HL Deb 17 May 1989 vol 507 cc1247-60

7.43 p.m.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

The promoter of the Bill is Teesside Development Corporation. I am the deputy chairman of that corporation. It was established in May 1987 with the objective of securing the regeneration of its area. Teesside is the largest of the urban development corporation areas established to date. It covers some 19 square miles. It is at the heart of Cleveland county, which has some of the most severe problems of economic deprivation and unemployment in the United Kingdom.

The corporation's area is centred on the River Tees, around which industry, particularly engineering, shipbuilding and steel, developed during the 19th century. In the early part of the 20th century the petrochemical industry developed. In the late 20th century, North Sea oil and gas engineering have established a presence. However, industry is in decline and in the past decade many thousands of jobs have been lost on Teesside. It is this problem of arresting decline and finding a new role for Teesside which is one of the primary tasks of the development corporation.

A study carried out by Coopers and Lybrand and commissioned by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning the creation of an urban development area on Teesside noted the dependence of the area on traditional industries such as coal and steel and the need to broaden this narrow economic base by attracting new private investment into the area. The River Tees corridor was identified as an important focus for such investment.

Nine flagship projects were proposed in the Coopers and Lybrand study. One of these was for an area on the opposite river bank to the centre of Stockton on Tees. The Tees Weir site, as it is now known, covers more than 230 acres of derelict industrial land on both banks of the river. The study identified the site as critical to the development of the riverside area around Stockton. That view was reinforced by the report prepared by Price Waterhouse to which I shall refer later in my speech.

The construction of a barrage across the River Tees was another of the flagship projects. It was seen as a project which would increase the attractiveness, and hence the development potential, of the land bounding the Tees, especially in the Stockton area, by covering up unsightly tidal mudflats. It would also improve water quality in the upper reaches of the river.

From its inception, the corporation recognised the potential of both these flagship projects. One of the first decisions taken by the corporation was the commissioning of a feasibility study by the Northumbrian Water Authority into the construction of a barrage at Stockton. It concluded that the project was feasible, although further detailed studies would be needed on such matters as pollution, flooding, drainage and the environment.

Parallel to this initial study into the construction of a barrage, the corporation also considered the development of the Tees Weir site. A mixed development comprising high quality housing, offices and light industry is proposed, together with water-related recreational facilities. But access has been identified as a major problem. The site is bounded to the north, east and west by the river and to the south by railway marshalling yards. The only access into the site is from the Victoria Bridge at Stockton which already suffers from heavy traffic congestion. Traffic studies and projections have clearly identified the need for links to the north of the site, and this can only be achieved by constructing a new road bridge across the River Tees which will link the site to Stockton town centre on the north bank of the river.

In order to link the new development into the existing shopping facilities centred upon Stockton High Street, a proposal for a pedestrian link from the Tees Weir site has also been identified. This will integrate the development into the existing town centre to the mutual benefit of both the Tees Weir site and Stockton. The barrage will also open up considerable opportunities for water-based recreation. It is proposed to construct a canoe slalom course alongside the barrage structure. Other recreational activities will be encouraged such as rowing, wind surfing and similar pursuits. It will provide facilities which are presently lacking on Teesside, and thus considerable benefit will accrue to the community. It is seen as having the potential to develop into a major national sporting venue.

The River Tees at Stockton, and for a further 13 miles upstream, is tidal and subject to the public rights of navigation and fishing that commonly attach to tidal water. The new bridges and the barrage will all affect, to a greater or lesser extent, navigation along the river. The barrage proposals will have an impact upon the fisheries. For this reason, the need for parliamentary powers was identified at an early stage and hence the corporation resolved to promote the Bill that is now before your Lordships' House.

However, the corporation was sensitive to the need for local authorities, statutory undertakers, other organisations and individual members of the public to express their views on the corporation's proposals. A comprehensive public consultation process was, therefore, initiated in July of last year. At the same time, the Northumbrian Water Authority was commissioned to undertake further, more detailed studies into the effects of the corporation's proposals, including a full environmental assessment which was to comply with a recent EC directive.

Letters outlining the corporation's proposals were sent to all local authorities in the area, Members of Parliament, statutory undertakers, certain government departments and other organisations likely to be interested. Three public meetings were held in the Stockton area after notice had been published in the local press. These were attended by nearly 1,000 people. In addition, every household in the Stockton area was sent a leaflet giving details of the proposals and incorporating a questionnaire which could be returned to the corporation. Approximately 60,000 leaflets were sent out and 200 questionnaires were returned. Meetings were also held with local authorities and other bodies and individuals.

It became clear that, while there was a large measure of support for the proposals, particularly with regard to their potential for future employment, there was concern that the barrage did not incorporate a lock and would therefore provide a total obstruction to navigation. In view of that concern, the corporation revised its proposals and the Bill now includes provision for the construction of a lock.

In moving the Second Reading of the Bill today I am conscious that when the promoters took the decision to deposit the Bill last November they did not have the results of the detailed studies into the effects of the proposed barrage. However, it has to be stressed that urban development corporations are short-term bodies with a specific objective in mind, namely regeneration. They are there to take urgent steps to stimulate the economy and encourage investment. Infrastructure proposals such as those contained in the Bill are an essential first step.

An economic evaluation prepared by Price Waterhouse indicates a private investment leverage ratio of nearly 4:1, coupled with over 7,500 new jobs, as a consequence of the proposals. As your Lordships will be aware, development confidence is very sensitive to delay. If the corporation had awaited the final results of all the studies, there would have been a 12-month delay due to the fact that Private Bills can normally be deposited only in November each year.

The corporation is now receiving the results of the studies and discussions on them are taking place with all the petitioners. The corporation is encouraged by those results, but, as is always the case, should any last minute major issues arise the corporation will obviously reconsider its position.

This Bill is one stage, and an important one, in the process of regenerating the Teesside area. The already changing image of Teesside from one of industrial decline to a thriving regional centre will be greatly enhanced by the corporation's imaginative proposals. I commend the Bill to the House.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)

7.53 p.m.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth

My Lords, speaking in this Second Reading debate I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that I fully support the rationale of the Bill. I appreciate that it is designed further to advance the well-being of Teesside. In opening his speech he spoke of the problems which the area has known. The noble Lord and I have been associated with those problems in another place over a considerable period of time, and in our various ways we have done our best to assist the regeneration of Teesside. A great deal has been achieved. Therefore I recognise that the promoters of the Bill wish further to advance the well-being of Teesside and all its people.

Nevertheless I wish to express certain concerns which have been put to me about the adverse effects of construction which is being promoted without the necessary research having been fully concluded. The noble Lord referred to considerable research being undertaken in connection with the barrage. Some of it is at an advanced stage; some of it is not. There is great concern in the area that the proposal is being pursued at too much of a gallop, that there is too much haste and that the possible adverse effects of the barrage are not being fully taken into account.

For those who do not know it, the River Tees is a beautiful river. Its upper reaches are quite famous. They are as attractive as any in our country in my opinion. I have known them all my life. The lower reaches, as the noble Lord emphasised, have been affected over a very long period by enormous problems associated mainly with increased population and industrial development. The industrial development, particularly the development by Imperial Chemical Industries, has been an enormous blessing to the region. What we should have done in terms of employment in that part of the region without ICI I do not know. We are extremely grateful to the company for its considerable and expanding development.

By the mid-1930s that industrial development and increasing population had resulted in the virtual elimination of fish life in the middle and lower reaches of the Tees and the Tees estuary. That progressive pollution continued until the early 1970s when industry and local authorities recognised that action was essential. Great improvements have been achieved. ICI has spent £15 million on direct abatement measures and is spending very large sums indirectly as part of its highly commendable programme called cleaner process technology.

The Northumbrian Water Authority has spent £30 million on sewers and sewage treatment works since the beginning of the 1970s. In 1980 the authority issued a paper which outlined three targets: first, the elimination of visual and smell nuisance—a highly commendable target; secondly, the seasonal passage of migratory fish; and, thirdly, the passage of migratory fish at all times.

The proposed barrage will greatly reduce the tidal reach of the river, and the consequent alteration in water movement, upstream and downstream, could result in a deterioration in water quality. We live in a period when water quality is very much in the public mind, and the cost of bringing water up to European standards is very much in our minds at present as a particular piece of legislation passes through Parliament. Undoubtedly there is a danger that the barrage will add to the cost of obtaining pure and wholesome water. Investigation of that danger is in progress but is not yet complete. There is concern about that fact.

There are other matters, such as increased sedimentation, which also need to be considered but which have not yet been fully examined. In my view and in the view of others in the region who have responsibility in this field, it would be wrong for the Bill to proceed before the environmental impact assessment is complete. I suggest that it is not yet complete although it is under way.

The National Farmers' Union is concerned that the barrage could lead to an increased incidence of flooding of land and have a detrimental effect on some land drainage schemes. It is also concerned about livestock having easy access to polluted water. It also has a number of other worries. The Northumbrian Water Authority is concerned about the protection of existing sewers and of water mains and compensation for the movement of mains. Speaking as a chairman of a statutory water company in the area of Newcastle upon Tyne which has often had to move water mains, mainly because of road developments, I can assure your Lordships that it is a very expensive business indeed. So the water authority is anxious that the question of compensation for the expensive business of moving mains and sewers should be fully considered. It is also concerned about the protection of fisheries. It is not satisfied that rising levels of water tables in land adjacent to the river have been fully assessed pending the construction of the barrier.

In summary, I suggest that ICI, the National Farmers' Union and the Northumbrian Water Authority appreciate to the full what the promoters are attempting to achieve. But they feel strongly that there is danger to the on-going general improvement—which both the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, and I have jointly appreciated and applauded—in the condition of the River Tees if the proposed construction proceeds without the understandable concerns of those three bodies being fully appreciated and assessed.

8.1 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, earlier this afternoon, when the House was debating the report on Private Bill procedure, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said that the number of Private Bills which were coming before the House was already reaching, and had perhaps passed, saturation point. I believe that one of the reasons for that is the fact that barrages are all the rage at the moment. There are a great number projected all around the estuaries of these islands and many of them will require Private Bills.

I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who I believe put the case for the barrage very clearly. I have no special knowlege of the Tees and I cannot speak with the authority that he and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, have. I want to make one general point against the background on which I am sure we all agree; namely, that it is obviously extremely important to bring about the regeneration of Teesside. I am sure that we all share that objective.

My concern is with the procedure and the fact, to which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, referred, that the work on the various assessments that need to be done has not been completed and that those concerned have not had time to study the results. I came across this matter when I looked at the petitions that had been submitted against the Bill. In some of those petitions—for example, that submitted by Middlesbrough Borough Council—I saw that the petitioners had claimed that there had been no proper environmental assessment. In paragraph 12 of its petition, Middlesbrough Borough Council says: More generally, your Petitioners submit that there has been no proper environmental assessment of the Works and their consequences. It is understood that the Corporation has commissioned one and that it is likely to be available in March. Your Petitioners submit that the Bill should not have been introduced before the results of the assessment became available and that its enactment would pre-empt those results and render the assessment valueless". Obviously, those words were written some time ago, so I inquired of Middlesbrough Borough Council how matters now stood. It informed me that, so far as it was aware—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, will put me right if this is wrong—there were five reports under preparation, which sounded very reassuring. There was an overall environmental impact report. I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that that had been commissioned by the Northumbrian Water Authority, because Middlesbrough Borough Council told me that it was being done by a firm called W S Atkins. Perhaps there are two separate reports. The second was a report on water quality, to be carried out by Hydraulics Research Ltd.; the third was a report on raised river levels; the fourth was a report on the effect on outfalls to the river; and the last was a report on land drainage. The council then told me that none of those five reports has yet been made available to the petitioners.

My point is a very simple one. I believe that it is impossible for anyone, including the House, to consider the proposal until those reports, which are obviously essential, relevant and valuable, have been published and until everyone concerned—but more especially the people who have petitioned against the Bill—have had a full opportunity to study the reports and their implications, make up their minds about them and, if necessary, discuss aspects of them with the promoters. It therefore seems to me that the essential point is for the reports to be published and for the petitioners and all others concerned to be given a proper opportunity to study them before the Select Committee to be appointed by this House begins its hearings.

I should have thought that a reasonable time to allow people to study those reports, to make up their minds about them, to discuss the implications and so on would perhaps be three months. I therefore suggest to the House that it would be right that the Select Committee should not begin its hearings until three months after the publication of those five relevant reports. I hope that the promoters will agree that that is reasonable and that it is common sense. Otherwise, the Select Committee would be asked to consider a half-baked proposal without knowing the expert view on, for example, such a fundamental question as water quality.

The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, talked about the possibilities of recreation on the lake. We know from consideration of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill that the question of recreation depends very much on water quality. The suggestion is that the water quality in Cardiff Bay will be high enough to allow migratory fish to pass, but not good enough to enable what are called immersion sports to take place. There will therefore be no swimming or windsurfing, for example. We cannot judge whether that would be possible on the Tees until a report on water quality has been published and fully considered. I therefore hope that the promoters will agree that my suggestions are reasonable. If there are difficulties, I may have to consider proposing an instruction on the matter, but I hope that that will not be necessary and that everyone concerned will agree that what I have proposed is reasonable.

Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, mentioned the concern of the National Farmers' Union. I see that, in the conclusion of the briefing paper that it has issued, it states: it is essential that much more information on the details of the scheme, its implications for those affected, and proposals for mitigation are brought forward if Parliament is to be expected to reach an informed and fair judgement about the merits of the powers being sought". That proposal is put forward on behalf of the farmers who would be affected by the barrage and its seems to me to be a thoroughly reasonable proposition. I hope that that comment will be considered to reinforce what I have said and that the promoters will be prepared to agree to what I have suggested.

Finally, I must make an apology to the House. Because of a long-standing engagement I may have to leave before the end of the debate. I have already explained this to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. I apologise to noble Lords.

8.10 p.m.

The Earl of Stockton

My Lords, broadly speaking this Bill is to be welcomed but it is imperative that very satisfactory provisions are made for those companies, interests and individuals who may be adversely affected. I am confident that we shall receive such reassurances from the Promoters of the Bill.

The Teesside Development Corporation proposes to construct the barrage at Blue House Point, which is halfway between Stockton and Middlesbrough, with the principal aim of encouraging the development of land adjacent to the river. The function of the barrage is to impound upstream water at a level equivalent to the mean high tide and this will hide the unsightly and extremely smelly mudbanks, provide a stable environment for water-related activities and prevent polluted tidal water from moving upstream as it does twice every day. The barrage will incorporate movable gates both to control upstream water levels accurately and to allow the passage of marine traffic.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, there are a number of areas of concern. Studies have been commissioned by both the Teesside Development Corporation and Northumbrian Water. I think that it is worth pointing out that the present condition of the Tees far above the industrialised zone which runs from Stockton down to the mouth of the river is in fact deplorable. There is no pleasure to be had from walking along the banks of the Tees when the tide is out and there is precious little pleasure to be had when the tide is coming in.

I think that the objections can and should be overcome and some of the arguments that have been put forward by objectors are very special pleading. I refer particularly to the fellmongers, Baker and Hird, who have objected strongly. I have to say that from my own excursions along the bank of the River Tees in the Yarm area, I object equally strongly to the activities of the fellmongers. They are active polluters of the river and not only of the river but of the aerial environment around it. On a summer's day the stench—I do not hesitate to use an old Anglo-Saxon word—in Yarm High Street can be deplorable.

The barrage therefore promises both to change the image of Teesside in making it an attractive area for development and to make the River Tees, with its history of industrial success, the focal point for the regeneration of a new commercial atmosphere. It will also, of course, provide large areas of new land suitable for development; and will promote leisure activities, with the accompanying boost to retail and tourist-related activities.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to the problems of leisure activities but I should like to point out to him that, as the river is at the moment, such is the level of pollution that oarsmen of the Stockton Rowing Club who have an open cut are forbidden to take to the water for fear of very serious infection. So any improvement on that level is bound to be a major step in the right direction. I feel very strongly about this particular point as I have recently renamed one of the rowing club's eights after my noble predecessor in your Lordships' House.

The proposed site of the development upstream from the barrage is about 230 acres, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, told us, and is entirely owned by TDC. In fact this area achieved national notoriety when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was photographed amid the weeds of what was formerly the Head Wrightson construction works. There are almost no buildings on the area that are still in use. The development proposals include pedestrianisation, retail, residential, commercial and office buildings, leisure and entertainment facilities and of course residential facilities. The road link referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, will also be added to by a bridge over the river. The bridge will be pedestrianised and will have shops on it. It is to be known popularly as the Ponte Vecchio over the Tees. Perhaps in that we can find the source of some of the objection to the scheme by the Middlesbrough authority, because it may be somewhat jealous of the prospect that the transporter bridge will cease to be the most famous bridge over the River Tees.

The cost of the barrage is estimated at £23.3 million and the total cost of the development at £166 million, comprising £32 million from public sector funds and £134 million from the private sector. Property experts estimate that property values will be increased dramatically for some six miles upstream to Yarm as a result of the barrage. The leisure activities that will be improved include angling, canoeing, other water sports and, my own favourite, riverside walks. The whole scheme, including its knock-on effects, could produce in excess of 7,700 jobs. I stress to your Lordships that every one of those jobs is extremely urgently needed in the Teesside area.

Finally, I must say that this is a fine idea. Details may have to be worked through but it is an imaginative co-operation between the private sector, the local authority and the people of Cleveland to sweeten the waters of the Tees and the environment of Teesside for their future and their children's future.

8.15 p.m.

Lord Gisborough

My Lords, this Bill, which is promoted by the Teesside Development Corporation, affects an area not very far from my home. The "barrage" or "weir" aspect is of particular concern to many local people. The Tees is at present a tidal river roughly as far as Low Worsall, some 12 miles from the river mouth. Its flood plain has meanders, some of them almost closed. The proposals would fix the level of the river at 2.65 meters above ordnance datum. Thus a tidal river would become non-tidal.

The rationale for the Bill is to assist the regeneration of Teesside. That is an objective that I strongly support. We all wish to see derelict land re-used. The area upstream of the weir is, however, primarily rural and agricultural. It appears to be the aim of the TDC that the "pond" created would become a major recreational attraction and thus aid regeneration.

That aim seems somewhat vague and, to the best of my knowledge, there has not been any detailed study, appraisal or cost benefit analysis of the concept. There have been feasibility studies but they restrict themselves to the technical possibilities. I feel that the idea of altering for ever the regime of one of our major rivers should be investigated with the utmost rigour.

I should like to mention some of the principal concerns listed on a petition against the Bill: land upstream of the barrage might be permanently submerged below the level of the new fixed water mark; land drainage outfalls may be submerged more frequently than hitherto or be permanently submerged once the river level above the barrage had been raised; some land may cease to be adequately free draining due to a raising of the water table by the construction of the barrage; tributary water courses of the River Tees may no longer be able to discharge themselves adequately; land could be subject to flooding or an increased incidence of flooding due to a reduced capacity of the River Tees to accommodate substantial flows of land water at times of heavy rain, storm or snow-melt conditions; land could suffer from bank erosion as a result of water-based recreational and other activities.

Local farmers, through the NFU, have approached the TDC throughout the gestation period of their proposals to ascertain what they had in mind to mitigate the effects of their proposals. Some specific suggestions for amelioration have recently been made but not made firm. Following a topographical survey, a map was produced which indicated land that the TDC felt was likely to require permanent pumped drainage. However, there is no certainty that that is actually on offer. Secondly, that map does not appear to show all the land where outfalls will be permanently submerged. The land in question is good arable land farmed by three different farmers, although I understand that one of them may have his land acquired by the development corporation. That, however, is not finalised.

There is immediate concern at the loss of effective cropping on land which will not drain adequately. In times of spate it is uncertain how the river's regime will be regulated and further land that relies on low tide for drainage could find itself flooded and without effective drainage. Livestock farmers are concerned that the water quality will decline. There are well-established chrome works and a tannery and there are sewage outfalls which the tidal river flushes twice per day. What, I wonder, will be the pollution position when the pond is created.

The eventual recreational use of the river has also not been spelt out, but speed-boating, water skiing and similar pastimes appear to be envisaged. I hope that this will include practice aerial skiing. These will produce bank erosion from their wash and attract people into a quiet area of river bank. Farmers' experience in the area leads to the belief that the public will simply trespass on farm land for adjacent recreation, picnicking and so forth. Vandalism will doubtless become even worse.

The local branch of the NFU has been in contact with the development corporation both before and since the Bill was originally set down for debate on 22nd February. The NFU was assured by the chief executive of the TDC that it would not be brought before your Lordships until all the technical drainage and other questions could be answered. The local NFU and I discussed developments on Tuesday, and at that time the consulting engineers were just about to go to see the farmers to check whether the initial survey work carried out had noted all potential problems.

I am pleased that this vital work is being done but it seems that this should all have been settled prior to the Bill's Second Reading. It is a long way from initial consultant's reports to the agreed details of alternative drainage schemes. I hope therefore that the Committee ensures that specific provision is made for the relief of effects on each agricultural holding.

This is not the first barrage in the country. I have driven past at least one south of Glasgow. I believe that these lakes provide a very valuable amenity to the public. While they pose problems, they can also solve older problems in the river such as the daily backwash of all the sewage carefully piped down towards the mouth. I wish the scheme success, but the interests of land-holders should be reasonably protected.

I should like to conclude by saying how much the development—of which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, is a distinguished member—has done for the area already. I congratulate it on its achievements in clearing dereliction, in promoting development of what has been a depressed area and in helping to turn the whole area into a potentially thriving economy.

8.22 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity given by my noble friend Lord Dormand and other speakers to hear this very interesting and obviously well-informed debate on what is clearly an exciting project. My noble friend set out the benefits that the Teesside Development Corporation sees resulting from the proposed barrage. I shall not weary the House by repeating them.

However, I was very much impressed by hearing the confirmation from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, of the horrors of the existing surroundings. It is some time since I was on Teesside—a matter of four or five years—but at that time the industrial base of the area had already very heavily declined. It was clear that with the decline of industry there had been a dramatic fall in the quality of the environment as well as in the quality of the economy. It was clear even at that time that something drastic had to be done.

The Teesside Development Corporation—which is, I believe, thought by the Department of the Environment to be an exemplar of what a development corporaton should do—is doing just that, as I understand it. The House should applaud the efforts that have been made. They have not been made just by a group of do-gooders acting off the top of their heads. It has already commissioned feasibility studies, as my noble friend said, from Coopers and Lybrand,. The Northumbrian water authority has also taken part in feasibility studies. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is right in saying that it is not involved in the environmental impact assessment. But certainly from the list of firms that he has read out that are involved in the environmental impact assessment, it is clear that the development corporation is taking seriously its environmental, as well as its economic, responsibilities.

From what I hear of the proposed barrage and associated development—and it is the associated development that is the most important in economic terms—it will turn 230 acres of derelict land into useful areas of housing, light industry, offices and water-based recreation. That must be welcomed. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, has suggested that approximately 7,700 extra jobs may be created in the area. From these Benches I can only agree with him that those jobs are desperately required in the area and anything that will provide them should so far as possible be given a fair wind.

I listened to the speeches of the noble Lords who were less enthusiastic—the noble Lords, Lord Elliott, Lord Moran and Lord Gisborough—with interest and attention. Both the noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Moran, had a valid point when they said that Parliament ought not to be embarking on detailed consideration of the proposals until the environmental impact assessment has been completed. I am sure that my noble friend and the development corporation will agree with that. Whether the interval between publication of the environmental impact assessment and the expiry of the date for petitions should be as much as three months, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, suggested, I do not know. It sounds a little long. It is possible to put in objections fairly rapidly, in less than three months, and then to consider the detailed arguments when the evidence is given before the Select Committee. However, I am sure that it would be right not to proceed with the Select Committeee until the environmental impact assessment has been completed and a reasonable time has been given for petitions. I am sure that my noble friend will agree with that.

On river quality, the graphic descriptions of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, showed that something positive has to be done. As has been remarked, there is a certain amount of discussion about river water quality going on in your Lordships' House at the present time. I can undertake that there will be more discussion on the matter on Monday and Tuesday of next week when we shall be seeking to retain the provisions of the Water Act 1973: that it shall be the duty of the National Rivers Authority and of the undertakers to maintain and restore river water quality. It is the restoration of the river water quality, as I understand it, that is one of the purposes of this barrage.

I have no doubt that the environmental impact assessment will address the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, has referred and that we shall have a well informed Select Committee with evidence from both sides. It is a valid concern and one which certainly ought not to be brushed aside. However, from what I hear of the present condition of the river, it does not seem that there is any other direction in which to go than upwards so far as concerns the river water quality in the Tees.

I was rather less impressed by the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. He talked about altering the regime of one of our major rivers. In the light of what we were told earlier, would not any alteration be for the better? His points about the possibility of submerging land, of damage to drainage outfalls and so on are valid. I am sure that the Select Committee will take account of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, talked about bank erosion caused by water-based recreation activities. It turned out that he was talking about three farmers. I felt that, although the Select Committee must consider matters raised in your Lordships' House, it would not be too much concerned because there is always a conflict of interests between farming and recreation. However, let us look at the numbers of people involved. If farming interests were to block recreation at all times I rather doubt whether we should have any water-based recreation at all. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention and I am sure that the Select Committee will take a balanced view on the matter.

With the provisos that I have mentioned, in particular about the environmental impact assessment, what I learn of the Bill leads me to hope very much that it will receive a favourable reaction from the Government, that the Select Committee will do its work with thoroughness but also with despatch and that as soon as possible we shall see the benefits to the area which are intended by the Teesside Development Corporation.

8.31 p.m.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, it may be helpful if at this point I give the House a brief summary of the Government's view on this Bill. The Government fully support the objectives of the Bill. The barrage and bridges are critical to the successful development of the Teesside site, which is centrally important to Teesside Development Corporation's strategy for the regeneration of its area and which will provide considerable benefits in terms of jobs and investment.

The Government will, of course, need to be fully satisfied as to the environmental and ecological implications of the proposed barrage and will consider carefully the results of the independent environmental impact study, which I understand will be available very soon. The Government are, however, satisfied, following the detailed examination of the economic appraisal of the development corporation's proposals for the Teesside site, that the construction of the barrage and bridges will be cost-effective when set against the wider benefits of the scheme. On the basis of the cost estimates contained in that appraisal, it has, therefore, been decided to make available to Teesside Development Corporation from the corporation's overall resource allocation the grant in aid necessary to implement the schemes if Parliament so agrees.

I note that there are 17 petitioners against the Bill in your Lordships' House and they will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position than we are tonight to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading so that it may be allowed to proceed in the usual way to committee for this detailed examination.

8.33 p.m.

Lord Dormand of Easington

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It is perfectly understandable that concern should be expressed on some aspects of this project and I hope that in broad terms I have assured everyone that the development corporation has always been conscious of those fears.

It is not possible in a Second Reading speech to go into the kind of detail about which noble Lords and petitioners very properly seek information. The corporation has, however, as I indicated in my speech, anticipated the potential difficulties by calling for special reports on them. I trust that the detailed examination which will take place will allay the doubts that have been raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, very properly expressed the hope, indeed the necessity—I think he was right about that—that noble Lords should have the opportunity of studying the special reports before the committee sits. I am really not in a position to say that the three months which he mentioned is correct, except I ought to say that it seems to me at this stage that three months might be a rather long period for that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, is not present. He wrote to me to say that he had to leave. Perhaps he will read the comments that I have made and also those of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, with whom I agree, about that period.

I have been greatly heartened by what has been said in the debate and outside on what is, after all, the heart of the matter: the overwhelming need to regenerate one of the worst-hit areas of the country. It is possible that some changes will be made in the Bill in achieving that goal, but for those of us who have the pleasure of serving on the corporation—and I hope many others—there can be no gainsaying that the main provisions of the Bill will make a major contribution to the revival of the UDC area. I believe that those provisions will be enhanced by the contributions made to the debate by all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.