§ Which amendment was: in page 1, line 7, at the beginning to insert the words—
§ `Subject to subsection (8) below'. (Mrs. Ann Clwyd.)
§ Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
7.16 pm§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)I resume the debate on this group of important amendments in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is in Hong Kong. He was in mid-flight when he was so cruelly cut off by the Government's failure to keep their troops here at 10 o'clock a week ago. That may have been the beginning of the degeneration of the Government's authority over their Back Benchers, of which we have seen so much more evidence in the past seven days—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained about the lack of time to debate the amendments. Can we please get on to debating them?
§ Mr. MorganI agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about Cardiff, not Maastricht. Were we discussing Maastricht, there would be no guillotine motion because the Government would be unable to impose it. That is the only point that I was trying to make. Maastricht is the Cardiff of Holland—the capital of an area that used to contain coal mines, which have now all closed down. That is what we have been trying to prevent in the past week.
The amendments to which we should pay further attention tonight concern whether the updated version of the cost-benefit analysis provided to us by KPMG Management Consulting is adequate for us to proceed with, or whether it is a doctored analysis done specifically to assist the client to get permission to spend taxpayers' money on a vast scale but not something that a consultancy firm would feel proud of or want to enter for consultancy study of the year competitions next Christmas. It is probably fair to say that it falls into that category and that the House must therefore provide the element that consultancy studies do not reach—namely, a realistic and objective look at the costs and benefits that need to be applied to the barrage proposal, given its size, implications, side effects and importance in the Welsh public expenditure budget.
We want to ensure that the House considers whether the cost-benefit analysis that has been done so far meets the terms that it properly should.
The trouble with cost-benefit analyses of this sort is that they tend to be done to please the client so that the company concerned obtains follow-on business. That is not to say that they are full of porkies, but they tend to be attuned to the client's wishes; sometimes they are even rewritten when the client is not too happy with the first shot. Tonight, we need to discuss whether the cost-benefit analysis has taken full account of the change in the economic climate since the earlier analyses were done.
925 They were done without examination of the demand for land and property development of the London docklands type.
When the scheme was initiated, it was thought that office-led developments were a good thing—they appeared to bring prosperity, and it was thought that they could replicate in Cardiff the sort of prosperity that was being created by the £15 billion-worth of private sector investment in London docklands in 1987 and 1988.
All this has now gone into reverse. What concerns me is whether the cost-benefit analysis, although officially updated, has really been updated, or whether the consultants still believe that replicating Canary wharf in Cardiff on a smaller scale is still a valid idea. Have they been able to leave behind the mind set of 1987–88 and adopt a mind set suitable for 1992's economic conditions?
Last week, the blue book issued by KPMG was given us for reading and debate. The problem is that people have assumed that, if the supply is provided, the demand will inevitably follow. We must ask ourselves whether any equation that does not include the demand side is valid at all. My hon. Friends and I are all convinced that the demand side should have been studied much more closely by KPMG for the updated report. That is why amendment No. 91 still calls for an effective cost-benefit analysis. None has yet been done, and it is not possible for the consultants to do one usefully unless they can shake off the feeling that what Cardiff needs is another Canary wharf. Cardiff needs that like a hole in the head.
We must learn the lessons of what has happened in the east end of London. If we do not, we will build the wrong infrastructure, make the same mistakes and create another white elephant of the same type. I do not believe that KPMG has been able to take a step back and think again about the new conditions of 1992. It has not examined demand in south Cardiff in the light of what has happened in the past five years. The consultants' appraisal still looks far too much at the supply side of land and property at the expense of demand.
There are 20 million sq ft of surplus office space in central London, not to mention in docklands. The price of this space has collapsed, with the resulting tortuous negotiations in which the Government are engaged to try to save Canary Wharf by working a deal with the Jubilee line and shipping out 2,000 civil servants—who might otherwise have considered moving to Cardiff. We should think about the potential loss of jobs in Cardiff under the Government's office relocation schemes. Their top priority will be to organise relocation from central London and Whitehall to the Canary wharf area, and they will probably spend the next 10 years trying to fill that great white elephant.
The 2,000 civil servants from the Department of the Environment in Marsham street—the Government are toying with the idea of moving them to Canary wharf— might have been candidates for Cardiff, but they will not come for the next few years while the huge surplus of space remains in London. The KPMG report gives the flavour of none of this. It refers to the changed climate, but it does not really scrutinise the problems of supply. There is also the problem of price. The price of office space in London docklands has collapsed from £30 a square foot four years 926 ago to £10 today—or even as low as £5 if the office in question is not new. Canary wharf is available at £14 or £15 a square foot.
Welsh Office Ministers sought to deny us certain information last week, but the news is nevertheless astonishing. It concerns the rental being paid by the Welsh Office-sponsored quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the first pre-let tenant of the Grosvenor Waterside development. The information comes to us in an updated press release from Grosvenor Waterside; it was initially issued only to the technical press. At any rate, the rental to be paid by the authority for its new 150,000 sq ft of office space, a relocation from central Cardiff to Cardiff docklands inner-harbour area, will be £14.50 a square foot—50 per cent. higher than the rentals on offer in London docklands.
§ Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)Does my hon. Friend recall how we were told in Committee by the Minister that this information, now apparently in a press release, was commercially confidential? Has the Welsh Office withheld information on this as on many other issues?
§ Mr. MorganI apologise; I said that the Minister refused us the information last week—it was actually in Committee that he did so. As my hon. Friend said, he refused it on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
The Grosvenor Waterside press release described the lease for the first five years as at £14.50 per square foot. That is to be compared with the rent offered by Canary wharf's receivers for the relocation from Marsham street. The circumstances are similar, although the distances are greater in London, but the distance from Marsham street to Canary wharf is comparable with that between Newport road, where the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is, and Cardiff docklands.
The rationale in London is the considerable savings to be made from leaving central London, but the move to Cardiff docklands was a one-off letting organised under heavy pressure just before the election in an attempt by the Government to help Associated British Ports to move to Grosvenor Waterside inner harbour development. And the rental for that bears little resemblance to the collapsing rents of central London.
It is amazing what can be organised in a pre-election splurge of public expenditure to get some development going, with taxpayers' money, around the inner harbour. That needs close examination; it may get it from the Public Accounts Committee at some stage. In any case, such a move would not appeal to the private sector. We cannot rely entirely on public sector jobs moving at public sector-organised rentals which may have been arranged at a higher rate at least in part to stop the Government getting egg on their face.
If the private sector is to move to Cardiff bay, it will want rents well below those prevailing in London docklands. No one will move from London to Cardiff when there are cheaper rents to be had in London.
§ Mr. RowlandsI apologise for interrupting again, but the full impact of the information now available is creating growing resentment. I begged the Minister three times to give us an illustration of the rents for the services authority. I was told repeatedly in Committee that they were commercially confidential. Unless the Minister interrupts my hon. Friend to say that the press release 927 from a private property company is wrong, surely we can conclude that the Minister should have readily provided us with the information when we pressed him in Committee.
§ Mr. MorganI am obviously grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention—
§ Mr. MorganI am glad to see that the Minister wishes to intervene. I give way to him.
§ Mr. JonesI am grateful. I hope that it will be helpful if I try to respond to both the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
They are right to say that, when they raised the matter in Committee, I told them that the details were commercially confidential. The terms of the lease prevented the details being released without the prior consent of both parties. However, the figures have been released by the developer, and I can confirm that the average rent for the first five years will be 14.50 per sq ft. That is consistent with the range of £14 to £15 that is used in calculating initial land values for the barrage scheme in the latest economic appraisal.
§ Mr. MorganI am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has provided. We face a difficulty, because there is no date on the press release of Grosvenor Waterside. We may be able to obtain the date from the technical press, to which the press release was sent. That may help to clarify the situation at the time when the Minister was saying that the information was still commercially confidential. That is what he told us in Committee. Was the relevant information being given to the technical press at the time but he was not willing to disclose it to the Committee to avoid embarrassment, or whatever the reason may have been? We shall not know what the situation was without the date of the press release.
§ Mr. RowlandsThe Minister's intervention was even more pathetic than the contributions that we have come to expect from him. I understand that the press release appeared in October 1991. That was long before we discussed these matters in Committee.
§ Mr. MorganIf that is the position, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister will wish to intervene again. If the press release appeared a year ago, that is a material fact to set against the Minister's refusal to disclose details in Committee. I am trying to recall the month when we discussed these matters in Committee.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesI cannot help, because I do not have the precise date. I have set out the advice which I was given. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, having been in my position at the Welsh Office, may understand that the terms of the lease kept the details confidential, subject to disclosure by both parties. As I have said, they were made clear in a press release that was put out by the developer. On becoming aware of that, I intended to confirm the information that was put out. I am happy, however, to take the opportunity now.
§ Mr. MorganWe look forward to a further explanation when the Minister replies to the debate.
The critical issue is how we are to measure demand in Cardiff over the next 20-odd years. We are talking primarily of office relocations, on which the viability of the barrage proposals depend in terms of betterment value, which will not exist if the present manufacturing and docks domination continues. It will be possible to pay for the barrage only if there are enormous increases in land values. Land values will have to be increased to much higher capital-based land values, by the construction of offices, five-star hotels, an opera house, high-class residential properties and some retail developments, for example. That will be a move away from the traditional manufacturing and docks domination in the area.
If it is not possible to move into a Canary Wharf-type development, it will be extremely difficult to meet the civil engineering cost of the barrage and its running costs and maintain water quality in the man-made lake, for example, into the future.
It is necessary to consider whether the recession is a temporary blip or whether we are seeing a fundamental change within our economy. It has been going on for rather longer than something that could be described as a temporary blip, so we must consider whether it is a sea change that will have an effect on demand within the economy for offices on the one hand and for leisure, housing and manufacturing developments on the other. It is a difficult area but it must be considered in the context of the KPMG cost-benefit analysis, which is sadly lacking in any realistic assessment.
Having read the KPMG attempt at producing an updated cost-benefit analysis, we take the view that it is inadequate. It considers the supply of land and assumes that there will be demand for whatever use is contemplated. The critical factor is whether there is demand. That is why so many Opposition Members think that the barrage proposal, with its dependence on trying to get firms to move from London to Cardiff when prices are so low in London that it is likely that they will remain there for the next 10 or 20 years until the surplus office space is soaked up, is ill-founded. It seems that the Government are trying to impose a Welsh Canary Wharf on Cardiff. They are bringing forward what I think it is fair to describe as 1987 answers to the problems of 1992.
§ Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. MorganI have finished my speech.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI did not hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Is he giving way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards)?
§ Mr. MorganNo, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have finished.
§ Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen)First, I apologise to the House for missing the debates which took place last week. The reason for my absence was tonsillitis. This afternoon I read the Hansard reports and noted especially the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
Amendments Nos. 80 and 88 turn on the public spending involved. They are designed to impose a cap on that spending, which has increased in the form of estimates over the years. Amendment No. 91 is, in effect, a request for an updated cost-benefit analysis of the scale of public 929 investment proposed. Like everything else, costs increase over the years. The latest figure that I have is contained in a letter that the Minister wrote on 30 June to those of us who served on the Standing Committee.
The public sector contribution is assessed at £405 million. It is estimated that the total cost of construction and the associated infrastructure will be £662 million. Expenditure of £405 million of public money on the one project is on a scale far greater than that for any other projects in Wales. I wonder whether that money would not be much better spent on a series of other projects to improve our infrastructure. It is proposed to spend £405 million of public money on one project at a time when we are talking of public spending cuts or constraints. It seems extravagant to invest such a sum in one major project.
There will be a multiplier effect, and it is one that is calculated to attract private sector investment. We in the Labour party are interventionists: if we can use public money to prime private sector investment, that is fine. I question, however, how much private sector money will be attracted to the project, especially at a time of recession. In the documents issued over the past couple of years, it has been estimated that the multiplier will be a factor of seven. In other words, every £1 of public money will attract £7 from the private sector. That will amount to about £2 billion and the creation of 23,000 to 25,000 jobs. That is the scale of the estimates made by the Government and the development corporation.
In an article which appeared in the Western Mail last Saturday, the Minister is quoted as saying that the private sector investment that will be attracted will be more than £1 billion, or slightly more than £1 billion. I do not know whether that is the result of the recession or whether an error has been made. The Minister still believes that the scheme will create 23,000 jobs. In that same article, he described those who oppose the barrage as Luddites. That is incredible, coming from a Government who have brought the loss of 2 million or 3 million manufacturing jobs. Only last week we saw the debacle over pit closures, which affected Taff Merthyr and the Betws pit in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the inappropriateness of his comments.
We have witnessed the serious problems encountered at Canary wharf over the past year. An economic boom may be the moment to realise prestige projects, but at a time of recession—when schools, roads, housing, and hospitals are underfunded—it is incredible that the Government should be pursuing this Bill.
There is an overwhelming need to reinvest in Britain's manufacturing base. The Library research notes suggest that the barrage scheme will create jobs—other than those in construction—in respect of shopping centres, commercial offices, schools and hospitals, industrial and high technology estates, tourism, cultural attractions, leisure amenities and 5,000 housing units. The emphasis is on service industries, which are suffering particularly badly in the recession. The project does not address the economic problems of the past two or three years.
Having attended every debate on the barrage in the past five years, I have reached the conclusion that the £400 million public money involved would be better spent in other ways. It is Welsh Office money and should be 930 distributed throughout Wales. I accept that jobs are desperately needed in the Cardiff area, because three out of the four Cardiff constituencies figure in the top five suffering the worst unemployment. Cardiff is seen as a wealthy capital city, but in truth it suffers high unemployment. However, my own constituency, which is 60 miles from Cardiff, will not benefit to any extent—and that is true of the whole of north and west Wales.
The trickle-down theory has it that investing a lot of money in Cardiff will benefit the valleys and the rest of Wales, but it will not. It would be wiser to invest the money across the whole principality.
Public expenditure on the barrage should be capped, and a detailed cost benefit analysis made this year and next year to see whether jobs really will be created and whether there are not far better ways of using that public money.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has been suffering from tonsillitis and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from bronchitis—which occasions his much-changed appearance before us this evening. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will soon fully recover.
Most of last Tuesday's debate took the form of a sermon by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). That was appropriate at the time, because two days previously the hon. Gentleman and I had an opportunity to be in a state of grace—having attended a St. Luke's day service at St. David's church, Merthyr Tydfil, at which our mutual friend Canon Bill Morgan officiated.
Last Tuesday, I found myself listening to a self-confessed deja-vu-ist, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a sweeping condemnation of the economic appraisal. He does not like it, but he fails to produce any grounds for the claims that he makes. He casts the most unfair aspersions against reputable and professional firms. It was not KPMG alone who produced the appraisal but Chesterton, Conran Roche Planning, and Cooke and Arkwright. The good name and reputation of such firms is their most precious asset, and they would not lightly put their names to any appraisal—
§ Mr. RowlandsIn the valleys communities, Cooke and Arkwright is known as the hardest ground landlord of all. The Minister does not improve his case by reminding us that Cooke and Arkwright is involved in the concoction.
§ Mr. JonesAll four of the professional firms involved worked long and hard to produce the economical appraisal. If they were to attach their good names to a false appraisal, they would risk the reputations which are their best hope of future business.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Carmarthen referred to barrage-related costs of £662 million. That figure is correctly described as the total cost of a development strategy including a barrage. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pointed out, those costs are not strictly barrage-related. None the less, I confirm that the figure of £497 million in the updated economic appraisal is equivalent to the £662 million given in my letter of 30 June.
931 If Opposition Members compare the table on page 12 of the appraisal with the equivalent table in the January 1990 appraisal. they will see where the differences lie. As to the reduced costs of the peripheral distributor road, it is standard procedure in any economic appraisal to exclude money already spent when calculating net present value. The sums spent were excluded from both the with and without barrage scenarios, so both were treated equally.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Neath (Mr. Hain) asked about the public sector contribution. Table A8 of the appraisal shows the public sector investment to be £349 million, which is equivalent to the £405 million given in my letter of 30 June.
§ Mr. RowlandsIs the ratio of public to private expenditure higher or lower in the revised figures than it was in the original?
§ Mr. JonesI shall come to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked whether there had been any further change in the estimated cost of barrage construction since the revision of the figures. There has been no further change since the figures that I gave him in Committee. Echoing the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the job estimate had been based purely on estimates of office space. The answer is no—the estimate of office space is based on detailed estimates of the commercial demand for such space. That is reinforced by, for example, the success of developments around the existing water edge in the Tarmac development.
The hon. Gentleman misquoted Chesterton as saying that nothing had changed in the property world. Chesterton has made modest adjustments to the growth rate, but significant cuts in the base values from which it started.
§ Mr. MorganThe Minister is being terribly unrealistic if he is asking us to accept that there is anything in common between the Tarmac development at the top edge of Atlantic wharf—which is really the southern tip of the present commercial centre of Cardiff—and any developments near the pier head. Many of us know Tarmac's Atlantic 2000 development well, because members of our families are working on it. It is within easy walking distance of the city centre: that is one of its attractions. Other areas are very different, and cannot be considered extensions of the city centre.
§ Mr. JonesThe hon. Gentleman is not being consistent. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot make that point while claiming, as he did in an earlier debate, that the dockside area alongside the Tarmac development is in need of management. Similarly, he related all his claims about the inland bay to that dockside area.
The hon. Member for Neath asked which utilities were covered by the reference on page 12 of the appraisal. The description is the same as in earlier appraisals, and covers gas, electricity and water. The £34 million figure represents the total cost of enhanced infrastructure, the bulk of which will be met by service companies. The development corporation will contribute, but its contribution will be refundable as the demand for services builds up.
The hon. Member for Neath also asked whether the cost figure assumed constant price inflation. The £152 million figure represents the cost at current prices. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) 932 asked how the leverage ratio had been calculated. That is set out on page 19 of the appraisal. The calculation was made on the same basis as that in the January 1990 economic appraisal.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that Tarmac had said that the barrage was not important to it. Tarmac actually said that, while its South crescent development was not dependent on the barrage, it firmly believed that the development of the whole of south Cardiff, including the waterfront, could not be successfully undertaken without the barrage. Tarmac also welcomes the Government's decision to introduce the barrage Bill as a catalyst for quality investment.
Opposition Members have not dwelt on the figures in the economic appraisal, and it may be helpful if I mention them. The same answer keeps coming back. According to the appraisal, there will be 23,200 permanent jobs with the barrage and 13,000 without it. There will be 8,800 construction man year without the barrage; with the barrage, there will be 7,700 more. The net present value without the barrage is minus £153 million, while constructing the barrage will provide an advantage of £272 million.
As for leverage, £3.9 per £1 of taxpayers' money would be achieved without the barrage. With the barrage, that is virtually doubled, to £7.50 of private sector investment for every £1 from the taxpayer. However we look at the question, on the best analysis—and the appraisal certainly provides the best analysis—we repeatedly see the gain to be achieved by building the barrage.
§ Mr. Alan W. WilliamsThe Minister said earlier that the 7.5 multiplier came from a document produced in January 1990. We had then been in recession for only one quarter. Now that we have had three years of recession, and many believe that we are moving rapidly towards a slump, should not the cost-benefit multiplier be recalculated?
§ Mr. JonesI can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Exactly that happened with the KPMG report, which was published this month and to which the other three consultants also contributed. Page 3 states:
The leverage ratio of the barrage scenario is estimated to be 7.5, Whilst the leverage ratio of the without barrage scenario is 3.9. Therefore, the barrage scenario has an advantage of 3.6 over the without barrage scenario in terms of its leverage ratio.I invite the hon. Gentleman to study the latest economic appraisal, which confirms the repeated claim in the earlier appraisals that we commissioned—that the barrage scenario is robust, and that not building the barrage would be the worst possible way to proceed.The barrage is not just for Cardiff, as the hon. Member for Neath suggested. He was answered very solidly by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones), who pointed out that in attempting to gain new inward investment Cardiff is repeatedly shown to have the edge over other cities because of the redevelopment and the barrage proposal, which are generating enthusiasm.
What the appraisal does not include is any attempt to calculate the level of job creation outside Cardiff bay, let alone in the rest of Cardiff and south Wales as a whole. With such a massive investment in the south Wales economy, further benefits will clearly result—beyond what has been estimated so well in the economic appraisal. I hope that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. 933 Clwyd) will agree with me. I recall that she said at the outset that she wanted growth and expansion in south Wales, and this is the way to achieve it.
What emerges most clearly from the debate is that Opposition Members revel in gloom and doom. If they want to bring that about, they should indeed oppose the building of the barrage.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)The Minister has again failed to address some fundamental questions on the subject of cost. The Government's argument in support of the Bill is that the development would involve a huge injection of capital and public-sector investment, which ought to be greeted with uncritical enthusiasm. The Minister made that point again tonight. He has still to persuade us that concentrating investment on a particular area will not be at the expense of investment elsewhere.
The Government are on record as reaffirming that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the Cardifff Bay development corporation to complete its task —whatever the final price, I assume. That causes us several difficulties. We all know that the Government are now making crucial decisions on public expenditure priorities. The Minister must tell us whether he can justify the public expenditure costs involved in the barrage itself, and in other barrage-related projects, against the needs of Wales as a whole.
I find it difficult to take seriously what the Minister says about jobs. The Secretary of State seemed to experience some difficulty in listing the jobs that he claims to have created in Wales. Last week, he told us that 10,000 jobs had been created following the establishment of the Deeside industrial park. The true figure is nearer 5,000. There is a considerable difference between the two. On the same day, the Minister also asserted that there had been 8,000 job losses at Shotton steelworks. In fact, 10,000 jobs have been lost. Far from creating 20 per cent. more jobs than were lost, the Government have created 50 per cent. fewer. Whenever the Minister makes job promises, he falls well below the standards of statistical accuracy that we expect from the Welsh Office.
The Minister also seeks to persuade us that there will be new jobs for the valleys. Past promises of new jobs for the valleys have not materialised. The main economic aim of the valleys initiative, created in 1988, was to bring between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs to the valleys. When the programme was created in 1988, male unemployment in the valleys was 18.9 per cent. In April of this year—we are waiting for the new figures—it was 18.7 per cent. The new figures for which we are waiting will undoubtedly show a further rise in unemployment. Therefore, the valleys initiative failed in its major aim.
8 pm
My hon. Friends know that the jobless figures are increasing all the time. With the closure of the pits, more job losses are on the way. The question addressed by the amendments, which is a major concern for us, arises from the blank cheque that seems to be available for the Cardiff bay development and from the no cheque at all for the urgent needs of other parts of Wales, particularly the valleys.
The rest of Wales cannot fail to feel anxious. In particular, the valleys cannot fail to feel anxious. They so 934 desperately need investment to compensate for the acute deprivation in those areas. There can be few regions in Europe that have had to accept as much economic restructuring since the war as the valleys of south Wales. Social and economic deprivation of the kind found in the valleys is not easily eradicated. It is dishonest of the Government to suggest otherwise.
Bearing in mind the Government's stranglehold on local authorities in Wales in both revenue and capital spending, I am certain that none of them would be allowed to spend anything like the amount that is to be spent by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The Government's intention to scrap the Barnett formula for public expenditure makes the amendments even more critical.
§ Mr. RowlandsBy the nature of the guillotine and the fact that the Government intend to push the Bill through at speed, it appears that capital expenditure on this scheme is immune from any public expenditure cuts. Has my hon. Friend heard whether equal immunity applies to vital capital expenditure programmes of the kind that we need in our communities?
§ Mrs. ClwydMy hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We require that assurance tonight from the Minister. I have not heard that important capital projects that are needed in Wales will be immune from the public expenditure cuts. We should welcome such an assurance from the Minister. Can he tell us whether these capital expenditure projects will be immune?
As the Government have curtailed consideration of the Bill, we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, we should like the Minister to tell us how he intends to balance spending on this one project within spending on other important projects. We recognise that the project is important to south Cardiff. It is important for the regeneration of the Cardiff docks area. We want to know, however, how the Government intend to balance spending on the barrage project against other urgent and pressing projects in Wales.
§ Mr. Jonathan Evans (Brecon and Radnor)I have heard the hon. Lady twice refer to the Barnett formula. As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I was concerned to hear her declare for the second time that the Barnett formula is to be scrapped. Perhaps she will refer me to the announcement that has been made concerning the scrapping of the formula.
§ Mrs. ClwydI suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friends to assure him that the Barnett formula is not to be scrapped. The Secretary of State for Wales was unable to give me that assurance. Until he gives it to me, we shall presume that the Barnett formula is to be scrapped. I see that the Under-Secretary of State does not wish to give us that assurance tonight. On that basis, I say again that the Opposition's arguments on costs and the questions that we have asked the Secretary of State for Wales have not been answered, which we consider to be extremely unsatisfactory.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen)I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (9) below'.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)With this, it will he convenient to take the following amendments: No. 84, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (10) below'.No. 85, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'associated' and insert'consequential environmental and coastal protection.'.No. 12, in page 2, line 24, at end insert'(7) The Development Corporation shall not commence the works referred to in subsection (1) above, until it has made and published in full an agreement with Associated British Ports in relation to the control of water abstraction rights at the Blackweir Dock Feeder.'.No. 13, in page 2, line 35, at end add—'(8) At least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of any works, the Development Corporation shall consult South Glamorgan County Council on the proposed pattern of traffic movements during the construction period, including the hours of operation. At least 6 weeks prior to the commencement of works the Development Corporation shall publish proposals, amended in the light of those consultations, for a 2 week period of public consultation.'No. 89, in page 2, line 35, at end add—'(9) No structure or structures shall be constructed until after the completion of an environmental impact assessment statement as laid down in Annexe I of the Environmental Impact Assessments Directive of the European Community.'.No. 90, in page 2, line 35, at end add—'(I0) The Corporation shall not commence the works specified in Schedule Ito this Act until sewer diversion works ensuring full compliance with the European Community Municipal Wastewater Treatment Directive for Water, entering the impoundment shall have been completed.'.No. 92, in page 2, line 35, at end add—'(15) The Development Corporation shall consult the angling interests on the rivers Twey, Taff and Ely in respect of the design and execution of the works relating to fish passes in Work No. I of Schedule 1 to this Act.'.No. 24, in page 3, line 12, clause 2, at end add—`(7) before executing any of the works authorised by section 1 above, the Development Corporation shall publish proposals in cooperation with the National Rivers Authority showing how it will comply with the European Community Municipal Wastewater Directive'.(8) Before executing any of the works authorised by Section I above, the Development Corporation shall publish proposals for a low flow water budget specifying the sources of water to meet the demands of the fish passes, sluices, lock gates and Dock Feeder and the water sources of water to match those requirements under such low flow conditions.'.No. 95, in page 3, line 21, clause 4, at beginning insert 'subject to subsection (6) below'.No. 97, in page 3, line 42, clause 4, at end add—'(6) In executing any of the powers authorised by subsections (1) to (3) above, the Development Corporation shall not discriminate between different classes of landowner or occupier.'.No. 29, in page 4, line 16, clause 7, at end insert'and the residential areas affected by its creation'.No. 99, in page 4, line 16, clause 7, at end insert'and shall be exercised so as to give priority to the flow of water in the fish passes at periods of low flow'.No. 101, in page 4, line 25, clause 8, at beginning insert'Subject to subsection (7) below'.No. 32, in page 4, line 26, clause 8, leave out 'reasonable'.No. 33, in page 4, line 28, clause 8, after 'protect' add 'or improve'.
No. 35, in page 4, line 38, clause 8, leave out 'reasonably'
No. 36, in page 4, line 40, clause 8, after 'current', insert 'and prospective'.
No. 37, in page 5, line 6, clause 8, leave out 'reasonable'.
936 No. 38, in page 5, line 10, clause 8, after 'Corporation', insert
'in co-operation with, and on the advice of the Environmental Health Officers of the Cardiff City councils and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council.'No. 39, in page 5, line 24, clause 8, leave out subsection (6).No. 40, in page 5, line 28, clause 8, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert
'a committee of arbitration of three persons to be nominated by the Secretary of State, the Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers.'.No. 41, in page 5, line 29, clause 8, at end add'(7) The Development Corporation shall publish an annual report on all such disputes.'.No. 104, in page 5, line 46, clause 9, at end insert—'(d) the maintenance and enjoyment of residential amenities on land adjacent to the inland bay.'.No. 53, in page 6, line 4, clause 9, at end insert—'(4) The Development Corporation shall have regard when operating the barrage, to the need to minimise damage to property, both residential and industrial and increases in industrial costs for businesses on or near the inland bay.'.No. 57, in page 7, line 1, clause 12, leave out 'reasonable'.No. 58, in page 7, line 18, clause 12, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this section shall interfere with the right of the Development Corporation to challenge in the courts the reasonableness of any direction given under subsection (1)(b) above.'.No. 59, in page 7, line 19, clause 12, leave out subsection (5).No. 60, in page 7, line 21, clause 12, leave out from 'to' to end and add
'an arbitration panel comprising three persons nominated by respectively the Secretary of State, the Cardiff City Council and Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers'.
§ Mr. MurphyAlthough we may now be in a slightly calmer mood than we were when we discussed the guillotine motion, there is one matter of principle, as this group of amendments is far-reaching, to which the Minister ought to refer. Why is it that, during all the months of consideration of the Bill—we were told by the Leader of the House this afternoon how many hours we had spent upon it—we found that amendments tabled not just by my hon. Friends who oppose the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme, but also those tabled on behalf of its supporters—including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), Cardiff city council, of which the Minister used to be a member, and other responsible bodies—have not been accepted, apart from a few anodyne ones.
When the Government had a huge majority, they thought that they could do anything they liked and steamroller whatever legislation they wished through the House. If the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister are serious about there being consensus in local government and about how Wales is run, some of the amendments that have been tabled in the past few months, and certainly those tabled today and last week, were worthy of something more than summary dismissal. This group of amendments is far reaching and varied.
Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 relate to environmental and coastal protection. They were tabled because of the need to tighten up the responsibility of both the Cardiff 937 Bay development corporation and the Welsh Office. The drafting of the Bill is both sloppy and poor. The amendments would improve its drafting.
Amendment No. 12 refers to Associated British Ports and to co-operation between that body and the development corporation. Amendment No. 13 is of considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, as this is his constituency. The amendment refers to traffic movements while the bay is being constructed and to the need to consult local authorities, particularly South Glamorgan county council and local residents, about the nature of the construction work and to ensure that any disruption is minimised.
Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24 concern European Community regulations regarding the environmental impact assessment and the diversion of sewer works. The Minister did not provide a satisfactory answer when we discussed the matter in Committee, so we are keen to ask him why it is that the Government have decided to choose a different annex of the environmental impact assessment directive of the European Community. For some reason, the Government have decided to choose the weaker of the two. That means that they do not have to take account of, or to publish the views of, regulatory agencies; they are required to publish only the views of consultants.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 99 relate to consultation with anglers over fish passes and other associated matters. There is bound to be an increase in angling for salmon in the rivers Taff and Ely. There should be more substantial consultation with and representation for the angling community in Wales.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 41 and 57 to 60 deal with the National Rivers Authority and the so-called reasonable nature of the directive that it gives the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
The last matter covered by the amendments is of much importance, and the Minister should pay close attention to it. The National Rivers Authority has identified a number of important matters such as surface water flooding, ground water flooding, sea defence, polluted rivers and fishing. Given its statutory duty to protect the environment and the residents of Cardiff, the NRA is in a different position from the development corporation, which was set up to develop Cardiff.
The Bill's provisions on arbitration are unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State should not be the person to resolve any differences between the National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, for the simple reason that members of Cardiff Bay development corporation are appointed by the Secretary of State and are responsible only to him. How can he be a fair and proper judge of conflicts between the statutory National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation? We argued and debated that in Committee, but we believe that it is so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House.
There are many different amendments and the Minister will have to spend some time on them. We believe them to be of great significance and we are disappointed that we have not had longer to discuss them.
§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)I am grateful for the helpful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) moved the 938 amendments. As he rightly said, a number of them are constructive and helpful. They seek clarity on the involvement of local authorities.
It is clear that the decisions of the development corporation have been assisted by the involvement of local authorities. The Government's mechanisms have often gone wrong when they have not sought to consult local authorities, which have the benefit of years of experience. That is particularly apposite to the advice of environmental health officers, which one of the amendments seeks to include in the Bill. That need not be written into the Bill, but the requirements of the Bill help to ensure that there is confidence on all sides and that relevant factors are taken into consideration.
The situation of anglers is important. From being worried at an early stage, I have been impressed by the amount of consultation to ensure that the design of the barrage will allow the passage of fish and therefore will offer improvements to anglers in the bay area and further up the river. The amendments seek to underline and underwrite the guarantees that have been given on those issues.
8.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen rightly foresaw that I would want to speak specifically to amendment No. 13, to which I referred briefly in the debate on the guillotine motion. The Minister responded in a way that I can only describe as not wholly negative. May I press him a little further, however? I think that he was suggesting that, because much of the material for the construction of the barrage can come from the seaward side or through the docks area, there will not necessarily have to be many movements through the streets of my constituency. I am certain that he is right, and I accept his comments in the constructive sense in which he made them, but things change over time, as we have found all too often.
There have been major changes, for example, in the way in which work on the primary distributor road has been undertaken through Butetown, and whereas the end result will be greatly to the benefit of my constituents, as "cut and cover" means that the community will not be split in two, it is certain that the extent of the engineering works has been greatly increased. Thus, in the short term, it has had a quite devastating effect on Mount Stuart primary school and on the people who live in the area. Some of the damage to the immediate environment in the construction period was not sufficiently appreciated in advance of the work starting. Most of those involved would now agree with that in the light of experience.
I am seeking a requirement for consultation in advance so that traffic movements can be taken fully into account and so that those who are making the arrangements will listen to two voices—that of the county council, with its elected representatives and technical expertise to assess the likely impact of traffic movements and, secondly, that of the local community. The amendment does not seek to cause delay or problems because the Bill provides for consultation rather than requirements that would be difficult for any organisation to meet.
To the extent that traffic movements can be confined to the seaward end or through Alexandra docks, as the Minister suggested, amendment No.13 places no burden on the development corporation or on those involved in 939 the construction. It becomes relevant, therefore, only if there is a problem involving traffic movements through domestic streets.
In that event, the safeguard of the amendment would enable local people to know that the county council would have a chance of commenting constructively, as I am sure it would, on proposed traffic movements and would offer those local people the opportunity of commenting before work began. Had that been so in relation to the primary distributor road, bearing in mind the changes that had to be made at late stages, I am certain that some of the problems could have been avoided and overcome. Instead, amendments to the arrangements had to be made on the hoof, and things that should have been anticipated were dealt with almost in retrospect.
I ask the Minister to recognise the constructive nature of many of the amendments and the fact that, if taken with the helpful way in which he has sought to respond to how traffic movements will be managed, amendment No.13 would be constructive, would be seen as a form of reassurance to my constituents and would not place any difficulties in the way of the development corporation or the construction industry in getting on with the job of building the barrage.
§ Mr. Alan W. WilliamsI should like to make a few comments in support of amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24.
Amendment No. 89 seeks an environmental impact assessment according to the European directive. The other two amendments refer to the sewer diversion works and the European Community's directive municipal waste water treatment.
There are real and serious environmental problems in setting up a barrage on the Taff and the Ely. That is the case for any estuary barrage. In view of the condition of the water in the Taff and the Ely, I have no doubt that the wisest thing to do is to let it flow out to sea as quickly as possible. About 500,000 people live upstream from the Taff and the Ely, so the water has a high nutrient load. Either sewage or digested sewage gives nitrates and phosphates, so the water is nutrient-rich.
The map in the National Rivers Authority's survey of rivers, canals and estuaries in England and Wales in 1990 shows that the Taff and the Ely are the most polluted rivers in Wales. Fortunately, Wales is mainly rural and most of our rivers are good in terms of sewage and nutrients. However, the Ely is poor along most of its length and is in the bottom tenth in terms of quality of water. The Taff, with its tributaries the Cynon and Rhondda, especially around Cardiff, is of only fair quality. It is in the bottom quarter of rivers in terms of quality.
The Severn estuary, around the Taff and the Ely, around Cardiff and around Bristol, is the most heavily polluted and the poorest in quality around the Welsh coast. Simply on environmental and pollution grounds, the Taff and the Ely are the last rivers that we should think of damming or blocking with a barrage purely in terms of the environment. The impounded water will be polluted.
During the winter when there is heavy rain, there will be quite a good outflow of the impounded water and the retention time in the barrage will be only three, four or five days. In the summer, especially in dry summers, the square mile of water held back will have an average retention time of up to 50 days. I have been told that the water will be concentrated in terms of nitrates and phosphates. In hot 940 summers, there will be problems of eutrophication. That is clearly admitted by the proponents of the scheme and in all comments on the scheme.
How does one deal with the environmental problems as they arise? There will be eutrophication and algal blooms. There are two solutions to the problem of algal blooms. One is to skim off the algae that have proliferated and the second is to pump oxygen into the water. Both will have to be applied.
I am glad that there is a requirement in the Bill that there should be not less than 5 mg dissolved oxygen per litre at all times. The water should at all times be at least 50 per cent. saturated in terms of oxygen content. The question then is what one does when the water is low in oxygen. The answer in the Bill is to pump in oxygen.
Unfortunately, pumping in oxygen is an unproven technology. The River Towy in my constituency has problems downstream from Carmarthen because of the sewage load entering the river there. In hot summers it has a low oxygen content. We have oxygen injection equipment in Carmarthen to resuscitate the river, but it does not work.
In the Select Committee, I was anxious to find out whether there had been detailed research into the problem. I refer to the proceedings of the Select Committee and I will quote a brief extract from the evidence given by the NRA on 13 February 1992. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) asked Dr. Charles Pattinson, the NRA's expert on the condition of water, various questions about oxygenation equipment. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest said:
Perhaps I could explore some aspects of the technology with you. First of all, the vitox machines. How old are they? How long have they been in use in various parts of the world?The answer was:I am afraid I do not know.That is the expert on oxygen injection. Dr. Pattinson then said:A number of years; but I am afraid that I am not aware of the exact length of time; but bearing in mind we were discussing these things with the Corporation in 1988 or 1987 they were proven pieces of equipment available on the market at that time; so they have been around for a number of years.The next question was:Have you had any personal experience with them?The answer was, "Not myself." The next question was, "Have you seen one?" The reply was:I have seen videos of them. I did not actually participate personally in the original programme, but I have seen videos of them.It strikes me that, in building the barrage, we know that there will frequently be problems of low oxygen in hot summers. We seem to be depending on oxygenating water. However, the expert from the NRA said that he had no experience of the machines involved, but that he had only seen videos of them.The Library has prepared neutrally for us an excellent research note on the barrage. The note says of oxygen and the resuscitation equipment:
field trials have not been able to demonstrate unequivocally that injected oxygen is effectively dissolved, dispersed and retained.It is an unproven technology.I have serious doubts which have not been allayed in Committee or by what I have read of the NRA's evidence to us. We could create a major environmental problem. We will be damming the two most polluted rivers in Wales. Some 500,000 people live along their length. The water is 941 nutrient-rich, especially at times of low water flow. In hot summers, there will be algal blooms and problems of low oxygen. My serious concern is that we shall not be able to solve those problems.
If amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24 were accepted, we should require a 1992 environmental impact assessment to European standards. The sewer diversions which will need to be carried out around Cardiff must conform to the highest standard in accordance with the EC municipal waste water treatment objective. I ask the Minister and the Government seriously to consider accepting the amendment.
§ Mr. MorganI will reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on the low flow budget with which amendments Nos. 12 and 99 deal. Will the Government allow the day to pass without telling us a little more about whether they have managed to strike an agreement with Associated British Ports about the amount of water for which it has an abstraction licence? Will it take water out of the Taff during summer droughts which could mean that little new water comes down the river to top up the water behind the barrage?
8.30 pm
That is a serious problem, because Associated British Ports is a major player in this game and the company's view will be important in deciding how or whether the barrage will work. ABP has abstraction rights at Blackweir that are greater than the total flow of the Taff during drought periods such as that which occurred during August 1991. ABP does not exercise those rights fully now because of the decline of the steel industry, for which the feeder was originally intended, and the decline of the docks, but nevertheless it has the right to abstract 4 cu m per second. We need to know whether ABP has agreed to give up some of its abstraction rights, which date back to the building of Cardiff docks in the 1840s and the construction of the feeder to top up the level of the docks, without which the export of coal from south Wales could not have taken place. That historic right gives ABP complete control over the jugular vein as regards the water quality of the lake.
The amendments are about water quality in general and amendments Nos. 12 and 99 are particularly related to the question whether the Government as yet have a written undertaking from ABP that it will give up its right to abstract 4 cu m per second at Blackweir. If they do not, it is irresponsible of them to attempt to persuade the House to pass the Bill.
At first I thought that, among the copious documents with which the Government were good enough to provide us last week, was a set of legal undertakings between the National Rivers Authority, the development corporation and the City of Cardiff in relation to the problem of ABP's abstraction rights. Not being a lawyer, I am never completely sure what I have just read, but as far as I am aware, the documents do not cover that problem. We still do not know, therefore, whether the Government have an operable low flow budget. It will not be operable unless ABP gives up its rights at Blackweir. We raised this problem in Committee in July. We were not given an 942 answer then, and we should not allow tonight's proceedings to end without getting an understanding on that from the Government.
Many people believed that the pretty favourable terms on which the Government agreed to rent the new office block built by ABP's property subsidiary, Grosvenor Waterside, had something to do with this matter. That property was pre-let to the Government quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, just before the last election and we thought that the handsome rent may have been agreed upon in return for an undertaking by ABP not to torpedo the Bill by saying, "If you want to make a lake you must buy our abstraction rights at Blackweir. If you do not, the lake will be an algae-infested swamp"—as it will be in periods of low flow such as those that occurred in 1986 and 1991, when the problems of nutrient-rich water referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen will arise.
If the Minister does not come clean with us tonight, the water will not come clean into Cardiff bay. Without the salt water flushing effect provided by the tide water, we shall have to depend heavily on the quality of the water flowing into the lake. About a third of the flow of the Taff and half the flow of the Ely consists of treated sewage, so we need to know what controls there will be. If an ABP takes water off to top up the docks or provide cooling water for the Allied Steel and Wire finishing mills around the edge of the Bute east dock, the water quality system will not be operable.
The Minister has been good enough to say, albeit late in the day, that he will be accepting five amendments tabled by the Opposition, and the spirit of a sixth, amendment No. 13. It is good that he has suddenly been overtaken by the belief that some of the Opposition's ideas are better than the Government's—as they have been on so many things recently. However, as happened during the pit closures debate last week, the Government seem to have come only half way towards meeting our concerns and have stopped short of significant concessions.
The Minister has accepted that it would be a good idea if the two riparian local authorities were represented on the advisory committee. That is fair enough, but the same should also apply to our proposal that an arbitration panel should have the last word on matters relating to water quality in the event of a dispute developing between the development corporation and the NRA. That panel should include representatives of the local authorities, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers and the Secretary of State.
Why does not the Minister accept amendment No. 60 in the spirit in which he has accepted amendments Nos. 66 and 64 which deal with the advisory committee? That would remove much of the worry that the Secretary of State would fix any decisions in favour of the quango for which he is responsible and against the NRA, for which he is not responsible because it is a Department of the Environment quango. Having accepted the principle of local authority involvement, it would not be difficult for the Minister to come the other 50 per cent. of the way and so avoid the suggestion that matters can be fixed by the Secretary of State and his mates on the development corporation.
Let us get away from the idea of the Secretary of State and his mates. Let us bring in the local authorities and give them a voice. Why not have a proper, neutral, objective arbitration panel and give it the last word on water quality, 943 so that those of us who represent areas around the lake and care about what it looks like in summer and whether or not it is an amenity, some guarantee that independent and objective advice will be available and that the panel will have the last word in the event of a dispute.
§ Mr. Gwilym JonesThe hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the spirit of reasonableness in which I had agreed to accept amendments. But that is exactly the spirit in which I started off last Tuesday, in introducing new clause 1 and moving related amendments. What did the hon. Gentleman do? Was he reasonable? No. He went into the Lobby seeking to vote down proposals made in response to requests from him made in Committee. I continue to try to be as reasonable as possible and to accept whatever amendments I can. I hope that my reply will be full reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
I have been doubly struck by a feeling of déjà vu. After the speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), I found what he said echoed clearly at columns 119 and 120 of the Committee Hansard of 2 July. On that occasion, too, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke directly after him and said that he was rising to reinforce some of the comments made by his hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was critical of what he called sloppiness. I take it that he means to be helpful and to remove vagueness from the wording, but I would point out to him that clause 1 specifically confers authority to execute only those works specified in schedule 1. The barrage and the outer harbour are listed in clause 1(1)(a). It follows, therefore, that the associated structures of the Penarth head promenade and the breasting dolphins are included. The breasting dolphins are neither environmental nor for coastal protection but for the protection of shipping. There is nothing vague about that.
The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to annexe 2 to the Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private sector projects on the environment. That merely lists classes of project for which an environmental assessment must be required in accordance with measures adopted by member states. In contrast, annexe 2 lists classes of projects which are to be made subject to assessments where member states consider that their characteristics so require. However, there is no difference in the type of environmental statements produced under annexe 1 or annexe 2.
§ Mr. MorganDoes the Minister accept that, under annexe 2, the design of the environmental impact assessment is entirely different from the EIA under annexe 1? Under annexe 1, it is compulsory to consult the regulatory bodies such as the NRA and the environmental health officer of Cardiff city council in this case. That was not done because the easy annexe 1 EIA was used, not the more difficult type under annexe 2.
§ Mr. JonesThat is not a new point. I have carried out research, and I am assured that there is no difference. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Standing Order 27(A) for private business introduces a requirement for EIAs to be submitted in relation to certain classes of project for authorisation by means of private legislation of this kind. An EIA statement has been submitted in accordance with the Standing Order in respect of the Bill. The assessment of the environmental impact project, to which the directive 944 applies, is carried out as part of the consent procedure. In relation to projects proposed to be authorised by Act of Parliament, the assessment is carried out by Parliament in its consideration of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) again referred to amendment No. 13. The barrage is a major construction project, and clearly, people who live in the area have legitimate concerns about how the impact of construction traffic can be kept to a minimum. I appreciate that, and it was very telling when the hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of the present construction on Mount Stuart primary school.
The issue has been fully considered in the EIA. Page 100 of the statement outlines the main impact of construction traffic for the barrage. It makes the point that the majority of the materials are likely to be brought to the site by water or by rail thus reducing significantly the project's traffic impact.
The proposed traffic measures are set out in page 137 of the environmental statement. The main site access will be through Queen Alexandra dock. The road access through the Penarth marina at the southern end of the barrage will be severely restricted and limited to personnel access and special abnormal loads on a very limited basis. Personnel access will be by bus from adjoining parking areas, possibly on the Ferry road site as the most likely and convenient location.
I understand why the amendments have been tabled. However, I contend that their spirit has already been complied with by the publication of the environmental assessment which covers those points, but I look forward to what is in the environmental assessment working to satisfy the local community through the offices of the highway authority.
§ Mr. MichaelI appreciate the constructive way in which the Minister is approaching the discussion. As he clearly will not accept the amendment, does he expect the development corporation to undertake the kind of consultations, in general terms, that are outlined in the amendment without that being a legal requirement? If he could confirm that, I am sure that that would give us some confidence in accepting the way forward that he has suggested.
§ Mr. JonesI hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Yes, that would be my expectation. I would regard it as normal and proper that there would be appropriate consultations and that there would be the greatest regard for the local community.
Amendment No. 24 deals with the urban waste water directive and the water budget. I oppose the first part of the amendment. The NRA has not asked for the development corporation's proposals for complying with the urban waste water directive to be published. As for publishing details of the water budget, I agree the principle involved. Paragraph 4(c) of schedule 3 requires that,
before the commencement of construction of the barrage",the corporation must submit to the NRA for approval proposals of how the minimum flow of water through the fish pass should be maintained.I explained in Standing Committee that work was in progress on such an agreement. In particular, it will be necessary to agree with Associated British Ports a limitation of the flow down the Taff feeder. Negotiations between ABP and the corporation on that issue have 945 progressed well since Standing Committee. The discussions between the corporation and ABP have been carried out in a very constructive manner, and I understand that the parties consider that agreement on the quantity of the water that ABP requires is very close. I am happy to give an undertaking that the information submitted to the NRA in compliance with paragraph 4(c) of schedule 3 will be published before construction begins.
8.45 pm
Amendment No. 12 deals with a related point. I cannot accept the wording of the amendment as drafted, but I am happy to publish details of the water budget—subject, of course, to the agreement of Associated British Ports. Amendments Nos. 32, 35, 37 to 40 and 57 to 60 are similar in principle to amendments tabled in Standing Committee. I have to resist them now, for the same reasons that I had to resist their predecessors: they would weaken the NRA's powers of control over the barrage and inland bay.
The Government do not envisage many, if any, references to the Secretary of State on the basis that directions by the NRA are unreasonable. However, without the test of reasonableness, there would be no basis on which a potential dispute between the NRA and the development corporation could be considered by my right hon. Friend or by the arbitration committee proposed by the amendments. The test of reasonableness is therefore familiar in law. We do not wish to see the Secretary of State take over the N RA's functions, as it has statutory responsibility for those matters. Still less do we wish to see an arbitration committee of the type proposed usurp functions in which the NRA has a national role.
The appropriate and well precedented way of determining such disputes between two statutory bodies is reference to the Secretary of State. The ultimate guarantee of his objectivity is the fact that his decision would be potentially subject to judicial review. We do not wish to see two statutory bodies resorting to the courts in the way envisaged in the amendments.
§ Mr. MurphyWill the Minister quote the precedents to which he has just referred?
§ Mr. JonesI do not think that I can quote the precedents off the top of my head. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
The environmental health functions of the district council are already covered appropriately in the regulations that will be made to protect the interests of the city council and in clause 15(4)(c) and (d), which require consultation with the council on byelaws in the area including those regulating water sports. The additional reference proposed in the amendments is therefore superfluous.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) moved an identical amendment in Committee to amendment No. 92. He appeared to accept that there was no need for further consultation with angling interests and he withdrew the amendment. I know that he had hoped to secure a place on the Cardiff bay advisory committee for the angling interests on the Taff and Ely in return for withdrawing his amendment. However, I was unable to respond positively, for reasons that I explained at the time.
946 There is fully adequate control over the design of the fish pass. That has been the subject of extensive consultations with the NRA which has now agreed a design which is much more complex than the design that was first proposed. The NRA is the appropriate statutory body with responsibility for the protection of fisheries. In addition, clause 7(1)(c) requires the corporation to operate the barrage in accordance with any reasonable direction of the NRA to protect fish in the inland bay or allow the passage of migratory fish to or from the bay.
The design of the fish pass also requires the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That relates to schedule 3, paragraph 4(1)(d). I am not aware of any remaining problems on the issue which would justify reopening the design of the fish pass. Indeed, none of the angling interests petitioned against the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.