§ Amendments made: No. 6, in page 27, line 38, after `deposited' insert
§ 'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.
§ No. 7, in page 27, line 39, after 'it' insert 'shall be so deposited'.
§ No. 8, in page 27, line 45, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a copy shall also be given as soon as is reasonably practicable to each person who is an owner or occupier of the land in question.
§ (3A) Where a copy of the certificate is deposited under sub-paragraph (3) above, it shall be kept with the documents to which it relates.
§ (3B) The'.
§ No. 9, in page 28, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (4). —[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]
§ Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
§ 9 pm
§ The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt)I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope to respond to any particular points made in the debate if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if time permits.
This thoroughly debated and well examined Bill is important not only for Cardiff but for the wider south Wales economy. I cannot emphasise too strongly the tremendous importance that the barrage scheme set out in the Bill has for our capital city of Cardiff.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are in full agreement about the need to regenerate the former docklands area of Cardiff. The Government supported the objectives of the private Bill which preceded the one that we are debating tonight. Several Opposition Members 952 who were closely involved in that Bill have given valuable support to the Government Bill. That cross-party support, together with the active participation of local government and the public and private sectors, is also a measure of the Bill's importance.
The Government firmly believe that the type of high-quality, high-density development that our capital city needs will happen only with a barrage. It is the barrage which will create the right conditions for attracting the scale and quality of developments to Cardiff. Other options—including the industrially based strategy favoured by other hon. Members—are quite simply not credible.
I know that some hon. Members will say that development is already taking place in Cardiff without the barrage. Of course I very much welcome those developments. We have never claimed that no development would take place without the barrage, although there is widespread support for that view among developers already in the bay. It is certainly true that there is already considerable confidence in the future of Cardiff bay, but that is largely because of confidence that the barrage will be built. Without the barrage, developments could not be of the same value, they would not create so many jobs or houses, and less private sector investment would be attracted.
Already, reference has been made to the latest economic appraisal, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. It confirms the robust case in favour of the barrage project. On previous occasions, I have made it clear that the economic appraisal of January 1990 was sufficiently robust not to require an updated version to be prepared, even in the changed economic circumstances. Nevertheless, we have acceded to requests for a new one to be commissioned.
I am glad to tell the House that the findings of the new appraisal confirm our view that the case for the barrage remains very strong indeed, and continues to be superior in all respects to redevelopment without the barrage. The updated appraisal suggests that the barrage project will bring about 23,200 permanent jobs—that is 10,000 more jobs than an alternative development without a barrage. Construction employment is nearly twice what it would be without a barrage. Nearly 4,400 new houses will be built —1,700 more than without a barrage. The total private sector investment which will be attracted by the barrage is well over £1,000 million.
§ Mr. MorganWill the Secretary of State give way?
§ Mr. HuntI shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once in my speech, but I will leave that pleasure for a little later.
Finally, we come to the net present value, which even in the current property market remains strongly positive. The net present value of the barrage scenario is £119 million at mid-1992 prices. The equivalent figure for a development without a barrage is minus £153 million. The Government have consistently stated that the barrage project represents by far the best option for redeveloping Cardiff bay in terms of jobs, new houses, private sector investment and value for money. All the economic appraisals have shown that to be the case. This latest appraisal confirms that the Government have been fully justified in their continued support for the barrage scheme.
Hon. Members should not think that the benefits arising from the barrage scheme will be confined to 953 Cardiff. We believe that the wider south Wales economy will gain from the redevelopment of Cardiff bay. Surveys of major employers in Cardiff carried out by South Glamorgan county council show that nearly 40 per cent. of their employees come from outside the county. Very many of these come from valley communities represented by Labour Members, some of whom have opposed the barrage proposal. I believe that their opposition is mistaken. I accept that they do not oppose the redevelopment of south Cardiff, but they must realise too that, as the opportunities offered by the Cardiff bay barrage scheme come to fruition, the employment prospects for many of their constituents will be greatly enhanced.
We have already achieved a great deal in the valleys. More than 2.5 million sq ft of new industrial floorspace has been created since Lord Walker launched the programme for the valleys in 1988. Private sector investment promises to safeguard or create about 24,000 jobs. More than 300 new factory units have been built under the urban programme up to 1991–92, with a further 40 units planned for the current year. These are just a few examples of what has already been achieved. The regeneration of Cardiff bay will complement and add to the opportunities opening up in the valleys.
§ Mr. MorganI thank the Secretary of State for his exceptional generosity in giving way to me once during his speech, although he may lose his place in the brief that he has in front of him. I understand the difficulty that he has in being precise when he promises new jobs. Last Wednesday, he spoke about 10,000 when he should have said 5,000. Today he has spoken of how the scheme will "bring about" 23,000 jobs. The KPMG Peat, Marwick, McLintock study to which he has referred does not say "bring about" in the sense of creating 23,000 jobs. It says that the project will support 23,000 jobs. I interpret that to mean "accommodate". That is, if all the offices are built and takers are found for all of them, the result would be 23,000 jobs. The report does not say that takers will be found for all the offices. That is why the right hon. Gentleman should rethink the words "bring about".
§ Mr. HuntI have no reason to change any of the words that I used. I did not want to have a sequence of giving way to the hon. Gentleman in my opening speech because he will no doubt have the opportunity to speak later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I am able to do the same thing at the conclusion of the debate, I shall reply to his points.
§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)The whole tenor of the Secretary of State's speech implies that this scheme is immune to any form of public expenditure cut in years to come. Is that true? If so, will he give us the assurance that vital capital expenditure schemes for the valleys will also be immune?
§ Mr. HuntThere is no such thing as immunity. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from his time as a Minister, discussions take place at this time of the year about resources for next year. Those discussions have not yet been concluded. Provided that the House agrees to the Bill reaching the statute book, the Government are determined to ensure that the barrage becomes a reality.
954 A further point about the valleys is that there is already a growing awareness of the need to improve the existing public transport links between the valley communities, the city and the bay. Hon. Members may be aware that the local authorities are to examine the possibilities for improving and expanding rail links. We must await the outcome of those studies, but I am sure that hon. Members will welcome them as a further indication that the valleys stand to gain from the regeneration of Cardiff bay.
An aspect of the barrage scheme which has been of particular interest to several hon. Members is the possible effects on wading birds which use the mudflats as feeding grounds. The Government carefully considered the expert studies into the implications for those birds in coming to a view on the original private Bill. Our conclusion was that the arguments weighed heavily in favour of proceeding with the barrage.
Nevertheless, we are committed to providing some form of mitigation for the loss of the feeding grounds, which is why the proposal to build a tidal lagoon was carried over from the private Bill into this Bill. The Select Committee, after hearing detailed evidence, removed those provisions because of doubts about the lagoon's effectiveness as a mitigation measure and because of the effect on the landowners at Wentloog.
The Government remain committed to the provision of some form of mitigation. The Welsh Office, together with Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, considered possible alternatives, and we announced during the Standing Committee that a feasibility study had been commissioned to assess the suitability of sites on the Gwent levels as a bird reserve.
The Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB are closely involved in the proposal to create an area of wetland, which should be a more effective mitigation measure than the original lagoon proposal. The feasibility study, which is being carried out by consultants with a well established reputation—including Mason Pittendrigh and David Bellamy Associates—is expected to be completed by the end of the year. If the results of the study are favourable and a decision is taken to proceed with the creation of a bird reserve, we shall not be seeking power under this Bill because the necessary authority is available to the development corporation and the land authority under existing legislation.
The House should be told of the Government's intentions. I can also repeat the assurance that we gave to the Standing Committee—that it is the Government's intention to keep the costs of the proposed bird reserve within the £5.7 million originally earmarked for the Wentloog lagoon.
The possible effects on property of changes to groundwater levels is another issue in which hon. Members have taken an interest. As the House is aware, schedule 7 contains a detailed, comprehensive and generous scheme of protection for householders. The Select Committee heard a great deal of technical evidence and made several changes to the schedule. The main changes were the extension of protection to the gardens of residential buildings within the protected property area, the right of householders to nominate a contractor of their own choice to undertake remedial works if the development corporation has not arranged to start work 955 within six months and the appointment of an independent complaints administrator. All those measures have now been written into the Bill.
The House will recall that, when it last had the opportunity to debate the Bill, I had not taken any decision on public funding for the barrage in the light of the further groundwater studies undertaken by Hydrotechnica. I announced my decision to the House on 20 January. Hon. Members may recall that I also announced that the development corporation had been asked to carry out a feasibility study into the possibility of controlling rises in groundwater levels by means of dewatering wells. The results of that study were published on 20 August. I have arranged for copies of the report to be available in the Vote Office.
That report concluded that dewatering wells could make a significant difference to groundwater rise should the "extreme case" of groundwater rise occur. It recommended that there should be a well-pumping pilot study. The results should be available early in the new year. If that confirms the report's findings, the need to carry out remedial works will be significantly reduced or removed altogether. That would, of course, mean little or no disruption for householders.
Clearly, we cannot decide whether to proceed with dewatering wells until we have the results of the pumping tests. If a decision to proceed is taken, the Government will not seek powers under the Bill to do so, because that can be done under existing legislation.
I want to assure the House, however, that the Government have no intention of removing any of the protection that the Bill now offers to householders. If we do not proceed with dewatering, the protection of schedule 7 will still be available. If we implement the dewatering solution, I see no reason to remove the safety net of protection from the Bill. Even if dewatering does not prove effective in practice, householders will still have the security afforded by the scheme of protection. If damage occurs as a result of groundwater changes attributable to the barrage, the development corporation must remedy it.
We have now dealt with all the main issues raised. I want to give the Government's full support for the biggest ever capital project in Cardiff—a £153 million barrage scheme which will bring more than 23,000 jobs to the capital city of Wales, lead to the construction of 4,400 homes of which a quarter will be for social housing, and trigger more than £1,000 million-worth of private sector investment.
The barrage project represents by far the best option for redeveloping Cardiff bay and the appraisal to which I referred demonstrates that the Government have been fully justified in their continued support for the barrage scheme. I hope that both sides of the House will support the Bill.
§ Mrs. ClwydI stress from the beginning that our criticisms of the Bill have not been about the need for economic regeneration, which is essential for Cardiff docklands. I have lived in Cardiff most of my adult life and I want to see that regeneration. However, we feel that questions remain unanswered and that there is much unfinished business. It is proper that those who care about the environment should voice their concerns about the conservation implications of the barraging of the Taff and 956 Ely estuary in Cardiff bay, the entire destruction of a site of special scientific interest, and the removal of an integral part of the Severn estuary special protection area.
People are also worried about the cost of the barrage —£153 million, as the Secretary of State confirmed. They are asking whether the extra value that the barrage will add to the whole scheme justifies its cost. Does the economic appraisal make unrealistic, rosy assumptions about the effect, for example, on local land values? If land around the bay is likely to increase in value at the rate assumed by the corporation's study, the corporation may make a fortune by hanging on to that land rather than selling it now. The fall in property prices in Cardiff, although less than in the south-east of England, has significantly reduced the potential value of the barrage —so does the cost outweigh the benefits?
The Secretary of State made great play about the value of the Cardiff bay development for other parts of Wales, particularly the valley areas. Those of us who represent those areas would like to believe what he said about the creation of more jobs for the valleys and the potential of enjoying what he believes will be new-found prosperity in the Cardiff area. People in the valleys have already seen the effects of the Government's policies since 1979, a point that was well made by Kevin Morgan in his study on the Government's regional policy.
It is clear that the Government's philosophy of market forces regenerating British industry by themselves has not been borne out in the valleys of south Wales or in Wales generally. Government policies have meant that regional economic activity has become even more concentrated in the south-east of England. That at any rate was the story of the early 1980s, partly because the Government did not care much for regional planning and partly because their commitment to regional policy was so seriously devalued. Expenditure on regional policy declined by a staggering 62.7 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. In Wales it declined by 58.3 per cent. in that time.
The valleys programme was started in 1988 by Lord Walker, when unemployment among males in the valleys was running at 18.9 per cent. In April this year, it was 18.7 per cent., since when there have been many more job losses. Unfortunately, the Government do not publish figures for the valleys as a matter of course; we are still awaiting a reply to a question to learn what October's figure was. I suspect that it was very much higher.
Since the Secretary of State has been responsible for Welsh policy, unemployment has risen by 46,500 in Wales and the valley areas. The valleys programme, designed to stem the rising tide of employment, has not done so very effectively. It has done nothing to temper the decline in regional policy expenditure, which fell by 50 per cent. in the valleys programme area between 1989 and 1991. The programme has done nothing to prevent the reduction in Government support for training and enterprise councils, as shown by the fact that Mid-Glamorgan TEC had its budget cut by 20 per cent. last year and by a further 15 per cent. this year.
The programme has done nothing to alleviate the chronic financial weakness of local government in the valleys. Most local authorities there are in a weaker position now than when the programme began.
Many of these shortcomings stem from a national economic policy which sets a low premium on regional regeneration and industrial renewal. New priorities are needed at a United Kingdom level. It is equally imperative 957 that we establish new development priorities in south Wales. We are not convinced by the Secretary of State's promises of jobs, because he has failed to deliver jobs in the valleys areas and because, when speaking of the establishment of Deeside industrial park, he said last week that 10,000 jobs had been created, whereupon it was pointed out that the true figure was nearer 5,000.
I only hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman promises a certain number of jobs as a spin-off from the Cardiff bay development, he will be prepared to stand by his words when the development is complete.
The barrage is the responsibility of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, a quango with no proper accountability to Parliament. It is extraordinary that such a quango should be financed by public funds to the tune of £33 million a year—it is the only large quango in this category. Many quangos are privately audited, but at least the National Audit Office has reserve powers to look at their books. In the case of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the NAO does not even have that reserve power. The people of Wales are fed up with all these quangos and believe that they should be replaced with a democratically elected Welsh assembly. That would enable us to bring the quangos under proper democratic control. It would subject the functions and actions of the Welsh Office to proper public scrutiny and co-ordinate and promote economic development and regeneration. We say that the Secretary of State's proposals for reforming government in Wales should start from the point of a Welsh assembly, which would facilitate the reorganisation of local government based on unitary authorities by taking overall responsibility for a limited number of strategic and specialised functions.
The people of Wales want and need a decentralised system of government. At the general election 70 per cent. of them voted for parties which supported the creation of a democratically elected Welsh tier of government. It is undeniable that the creation of an assembly would give Wales a strategic direction, which the Secretary of State's current plans are sadly lacking. We shall continue to call for the establishment of a Welsh assembly which will bring the quango-like development corporation—
Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is nearing the end of her speech, but she is straying from the terms of the debate on Third Reading.
§ Mrs. ClwydI am drawing my speech to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying that it is essential, however we feel about the development of Cardiff bay and our support for regeneration, that the scheme is not administered by a quango which is non-accountable, non-elected and not responsible to the people of Wales.
§ Mr. MichaelI am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I am grateful also that we have reached Third Reading. It is clear from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that she recognises the massive need for economic regeneration in the south of Cardiff. It was that recognition of urgent need which led local councillors to support the building of the barrage. They appreciated how the scourge of unemployment has devastated south Cardiff communities.
958 I welcome the progress which will now take place in Cardiff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones) will recognise, unemployment in his constituency and mine, and in Cardiff, West, is a devastating burden for communities to bear. We need major development to lift the entire city out of that situation, especially after the way in which unemployment has borne down over the past 13 years.
Anyone who has seen Bute East dock—it has water of the same quality as that which will be in the impounded lake—can have no doubt about the sort of environment that will result from the building of the barrage. The results will be positive and they will be bound to attract employers as well as those who wish to live in such an environment.
We have been through a long process before arriving at Third Reading. I have found it depressing, as I said when we experienced difficulties with earlier Bills, that our debates have not been more constructive. Many of them have concentrated on the problems of groundwater, but there has not been a great division between my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself in terms of our starting point on that issue. Our conclusions, however, have been quite different. At the beginning, my hon. Friend said that he could not support the Bill unless he was satisfied about groundwater while I said that I could not oppose the Bill unless I felt that the threat of groundwater was considerable.
It is right that doubts should be aired during debate, and it is important that people can be confident that all the relevant research has been undertaken and that safeguards have been built into the Bill. If the dynamic system of de-watering is introduced, it must not take away one iota from the local community.
We must now look to the future. There have been times when we were wondering whether there was life after the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but that day is about to dawn. I am sure that the Bill will rapidly complete its remaining stages in another place.
The south Cardiff area, which will immediately be affected by redevelopment, comprises both old established communities and one or two new communities. It is important that they should be treated with respect. They have a life and vigour of their own, but many have also experienced difficulty. For many years, Butetown has been an island in a sea of industry, and Splott suffered the devastating impact of the closure of East Moors steel works. Unemployment is high throughout those communities; yet they retain a positive attitude and have much to offer those who live in them. I hope that the development corporation, in partnership with local authorities, will at every stage respect the nature of those communities—and I shall feel obliged to remind them of that if it becomes necessary.
The Secretary of State spoke of the housing to be included in south Cardiff's redevelopment. We have been given an assurance that at least 25 per cent. of new housing in the development corporation area will be social housing for rent at affordable levels. That minimum should be achieved at every stage. A contribution is already being made by housing associations. Rent levels should make it possible for local people to remain in their communities, and for those who once moved to the city outskirts now to return from Llanrumney, Llanedeyrn or St. Mellons and live close to their families. I say that because difficulties have arisen.
959 To be fair, the development corporation, in allocating land, met that request by local councillors, but problems have arisen in the financial calculations which result in rent decisions. It is most important that the new social housing is a positive element, enabling people to return to their old communities. That is one way of ensuring that the scheme will be viewed positively by local communities.
I am satisfied about the standard of the impounded water, but I hope that consideration will be given at every stage to developing the environment to the benefit of those who live there. It is important to attract tourism and business, but it is vital that local people are considered when streets, traffic schemes, commercial and other arrangements are being finalised.
That is also true of jobs. Without employment and the dignity that comes with having a place in society, the communities in question will continue to be devastated. Everything possible must be done to exploit the barrage to the full in creating the maximum number of high quality jobs.
I ask, above all, for an emphasis on partnership. Local government has contributed active participation and support—critical at times, questioning at times, but positive. Such partnership is most important for the future. I played a small part in the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, as indeed did the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). That was a cross-party partnership, and a partnership with the private sector, although I should add that no development corporation was involved. If the development of south Cardiff is to be as successful as that of the city centre, and if it is to achieve the same national recognition, we must recreate a partnership that has been damaged to some extent by the processes that have delayed the Bill's passage.
The discrediting of the private Bill procedure has affected confidence, and we must now rebuild that confidence. Those who, for whatever reason, have opposed or questioned the Bill in the past should be part of the new partnership. There is no doubt that all of us want Cardiff to be developed and to move into the first division. That will now be possible.
Many of us, in our different ways, have tried to improve the Bill during its passage. Some of our debates have been unhelpful; others have been helpful and positive. It is sad that many of the discussions involving supporters of the Bill, and many of the improvements that have been made in the past couple of years, have not received the same publicity as the crude conflict that has developed at times.
I ask for respect to be shown to local authorities and elected representatives, and to the local community. There are signs that that is now happening in the development corporation. I hope that, over the next year or so, my optimism about the corporation's sensitivity will not prove mistaken, for I expect it to be the cornerstone on which success can be built.
We now need to show some confidence. We need to take a positive line in regard to our communities. Unemployment can be tackled; the dereliction of the past can be ended; deprivation need not continue in years to come. I entirely share the aspirations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, who said that the problems of the valleys should also be tackled. Indeed, every part of Wales is now experiencing immense problems.
We must express confidence in Cardiff as a city. It is a great city—a warm and human city. It is Europe's 960 youngest capital. People who visit it ask, "Why do you keep it secret?" The supporters of the barrage must form a partnership with those who have questioned the development, to safeguard the interests of citizens at every stage and to make the best of every aspect. Cardiff—along with the rest of south Wales and, indeed, the whole country—needs, as a backdrop, a Government economic policy for reconstruction. We need policies to create jobs and to revive the economy. Only with such a positive development in the economy—a proper national strategy for recovery—can Cardiff and, indeed, Wales take their deserved place in the sun. Only in that way can jobs be created—only in that way can people feel confident in their future, and the future of their city.
§ Mr. MorganI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for allowing me some time between his speech and those of the Front-Bench spokesmen. I want to explain, as clearly as I can, why I—along with the vast bulk of my constituents —have resolutely opposed the construction of the barrage, to the bewilderment of some people.
There are two simple reasons. First, my constituents are concerned about the effect of rising groundwater on their homes and, in some cases, their businesses. Secondly, they do not believe the job forecasts. Their fears have not gone away. On job forecasts, there was another example only last Wednesday. When this Secretary of State for Wales makes a job forecast we should count the silverware. Last week he referred to the Deeside industrial park having 10,000 jobs, but his Department had to correct him and state that the figure was 5,000. My constituents' worries, therefore, do not go away when 23,000 jobs associated with the barrage are forecast.
Even tonight the Minister failed to use the word that his consultants had used. KPMG does not say that 23,000 jobs will be "created" by the construction of the barrage. It uses the word "supported"—a classic weasel word. We still do not know what it means. I take it to mean that that number of jobs would be accommodated, but that does not mean that 23,000 jobs would be created. If KPMG had meant that 23,000 jobs would be created, I am pretty sure that it would have said so.
The Secretary of State used weasel words when he said "bring about". That is not what the consultants say. I wish that the Secretary of State would be as careful as we all should be when job promises connected with such a development are made. If we are not careful, people outside become extremely cynical. We do not want them to be cynical about politicians' promises. The situation is bad enough already. The Secretary of State should provide a genuine opinion as to the possible damage from groundwater and the number of jobs to be created.
My constituents, who are extremely worried about damage from groundwater, are looking carefully at job forecasts. If they do not believe the job forecasts, they will say that the damage to their homes as a result of the rise in the groundwater is not worth the candle. They say that if they could be sure of the jobs the risk might he worth taking, but if job forecasts are a pig in a poke the risk is not worth taking. They believe that the Secretary of State is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. As they say in New 961 Zealand, even the wool that the Secretary of State is trying to pull over the eyes of the people of Wales is 50 per cent. terylene.
In his Third Reading speech, the Secretary of State said that the barrage would cost £153 million. My constituents believe that the correct figure is £167 million. Where is the missing £9 million? The Secretary of State referred earlier this year to the missing £9 million. He said that he intended to approve public expenditure, arising from the Stoner report, for the additional groundwater protection that was needed to cover the predictions made by his consultant. But he has not got that money from the Treasury. The additional £9 million for groundwater protection is not to be found in the £153 million to which the Secretary of State referred.
The figure ought to be £162 million, at 1992 prices. That is not the outturn cost. If we were realistic, the outturn cost would be about £180 million. For those purposes, one has to accept that £162 million is the proper figure for building the barrage, plus the associated works. That is another reason why my constituents are still worried about the barrage proposal.
The Secretary of State referred to the prospect of dewatering wells, thus solving the problem of rising groundwater. We do not have time to go in detail into exactly how the dewatering wells strategy is to be applied between now and the Committee stage of the Bill when it reaches another place. I understand that field tests will be carried out between now and next February. That is fair enough; after the desk study one should carry out the field study.
The problem, however, is that the dewatering wells are another example of the Government's incompetence when trying to put the fears of my constituents at rest. The dewatering wells study that the Government refer to carrying out between now and February 1993 was ordered by the Select Committee that considered the private Bill and reported to the House in May 1991. It was in the terms of reference given to Hydrotechnica—the development corporation's consultants—to be carried out, on the instruction of the House in May 1991, between August 1991 and July 1992, but it was not done.
The study is late, yet my constituents are being asked to accept that this wonderful dewatering well scheme will solve the problems of rising groundwater and prevent the associated property damage that could result. It should have been done 12 months ago, and if it had been we could have considered it tonight. Some way or another, the ball slipped from the grasp of Cardiff Bay development corporation, in the classic manner of unaccountable, irresponsible quangos of mates of the Secretary of State. The corporation does not care, because it is unaccountable to Parliament. We are always asked to accept what it does, even though it has a record of incompetence, which always makes us want to redouble our efforts to scrutinise what it is doing.
In 1988, I decided to oppose the barrage. I did not like the idea but knew why people such as Lord Crickhowell, whose idea it was, adopted it. They thought, "Given what it will do for London docklands, perhaps it is a good idea for south Wales." Nobody would advance that argument now. The docklands scheme has proved to be misconceived. If Canary Wharf is not doing much for the 962 economy or image of London, we do not want a budgie wharf in Cardiff to try to do the same job on a smaller scale.
The philosophy of office and property-led development has passed its sell-by date. I did not like it in 1988—I preferred manufacturing-led redevelopment and regeneration—but now 10 times as many people can see the point that I was making, and following the Government's recent economic difficulty it is even more true now than it was four years ago. Many people can now see that the warnings given by opponents of the barrage four years ago have become true for London. Therefore, the idea of copying the way in which regeneration was pursued in London docklands holds no attraction for my constituents.
The Secretary of State referred to the Bill being changed in the other place. He said that I have not been willing to accept the Government's publicity of that change. However, the Government will not only change the Bill but will create a new class of petitioners. Those who petitioned against the Bill in the past have a different reason for doing so now—the unprecedented right that the Government have conferred on Cardiff city council to dig public soakaways on private property. It has never been tried before in a densely populated area of terrace housing. In order to get rid of surface water, the city council will be able to enter people's back gardens and dig under their back walls, goldfish ponds, bike sheds and tool sheds and across their herbaceous borders. That will create an entirely new class of petitioners. When the Bill returns from the other place, will the same petitioners have the right to petition in this House against the additional power to enter private property for public purposes, which Cardiff city council has now agreed with the Secretary of State?
We have also dealt with the fact that we do not like quango-style government. We believe that it results in fixes, and we are not happy about the fixes being made between insiders and the Welsh Office. They are undemocratic and unaccountable, and they lead to too many little private, cosy arrangements being made.
We have also referred to the appalling incident when the Secretary of State decided to choose Councillor Jeff Sainsbury over Councillor Geoff Munton, the nominee of Cardiff city council after Labour had won the election democratically in May 1991. The Government took no notice of that and chose one of the masonic lodge mates of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) because Councillor Sainsbury wanted to be on the Cardiff Bay development corporation. That is appalling.
If there is one thing that one can say about the barrage, it is that it is a large piece of masonry, but it will certainly not be free. The taxpayers and the city of Cardiff will pay for it for decades to come.
§ Mr. MurphyWe have limited time. It was appropriate that the previous two speakers were my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who represent the city of Cardiff together with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who is present, because the Bill is a matter of great concern to the capital city of Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friends 963 on the way in which, in their different ways, they hold sincere views and beliefs about the way in which Cardiff should be developed.
Everyone in the House joins in the hope that Cardiff will be redeveloped and rejuvenated by whatever happens in the south of Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I represent valley constituencies. and we are very much aware of the problems of unemployment, recession and housing deprivation which hit not only the valleys, but places such as Splott, Adamstown, Grangetown and other parts of Cardiff which will be affected by the barrage.
I still believe that points have been left unanswered. As a result of the problems of the guillotine, we did not get to the difficulties of the Cardiff bay advisory committee and its composition. We firmly believe that, by law, there should be representatives on it of the new unitary authority in Cardiff. The Secretary of State will announce fairly soon the local government structure in Wales, and the House will have to decide on that. Assuming that there is a unitary authority for Cardiff, it is the obvious body which must have representation on such an advisory committee.
My hon. Friends have referred to the problems of quangos or appointed bodies in Wales. There is great unease in the Principality about those bodies and about their membership. I hope that, in years to come, while the Government are still in power, they will look at that matter differently from the way in which they have looked at it in the past.
There is genuine unease in Cardiff about the problems of groundwater levels, about flooding, about the quality of the water and about the site of special scientific interest. All those are matters of great concern. The matter that still dominates all those is the problem of cost.
We know that the hundreds of millions of pounds that the project will cost were thought of originally when the economy was in a very different position. That economy was based very much on property development, on supermarkets, and on retail parks and the rest. Those days have gone. I hope that, when the autumn statement is delivered, and when the Secretary of State talks about the revenue support grant for local authorities in Wales, he will take a careful look at the priorities in public expenditure, and that he will ensure that the money is shared among all the communities in Wales which vitally need it.
The other place will consider the Bill in the months to come. It has plenty of work to do. However, we assure the Secretary of State that, when the Lords amendments come to the House, we will give them proper scrutiny, which is our job as the Opposition.
§ Mr. HuntI thank the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for their speeches. It is a good reflection of the spirit of partnership that we have in Wales that people representing valley communities are still prepared to contemplate a development in Cardiff and are prepared to give that development not only their Front-Bench support but their own personal support, in the belief that it will benefit the people of the valleys and south Wales, as well as being enormously important to Cardiff and its people.
964 Towards the end of what must be more than 60 days of discussion on the Bill in its various forms, I detect that we may be nearer to agreeing than we have been in previous debates. I recognise that the project is enormously important to the people of Cardiff. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the spirit of partnership. I hope that we may rekindle that spirit as we say goodbye to the Bill—albeit temporarily, I am afraid, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) explained—as it moves to the other place.
I see that virtually all the political parties are represented in the Chamber at the moment. I strongly believe that the project is of vital importance to Wales, but that it will secure the benefits that we all seek only if it has the wholehearted support of everyone. Perhaps some hon. Members intend to vote against Third Reading. We shall not know until the vote is called.
I appeal to all hon. Members to believe that the best way to get the project up and running on the best possible basis would be for the Bill's Third Reading to receive the unanimous support of the House. That will enable us to build for the future. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth who said, "Now let us look to the future."
We have had some good speeches on Third Reading and in previous debates. I must correct the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who said that the barrage was not mentioned in the manifesto. It was certainly mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, although, strangely, it was omitted from the Labour manifesto.
I have now secured for myself a copy of the Conservative manifesto for Wales, which is entitled "The Best Future for Wales" and which includes a special section entitled "Cardiff Bay". It says:
We shall remain fully committed, as an early priority, to securing Parliamentary approval for the project to build a Barrage in Cardiff in order to transform its seafront. The whole revitalisation of South Cardiff depends upon that Barrage. This project will bring £2,000 million of investment to South Wales, and thousands of new homes and jobs. It will rejuvenate and transform our Capital city.I am delighted to have the opportunity to implement that manifesto pledge. I want the project to succeed.The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised a number of detailed points, and, if I may, I shall write to him on those to which I do not respond tonight. On jobs, I do not believe that there is any difference or distinction between the wording used in the economic appraisal and the words that I used. The important thing is that the barrage will bring much-needed jobs and homes to Cardiff. It will make Cardiff one of the great capital cities of the world. The potential for redeveloping the sea front and river front at Cardiff fills one with excitement for the future.
I do not accept for one moment the criticisms that hon. Members have made of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Its chairman is one of our outstanding public citizens in Wales, and its new chief executive, Michael Boyce, formerly chief executive of South Glamorgan county council, is one of our most important and prestigious public servants. Under their leadership, I am certain that the barrage will transform Cardiff's future prospects.
I welcome the fact that we have had the support of hon. Members of all parties tonight. As we watch the evolution of the project, I hope that we shall see a capital city rising to the challenge of our times.
965 The capital city of Cardiff, of which we are justly proud, has a very exciting future. Of course it would have an exciting future without the barrage, and I recognise that those who have opposed the barrage do not do so to denigrate the potential of Cardiff: they oppose it because their view differs from the view of the majority. However, I believe that the majority are right. The barrage will transform the prospects of Cardiff.
I have visited other cities in the world which have discovered that, by lifting the nature of the waterfront, they can stimulate the most remarkable development. We will see that in Cardiff. It is truly one of the greatest projects of our time. I pay tribute to my predecessors, Lord Crickhowell, who thought up and implemented the project at an early stage, and Lord Walker, who brought it to fruition. I strongly urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.
§ It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.
§ Question agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.