USE BY VESSELS AND FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES (Hansard, 3 November 1993)

§ Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West)
I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), at end add— 'and may recover reasonable costs so incurred from Associated British Ports.'. I am grateful to have this opportunity to move an amendment to a Lords amendment. It is a rare parliamentary life form that I have not had to deal with from the Front Bench until now. It is an added pleasure to extend one's experiences in this regard.
First, I shall explain the purpose of the Lords amendment that we are seeking to amend. The Lords amendment—I am sure that the Minister will explain this in a few moments—covers the purposes to which the water area immediately outside the barrage can be put.
The reason why the Lords amendment has been tabled relatively late in the day is that the outer harbour is a late addition to the design of the barrage. It represents the culmination of a lengthy process of lobbying and negotiations with various yachting and sailing interests in the south Wales area—in Penarth and Cardiff. Many of my constituents enjoy sailing in the area and, obviously, they do not want their ability to sail to be abridged in any way by the barrage. The barrage will create some problems through the locking. However, there will be some gains as well as problems.
Rather than simply look at the barrage as a wall across the two estuaries of the Taff and the Ely—one had to pass by a lock—it was decided that an outer harbour should be built outside the barrage. The Lords amendment relates to the addition of the outer harbour, and extends the management responsibilities of the development corporation with regard to the outer harbour. The problem with that—we are seeking to deal with this in our amendment to the Lords amendment—is that the open water is basically the shipping channel.
We are not now dealing with the so-called inland bay, which was the obsession and on which we spent many days and hundreds of hours of debate. When one is in the Bristol channel, one is outside the lock and near commercial shipping lanes. Those shipping lanes are always a matter of considerable conflict between yachting interests and commercial shipping interests. In this case, commercial shipping interests are those who are making their way in or out of the Cardiff docks. Now that we are dealing with not the inland bay or the structure of the barrage but the add-on 392 immediately outside, we must be sure that we have a fair partition of the costs that could arise between the commercial operation of Associated British Ports and the Cardiff Bay development corporation.

§ Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth)
In this amendment, I think that my hon. Friend is trying to find a means of recovering finance for the operation of the development corporation. I am sure that the corporation will regard that as immensely helpful. However, I do not understand the relationship between ABP and the outer harbour. I understand that the amendment relates to the area that will be used by yachts and small boats but not by ABP or, indeed, any other commercial shipping organisations. Much as I understand my hon. Friend's desire to find a means of adding to the corporation's income, I do not see why the burden should fall there.

§ Mr. Morgan
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. The problem is that it is hard to see exactly where the line should be drawn between the outer harbour and the commercial shipping area. Until the recent addition of the little harbour of refuge area, we were dealing with a fixed wall and everything inside the wall that is affected by it. The area outside the wall is a grey area—it is much more difficult to get a clear distinction, although such a distinction is necessary because of the relationship between ABP and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. We on this side have never been happy with that relationship because of the position of Lord Crickhowell in the other place.

§ Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West)
When the hon. Gentleman says "We on this side", can we be sure that he is speaking for the Labour party? Is the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) or the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) speaking for the Labour party? What precisely is the Labour party's view of the amendment? The hon. Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth seem to be at odds on this point, as well as on the general principle.

§ Mr. Morgan
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's filibuster. He is a member of the party of so-called progress which is trying to get the Bill through rapidly so that the bulldozers can move in. I am not sure what he is saying. Obviously, he is well aware that I am the Opposition spokesman on Welsh affairs with regard to the Bill, and that I must communicate with my hon. Friends, who are naturally sensitive, for the purposes of clarifying the amendment.

§ Mr. Michael
I ask my hon. Friend not to be drawn to one side by the irrelevant and unhelpful intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are dealing with the way in which costs relating to the outer harbour will be dealt with. The outer harbour is important in terms of yachting. I understand that the Lords amendment seeks to resolve any doubt that someone will pay for the whole issue.
What I am concerned about—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was trying to distract us—is the relevance of ABP in that regard, because I understand that the area that will be enclosed with the outer harbour will be used exclusively by yacht and pleasure boat users. That 393 area does not come into the field of ABP with regard to the property on the Grosvenor water side or the operational use of the docks.

§ Mr. Morgan
I am seeking to clarify where commercial shipping stops and leisure sailing starts. Clearly, leisure sailing is enjoyed within the bay, the locks and the inland bay which is referred to several hundred times in the Bill. The outer harbour is a relatively late addition and so far has been explored only to a limited degree. There is no natural break between it and commercial shipping lanes. What is a small commercial ship? What is a large yacht? How are they to be distinguished from one another? Do both have the right to use the harbour of refuge during storm conditions when both might wish to get close to harbour?

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
My hon. Friend said that he was clarifying these amendments. We in the Rhondda valley are greatly concerned about the millions of pounds from the local government kitty spent on financing this, whatever it is. My constituents are most concerned to know how they will eventually reach the sea in their pleasure craft. If they sail down the Rhondda and into the inland bay, how do they then get direct access? I know that a few of them would like to sail up towards north Wales and get hold of the hon. Gentleman, whose name I am not sure of—I have heard him called many names, but I can never remember his real name.
How do navigators from the Rhondda, from Ferndale and Maerdy, get a pleasure craft out into the channel? I am not sure how that is to be done. All this money is being spent, yet my constituents cannot take their boats out. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) comes from Maerdy. His family have a huge pleasure craft. Years ago, they used to go to Porthcawl in it, but nowadays things have changed completely. I wish that my hon. Friend would clarify how pleasure craft will be able to get out into the channel.

§ Mr. Morgan
I am sure that I can clarify that. Navigators would sail out into the Bristol channel at high tide. It is certainly not possible at low tide, which is why we have an outer harbour supposedly to act as a harbour of refuge. That is our main concern in the amendment to the Lords amendment.

§ Mr. Jonathan Evans (Brecon and Radnor)
rose—

§ Mr. Morgan
I will give way for another filibuster.

§ Mr. Evans
The amendment to the Lords amendment provides that costs may be recovered from ABP. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will in due course explain why that will be necessary. Can he tell the House whether he has canvassed this proposition with ABP and what its reaction was?

§ Mr. Morgan
I am not sure why Government Back Benchers, having been anxious to pass the guillotine, are spinning out proceedings on this amendment by asking idle questions. Are they perhaps extremely worried about the vote on the next business? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Yes, I will answer the question. It would have been extremely inappropriate for me to discuss or canvass, as the hon. Gentleman puts it in his lawyer's language, the matter with ABP because of the dangerously incestuous 394 relationship between ABP and the Cardiff Bay development corporation. After all, the corporation was set up by Lord Crickhowell who, after he left this place, became a member of the board of ABP. The corporation gave £2.5 million to ABP only a few months ago as a straight grant under its urban investment powers. So, no, I will certainly not canvass ABP about who should pay for what.
I am extremely concerned about Lord Crickhowell's position as the director of a company that is a direct beneficiary to the tune of £2.5 million of the development corporation. I am anxious to establish who should be charged for what and to ensure that ABP, having got £2.5 million from the corporation, should not be able to get any more by not paying its fair share of costs in respect of boats taking advantage of the harbour of refuge on their way to Cardiff bay. Although the harbour of refuge is designed for pleasure sailors, it is difficult to restrict its use.

§ Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth)
rose—

§ Mr. Morgan
The next one is lining up. I am pleased to see further evidence of a Government filibuster. Three is definitely a filibuster.

§ Mr. Evans
If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to charge on to ABP the charge for commercial shipping usages, which at least is a consistent line of argument, can he explain why he has tacked this particular phrase on to the end of a Lords amendment, which talks both about pleasure craft and other vessels and apparently does not make the distinction that he makes? Or is he simply trying to make a distinction for vessels using the harbour as a place of refuge? It is not clear what his wording accomplishes.

§ Mr. Morgan
As always, the hon. Gentleman raises the legal niceties of any issue. He has drawn our attention to an extremely important pointer in the Lords amendment. The use of the harbour of refuge is not restricted to pleasure craft. The Lords amendment refers to "other vessels". That is an open category and could cover small commercial craft. Those small commercial craft will pay harbour dues when they eventually reach Cardiff or Barry—it is more likely to be Cardiff than Barry—but they will have had the advantage of what might be called a free gift from the taxpayer, primarily intended for pleasure craft, but difficult to restrict in storm conditions at low tide when it is difficult to make ground.
Low tide has always caused a problem for sailing in the upper Bristol channel and for the docking of commercial vessels in the commercial ports of Cardiff and the now closed port of Penarth. That windfall should be reflected in some way in their harbour dues. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He is making my point for me. We need a re-partition of costs that reflects the intent of the Lords amendment which, clearly, is not confined to pleasure craft. It also covers other vessels which could include small commercial vessels.

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tacking on the words and may recover reasonable costs so incurred from Associated British Ports to clause 13 would be an attack on pleasure craft users in Wales who want to be able to use this harbour area free of costs? How can he possibly justify that? Is it not an attack on the rights of people in Wales who want to use their pleasure craft in the traditional way?

§ Mr. Morgan
That is absolutely the reverse of the case. A pleasure craft has every right to use a harbour of refuge. The harbour exists for such craft. Commercial craft should not be able to make free use, although they should be able to make use, of a harbour of refuge as they ply their trade towards Cardiff docks, Newport docks or Bristol. Surely, Tory Members would agree with the philosophy that a commercial trader should pay for additional benefits that come as a windfall from endeavours to provide safer conditions for sailing in the stormy, choppy waters and highly tidal waters—that is the added problem—of the upper Bristol channel.
What to do at low water in a storm has always been the problem in the Bristol channel. It is impossible to get back into port because of the low tide, yet it is necessary to find shelter in the lee of Penarth Head. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) being as interested in Welsh affairs as he is, will be aware that Penarth Head is almost a natural harbour, breaking up the waves from about 25 ft to 5 ft inside Penarth Head. That is of enormous advantage for the safety of sailors. I do not object to commercial craft having use of the harbour, but they should pay their share. Obviously, it should be done by a roundabout route as they will pay dues to the commercial port where they dock. It is likely to be ABP.
Associated British Ports should therefore have to chip in for the benefit so that it does not get the same type of windfall gains as it received in the case of the £2.5 million that it was gifted by Cardiff Bay development corporation a couple of months ago, to which I strongly object.

§ Mr. Rogers
My hon. Friend still has not addressed the central problem of clause 13, which is how the people of the Rhondda, in their pleasure craft—and some of them in their coracles—come down into the harbour of refuge. If one cannot get from outside in, how can they get from inside out? It is all right in north Wales. For instance, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is an expert on marinas and I cannot think of anyone who could be more expert. In south Wales, however, we have special problems, and so many people in the valleys are bursting to get out into that harbour of refuge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, said that there is special provision for the valleys in the Bill, and he hopes that there will be a spin-off for them. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) spell out what will be the spin-off for the valleys from the clause?

§ Mr. Morgan
The spin-off for the valleys may be by way of the salmon getting up to the valleys through the fish pass, but I am not sure whether yachts can make it up to the valleys as easily as the salmon. Obviously, I want to make various arguments of that kind about nature conservation, but I do not think that tonight is the place to make them.
We have given a clear exposition of why the House should properly consider the amendment, and I draw my remarks to a close.

§ Mr. Roger Evans
I can understand the force of the argument that commercial usage should lead to some form of recovery of costs by the development corporation from Associated British Ports. Whether that is right or wrong as a matter of policy, at least it is a consistent and rational 396 idea. I am worried that the amendment to the Lords amendment proposed does not achieve the result that the hon. Member seeks.

§ Mr. Morgan
The hon. Gentleman says that.

§ Mr. Evans
It matters, because when Parliament produces wording in such a fashion that someone else subsequently has to interpret it, hon. Members cannot complain, as they should, when the law is not as they wished it to be. We have to get it right.

§ Mr. Rogers
The hon. Gentleman, who is a barrister, makes his living by trawling over the mistakes of Parliament. If the laws came out perfectly from the House perhaps all he would need to do would be to retire, which may not be a bad thing.

§ Mr. Evans
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations about my retirement.
There is a serious point which cannot be written off as simply a matter of lawyers and legalese. It is the question of whether Parliament knows what it wants to achieve, and achieves it in legislation. If the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve the policy that he set out to achieve, I can understand it. Whether it is right is an entirely different matter. The issue is that the amendment to the Lords amendment which he has drafted and is supporting does not distinguish between commercial craft and pleasure craft. What he has done is to tack amendment (a) on the end of the existing Lords amendment to clause 13.

§ Mr. Morgan
The hon. Gentleman forgets that, if a pleasure craft does not enter the lock gates at Cardiff docks, Newport docks or Barry docks, it will not have any transactions with Associated British Ports. Only the non-pleasure craft that are referred to in the amendment could possibly be eligible to pay dues to Associated British Ports, of which it in turn would have to contribute part to the Cardiff Bay development corporation to recompense the taxpayer for the facility that would have been provided by the Bill.

§ Mr. Evans
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I regret to say that the wording does not accomplish that. If he wishes it to accomplish what he seeks to accomplish, he should say so in specific and direct terms. On that basis, I oppose his amendment.

§ Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)
My objection to the Lords amendment is the wording "at all times available", which will cause practical problems and serious environmental consequences. During the summer months, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I, in our researches for the debate tonight, went to Iceland to visit the Myvatn lakes. Myvatn means midge lakes. We inspected the lake there, which is a similar size to the lake that will be created at Cardiff bay. The birds that nest there during the summer months move to Cardiff to winter. Our trip was thorough and educational.
If the scheme goes ahead, a harbour of refuge will be created that may be available at all times. My hon. Friend referred to it as in the lee of Penarth. That celebrated hill of Penarth is the hill that hon. Members will remember from the celebrated poem by Tennyson: Break, break, break, On thy cold gray stones, O Sea! And I would that my tongue could utter 397 and so forth. That well known poem refers to the stately ships going by to the harbour under the hill—the refuge harbour under the hill, as Tennyson would write if he were writing today.
6.45 pm
If that harbour of refuge is to be created, and if it is to be available at all times, the supporters of the amendment seem to have ignored the rise and fall of tide in the Bristol channel, which is the second highest rise and fall of tide anywhere in the world. If the harbour is open and available and if water is coming in any time during the 24-hour cycle, the effects will be serious.
Many people have mentioned the birds that come from Myvatn. That is a very different stretch of water, because Myvatn is filled with meltwater from the Yokull, as they call it—a similar word to Welsh—the glaciers around the lake. The harbour would be fed by a different source of water, but there would be a transformation, in that, at the moment, Cardiff bay supports many forms of wildlife, which depend on the nature of the water, the solidity of the water and the fresh water, and that would change fundamentally.
One of the great puzzles at the moment is the success of the cormorants in Cardiff bay. They can only survive in clear water, and the water in Cardiff bay is very turbulent—as it is throughout the Bristol channel—with mud usually held in suspension. It is one of the great puzzles of the whole of the Bristol channel that in my constituency, and all along the coast at certain times, clean rock is exposed and at other times the rock is covered with a foot of mud. It depends on the amount of mud that is held in suspension. That is a crucial point. Those cormorants are surviving against all the information that ornithologists give us, because they should not be able to see the fish that they catch in the water, but they manage, against all odds in the turbulence of the water, to survive and multiply well.
When the barrage is constructed, there will be a great increase in the number of cormorants, but I believe that the growth and habitat of those cormorants will be vitally affected if the harbour of refuge is available at any time of day.

§ Mr. Michael
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am trying to follow what he is saying. He says that the improved quality of the water in the bay will lead to increased activity by cormorants. Do I have him correct?

§ Mr. Flynn
Yes. I reject the argument that the barrage will destroy the habitat, because I believe that in many ways it will change it for the better. The occasional summer visitors that come down might find other habitats for their refuge, in the same way as my constituents.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
Order. It is difficult to relate these cormorants to Associated British Ports. Is the hon. Gentleman going to find a linkage?

§ Mr. Flynn
I think I am making the point in the original amendment, which says: In managing the outer harbour the Development Corporation shall secure that it is at all times available". We cannot ignore the effect that that will have on wildlife. One form of wildlife has been totally neglected in all the passionate pleas that have been made in this debate. I found it difficult to oppose the guillotine motion with my normal passion and conviction and to say that we must not stop 398 debate on an issue that has taken only 68 days of parliamentary time—more than any business in the House since the Corn Laws.
However, I wish to discuss a neglected form of wildlife that has hardly been mentioned. We have already heard all about the redshanks and we have now heard a bit about the cormorants, but a precious form of wildlife exists in Grangetown and the docks will be desperately affected if the harbour is open for 24 hours a day—the Grangetown rat, which lives in abundance there.
The rats' habitat is normally undisturbed because they live at the higher reaches of the mud. However, about six times a year the tide reaches a level that interferes with the rats' habitat and they then come over the wall at Windsor esplanade and other areas. You may be surprised to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that local people's enthusiasm for the rat is not as great as it might be. That form of nature may be under direct threat as the barrage would affect and possibly destroy its habitat. That problem must be dealt with tonight.
The harbour of refuge affects a relatively small area of the Bristol channel, but serious problems may arise if we accept, as scientists do, that global warming will alter tidal levels.

§ Mr. Morgan
Although we are interested in my hon. Friend's observations about rats as a form of wildlife, and are aware of the small section of his constituency between the Old Glamorgan canal and the River Taff referred to as "rat island", will my hon. Friend confirm whether he is discussing brown rats, which are a form of wildlife, or black rats, which are a parasite on man and not native to this country?

§ Mr. Flynn
I am discussing brown rats. I am well aware of the black rat's effect when it decimated life in Wales and elsewhere. Perhaps we should form an organisation in defence of the rat because it is seriously underloved by nature lovers. It is difficult to understand the idiotic bias towards cuddly, attractive animals rather than celebrating nature in all its glorious variety.
If the harbour of refuge is built, a great difficulty will arise as a result of global warming. Large areas in south Wales will be exposed to flooding if the already high tide rises even higher and is combined with a tidal surge. Will the Minister assure us that, if the harbour of refuge is available at all times, it will not destroy the beautiful new habitat of a range of wildlife or threaten the survival of the Grangetown rat?

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones)
I have tried carefully to follow the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and Opposition Members who have spoken in support of the amendment.
The outer harbour will be managed by the development corporation. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) implied, Associated British Ports will neither benefit not suffer as a result of the outer harbour's management. There is no reason, therefore, why it should be expected to meet the development corporation's costs in doing so.
A development agreement exists between ABP and the development corporation. It provides that both bodies will share in the profits arising from the developments that will occur around the inland bay. However, that has nothing to do with the management of the outer harbour.
399 This amendment, made in another place, typifies the process through which the Bill has gone. There have been extensive negotiations with all the relevant local interests and the development corporation has sought to accommodate all legitimate concerns.
The Royal Yachting Association and the local sailing clubs rightly waited to ensure that the outer harbour would be available for use at all times by vessels that are about to enter the inland bay, ones that have just left or ones which need to use it as a harbour of refuge.
Our acceptance of this and other amendments during the Bill's passage shows that we have kept a balance between the wider benefits of the barrage to the development of Cardiff on the one hand, and the need, on the other hand, to give proper weight to the protection of legitimate local interests.

§ Mr. Rogers
We still regard the Minister as a Rhondda boy, although he has since lost his way. Will he deal with the serious problem of the Rhondda yachtsmen? He says that he is looking after local interests but how are we to benefit from the outer harbour in the Rhondda? He mentioned the Royal Yachting Association, but has never heard of the Penpisgah yacht club, which is a substantial organisation.

§ Mr. Jones
Perhaps I should not have given way.
The Royal Yachting Association has sought to represent all yachting associations and our acceptance of the amendment has been to accommodate yachtsmen from the Rhondda and everywhere else.
The barrage will transform an area twice the size of the city centre, much of which has been unknown territory to many who live in the city for far too many years. Environmentally, it will benefit the whole city; economically, its benefit will be felt throughout south Wales.
As one of the few originals involved with this exciting proposal from the outset, I am delighted that the final stage of parliamentary approval has arrived.

§ Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly)
The Minister seems to have mixed up his speeches, because that is clearly not the speech that he should be giving in respect of Lords amendment No. 1. It seems to resemble the speech that he gave on Third Reading. Would it be appropriate for him to check whether he has the right speech?

§ Mr. Jones
No, because it gives me an opportunity to acknowledge the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is the only other hon. Member who has been involved in this debate from the beginning. Members representing Cardiff, and even Secretaries of State, have changed, but he and I have been here from the beginning. I could have wished that he shared my pleasure that we are reaching the conclusion tonight.

§ Mr. Davies
The Minister and I started on this process in 1986. I was opposed to the Cardiff barrage then and have been consistently opposed to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked the Minister earlier to explain why he opposed the measure in 1986 and has subsequently decided to support it.

§ Mr. Jones
The best answer that I can give is that Cardiff is a fine capital city, with one of the best civic 400 centres in Europe. What we shall approve today represents not only a major advance of the economy of Cardiff and south Wales but a mighty inheritance which we can proudly pass on to future generations. Nevertheless, it is important that the barrage itself should be designed with the utmost regard to safety. That is why this amendment places a clear duty on the corporation to operate the outer harbour to secure the safety of pleasure craft. In bad weather, not all boats seeking shelter could use the locks at the same time. This amendment ensures that the outer harbour is managed so that it is available for them to shelter safely.
Question put and negatived.
Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Question agreed to.