgrace. Since then, however, it has been cleaned up enormously. One could not impound the water as it is now—it must be subjected to further improvements. We now have sophisticated means of cleaning up water, particularly if it is impounded. One can use different methods, for example, phosphate stripping, to clean, manage and maintain the water.

A lake in Austria recently won an international award. A few years ago people would not swim in it because of the quality of the water. That water, after expensive treatment, is now fit to drink straight from the lake. We can ensure that the water in the Cardiff bay, which will be at the heart of the system, will be pure.

Mention has been made of the Butetown link road to Grangetown. That essential road should have been built years ago. It will cross difficult terrain and I am delighted that the Government are to use public money on its construction, as they have on other imaginative schemes in Wales.

I was sorry to note in the Second Reading debate some of the comments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), although he did admit that they were based on the experience of his grandfather, who had lived in Cardiff some years ago. The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of the Bill in principle, although I note that he did not say that the entire Liberal party was in favour. However, I have heard murmurs of approval from the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells).

The Bill is important not just to Cardiff, but to Wales. Cardiff is our capital city and the Bill will transform an area that has long been derelict. The centre of the docks has already been largely metamorphosised, but there is a long way to go. The money for the Bill represents a good investment for Cardiff and Wales.

10.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett)

In the six minutes left, I shall try to answer some of the points that have been raised in this interesting money resolution debate.

The money resolution would authorise the payment, out of money provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Secretary of State which would arise as a consequence of the Bill, if enacted. It covers both expenses arising directly from the provisions of the Bill and those arising out of any other enactments attributed to the Bill.

The costs covered by the resolution therefore include the costs of constructing the works set out in schedule I to the Bill, at £113 million; the costs of acquiring land for the project under part II of the Bill and compensating land owners affected by the project, at £2.5 million; the costs of carrying out the surveys of buildings, the remedial work by the development corporation and the payment of compensation in respect of the groundwater protection scheme, at £37 million; and the cost of operating the barrage and managing the inland bay and lagoon at £1.6 million.

Schedules 2 and 6 allow the Secretary of State to recover from the development corporation costs incurred in relation to the survey or examination of tidal works or sites on which it is proposed to execute tidal works, and expenditure incurred in the repair or removal of the tidal structure where the development corporation has failed to comply with the notice requiring it to carry out such repairs or removals. As those matters are related to navigation, they will be for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

It will be helpful if I explain how those figures relate to those that arose during earlier debates. The detailed letter that I sent to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 13 December 1990 set out fully the earlier figures, and copies of that letter were placed in the Library. The total cost of the construction, land acquisition and protection provisions is £152.5 million. The equivalent figure in my letter to the hon. Gentleman was £125.55 million. The main reason for the difference is an allowance for inflation and design changes in the barrage and lagoon. The figure of £152.5 million is the expenditure that arises directly from the Bill's provisions; it is what Parliament would be approving in passing the Bill.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked several questions, the first of which related to financial effects and inflation. The money resolution states:

  1. "(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and
  2. "(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund."
It allows for the figures to increase as the costs increase due to inflation or during the passage of the Bill, perhaps in the Select Committee hearing. No Government who are willing to listen to what is said by the Select Committee and Mr. Roy Stoner and to take account of other factors that affect the Bill as it passes through the House can ignore that part of the resolution.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the sum of £547.29 million, which is the total figure for the redevelopment strategy at mid 1989–90 prices, based on the Cardiff bay barrage planning update and economic appraisal statement made in January 1990. It includes £125.5 million for the barrage, £148 million for infrastructure site preparation, £152 million for the improved access, £95.89 million for environmental improvements and £25 million for the people draw facilities—entertainment and leisure facilities that draw people into the district. Of that money, £335 million is the public sector cost to the local authorities and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and £237 million of that will come from the development corporation. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can see that considerable sums are being provided by the Government towards the provisions of the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about the £1.6 million operating cost. That must be seen in context of the total sum that the Government and private industry are providing towards the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay district. The ratio of private to public money spent on the scheme will be 1:7. The total value is between £1.5 billion and £2 billion and the project will provide 25,000 jobs.

The hon. Gentlemen spent a considerable portion of his speech on the £1.6 million that he alleged would be the deficit on the running costs of Cardiff bay. He should remember what the £1.6 million involves. That figure is currently in the Bill, but we are looking to the corporation to carry out a number of activities that will help to recoup part of that sum. The net operating costs of the inland lake will be met by the development corporation during its lifetime, as will maintenance and capital replacement costs.

However, the corporation is considering several options to provide revenue to cover the operating costs on a longer-term basis. They include, first, levelling charges on residential and non-residential property in the bay area; secondly, placing property owned by the corporation into a managed portfolio designed to provide an annual lease or rent income; thirdly, the transfer of a cash endowment from the corporation into a managed fund designed to provide the necessary annual income and capital growth; and lastly, the possibility of creating a trust fund into which assets and capital growth income can be transferred from the corporation and which will provide an annual income. That last option is currently being discussed with the corporation.

So there is a clear financial memorandum set out in the Bill. We have £547 million total expenditure on the redevelopment strategy. We have the £335 million which will come from public funds, whether from the Cardiff Bay development corporation or local authorities and the £1.6 million towards the cost of operating the inland lake. Those figures should reassure the House, and I ask the House to accept the money resolution.

It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved, That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of increases attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other enactment; and
  2. (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.