River Usk Barrage Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 13 March 1991 vol 527 cc255-84

7.58 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, the joint promoters of the Bill are the Borough of Newport and the County of Gwent. The purpose of the Bill is, to empower Newport Borough Council to construct a barrage across the river Usk; to empower Gwent County Council to construct roads and to carry out highway improvements … to empower the said Councils to carry out other works and to acquire lands; to provide for the control and development of part of the river Usk for amenity and recreation … The Bill, and in particular the proposal to build a barrage, is the cornerstone of a much wider scheme to regenerate the centre of Newport town. The scheme is included in a joint economic development strategy by four of the district councils in Gwent.

Newport is a town not only of high unemployment but also of high migration rates. The borough council is concerned to enhance the quality of life for the people who live and work in Newport, so that employers will choose to locate new businesses within the town—thus helping to bring down high levels of unemployment—and ensure that skilled employees will be attracted to work in Newport, and having arrived, will resolve to stay and settle there.

In proposing the scheme, Newport borough were also mindful that current development along the M.4 corridor is beginning to impinge on the greenfield sites that surround the town. By utilising derelict and underused land in the centre of Newport the council is responding to the pleas of environmentalists who seek to protect from further development areas such as Pentrepoeth and Caerleon. The scheme has the enthusiastic support of the Conservative leader and his group on the Newport County Council, as it has of the controlling party. In their eyes it is a model of urban renewal. They are also satisfied that the scheme can be funded from land sales and that it will impose only a limited and acceptable additional burden on poll tax payers. It is also widely supported by the people of Newport who welcome the council's imaginative proposals to deal with their turbulent river, the Usk, and to clean up and improve acres of unsightly and derelict land in the centre of their town.

Perhaps at this point I may dwell for a moment longer on the River Usk which will be at the centre of debates in support of the Bill or in opposition to it. The Usk has unique properties. Without some knowledge of those it would be difficult for noble Lords to understand what has led the leaders of Newport to consider building a barrage.

The River Usk has a dramatically wide tidal range of 45 feet. It is second only in the world to the St. Lawrence River in its tidal variation. The effect of that tidal range on the town of Newport is considerable. Those who know the town will confirm that. When the tide is out, vast tracts of the river's mudscape are exposed. These rough, unstable swathes of mud and litter do not add aesthetic value to the heart of the town, especially as they also expose raw sewage outlets.

Furthermore, they create somewhat of a chasm between the communities on the eastern and western sides of the town. As a result, the River Usk, far from providing a unifying focus, as do many of the world's most loved and famous rivers, divides the town and its eastern and western communities. But the River Usk's high tidal variation has a more disturbing impact on the town and its communities, for at high tide the Usk poses—and always has posed—a very real threat of flooding. The marshes of Crindau are the main developed area at risk of flooding due to the tide.

Flooding is caused when the tide exceeds a peak of 7.9 metres. In fact that level has been exceeded on four occasions since 1960: namely, in December 1981 when it reached 8.4 metres; in 1985 when it exceeded 7.9 metres; in March 1989 when it was 8.01 metres and in February 1980 when it reached 8.17 metres. The high tide that caused the Towyn floods last February breached the sea defences and caused flooding in Newport and Caerleon. Those extreme tidal peaks have all occurred in the past 10 years.

In addition, flooding due indirectly to the tide—that is, when surface water sewer and foul water overflow is tidelocked and causes overflowing above manhole cover levels occurs on average twice every five years. So the River Usk's turbulence regularly threatens both life and property within Newport. Matters are likely to get worse if, as is widely predicted, global warming raises tidal levels and further exacerbates the Usk's already extreme variation.

The Usk river barrage is intended, first, to provide a flexible tidal barrier which will play a vital long-term role in protecting the people of Newport and Caerleon from the effects of high tide levels, including any which may result from the effects of global warming.

Secondly, and as part of the Usk regeneration scheme, the council intends to clean up and enhance the water quality of the river by, among other things, removing the raw sewage outlets. That will certainly be a great benefit for Newport and its tourist industry. Incidentally, that should please not only the citizens of Newport but, as I said, should attract and please Newport's visitors. I refer not only to tourists but also to the River Usk's many hundreds of marine visitors: migrating salmon, sea trout, twaite shad and eels, which will have been deterred in the past by the high concentration of pollution within the River Usk.

Thirdly, the Usk barrage, by maintaining a high level of water at low tides, will revitalise the existing river front and enable housing and industrial and recreational development to be undertaken along the banks of the river. Fourthly, it will enrich the quality of life for the communities of Newport by opening up public access to the river front and thereby restoring the heart to Newport town.

For all those reasons the Usk regeneration scheme has widespread support from the people of Newport who perceive major economic benefits from it. Over £200 million of private investment is expected to be attracted to the Usk river front. There is potential for the creation of over 2,000 jobs in light industry, offices, tourism and leisure, and in construction associated with the various projects. Indeed, throughout the town of Newport an additional 8,000 jobs are likely to be created. There will be extensive river front walks, a new sports complex using the river and the adjacent glebe lands, new recreational facilities, and better road access to the East Usk area. Other areas close to the river front will also benefit. The total economic benefit is expected to generate an increase in regional income of no less than £90 million per annum, of which over one third will benefit neighbouring districts.

But although the scheme enjoys widespread local support, it is opposed strongly by groups further up the Usk valley as evidenced by the number of petitions (22 in all) that have been deposited in opposition to the Bill. One of the major petitioners against the Bill is the National Rivers Authority. The opposition of that authority is justified, given its statutory obligations and role as guardian of the water environment. However, I believe that the NRA is not opposed to barrage schemes per se because in the past it has supported other schemes including the neighbouring Cardiff Bay barrage scheme. I believe that the chairman supported it in a speech in this House.

Clearly the promoters have an obligation to convince the NRA that statutory obligations will be met by their plans to ensure water quality standards and that the design for the proposed fish lock facilitates the passage of migratory fish. Newport Borough Council has been more than willing to meet its obligations. In fact it has spent more than two years in close consultation with the NRA and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as well as with other local fishery interests. It has valued the criticism and advice that it has received from all those bodies.

It is that spirit of co-operation on the part of the promoters which leaves me in no doubt that differences with the NRA will be settled as soon as various tests and surveys have been completed. It is clear also that the NRA in Wales is fully aware of the value attached by the people of Newport to the barrage development, as is indicated by the following letter to the South Wales Argus. It is a letter from Dr. J.H. Stoner, the regional general manager for the NRA in Wales. He says: The NRA understands the importance of the barrage development to the local community and is anxious to find a way forward that will provide an adequate level of protection to the river and the life within it". One of the NRA's major concerns is with fisheries, and rightly so. That concern is echoed by other opponents of the barrage who have grouped together under the banner of a body called the Barrage Action Group. That group circulated a briefing to Peers at the end of last week which, I fear, was misleading in several respects. I say that with the utmost respect. The major anxieties of the group are about the effect that the barrage will have on migrating salmon and the effect of any decline in migrating salmon on the rural tourist based economy of the Usk Valley.

The promoters of the barrage accept that the Usk is one of the major game fishing rivers of Wales. As I understand it, four times as many fish are caught within Newport and its estuary than are caught further up the valley. Newport is therefore clearly concerned to preserve the fishing of the river. The promoters are conscious of the anxieties of fishermen, both those within the town's boundaries and of those further up the valley.

Several designs for a fish pass have been developed over the past two years in consultation with the NRA. On the advice of that authority the promoters are examining the possibility of a fish lock as an alternative to the original proposal. A major advantage of a lock over the original design for a pool and traverse pass is that the fish will not be required to expend energy in ascending the steps of either a ladder or a series of pools. After being attracted to the lock by a strong plume of fresh water they will be carried up by the rising water level of the lock, which will be 10 metres wide and 25 metres long.

To guarantee continuous access there will be two locks of that size rising and falling alternately. Once one set of gates closes, the other will open. When the waters rise to the same levels as the upstream river, the fish will be able to swim on upstream to enrich the economies of the upper Usk Valley. Each river is of course unique and fish passes must be tailor made to suit each new situation.

The fish lock, although made up of tried, tested and proven elements, will also therefore be unique. As such it is difficult at this stage to quantify its impact. Passage will be possible throughout the tidal cycle. Furthermore, the locks will allow downstream migrants like smolts, kelts and shad to descend gently into a series of pools which, contrary to the assertion of the opponents of the Bill, will have a fall of no more than two metres.

The concept of the lock as a fish pass was originally conceived by Borland and subsequently recommended for use for shad by a Frenchman, M. Larinier, who is an expert on migratory fish. A similar lock to that planned in the Usk is installed in the River Garonne at Golfech, and in 1989 more than 60,000 shad passed over that lock.

There is a fish lock on the Liffey in Ireland at Leixlip and on the Shannon at Ardnachrush, both regarded as successful. A similar fish lock was installed in the Netherlands at Lith-on-the-Maas in 1959–60 and is also considered by experts to be successful. There are at least 17 such locks in Scotland, and one in Wales at Cwm Rheidol. The operational manager at Cwm Rheidol claims his lock as successful. Next Tuesday the promoters are visiting Cwm Rheidol with the NRA to inspect its effectiveness.

The debate about the passage of migratory fish is bound to become emotive, as the promoters plead, on the one hand, for the right to improve employment opportunities and the quality of life of their citizens and, on the other hand, groups from further up the Usk valley fight to defend both a perceived risk to their livelihoods but also a perceived risk to the passage of migratory fish.

It will be important over the following few weeks and months, as we give further consideration to this Bill, to ensure that the debate is conducted in a rational way and on the basis of as much scientific data as are available. Unfortunately current records on salmon numbers in any of our rivers are considered unreliable. There is widespread acknowledgement that numbers have declined, but regrettably there is not a great deal of confidence in records which are based on rod catches only and which do not take into account net catching as well.

An article in the Field late last year highlighted this point. It was entitled "Quest for Salmon Truth". Written by Michael Wigan, it appeared in the November 1990 issue. In his article Mr. Wigan rightly says: Current developments continue to make correct salmon statistics vitally important. Most obviously, in a market of dizzy prices for a vulnerable game species, catch statistics determine fishing values. These figures require official, scientifically valid, basic statistics against which they can then be evaluated. There are still too many unknown quantities". Mr. Wigan goes on to argue: Catch statistics have been blatantly manipulated by some timeshare operators; it would not be untrue to say that some private riparian owners have also recognised a financial reward in boosting catches prior to sale. In extreme cases, where river rules have permitted, hordes of rods have swarmed the banks using a paraphernalia of fishing methods to inflate catches. Although not technically artificial, the resulting high catch figures do not fairly reflect an expectation of the fishery's yield when utilised in a civilised manner". It appears that interests are not only served by inflating records of salmon catches. Mr. Wigan shows that, just as vendors or lessors of fishing rights might benefit if recorded catches were inflated, so fishing tenants might have a vested interest in having them suppressed. Improved catches, if reported, might be followed by rent increases". So accurate and reliable records of fish catches, whether they be on the River Usk, or on other rivers, are hard to come by.

However, there are larger matters looming over the salmon world. Mr. Wigan reports: an absolute decline in salmon numbers, which was apparent from the 1987–1989 statistics, showing a total North Atlantic salmon catch down in these three years by 2,364 tonnes (from 8,141 tonnes to 5,777 tonnes) which looks as if it is going to be confirmed in 1990. Greenland, the home of the biggest drift-net fishery, is already known to have found that stocks have diminished". This decline in salmon numbers can be attributed to a number of sources—drift-net fishing and poaching at sea and in estuaries. But perhaps the greatest threat to salmon comes from pollution. Anyone who knows the Usk well knows that its high concentrations of pollution must have deterred, if not killed, many a migrating salmon, sea trout or shad.

The NRA has argued correctly that the passage of migratory fish through the impoundment will mainly be affected by the water quality achieved. While the final results of the promoters' water quality modelling are not yet available—they have been delayed by last year's drought and the absence of rainfall up until December 1990—the studies to date nevertheless demonstrate that the water quality will be good and attractive to fish and the NRA's stringent requirements will be achieved.

If we are to judge correctly the effect of the Usk's currently unacceptable levels of pollution on migrating salmon, it seems to me to be essential that the critical task of monitoring the numbers of salmon in the Usk begin immediately. We need then to undertake tests and measure the effects of an improved water environment on migrating salmon.

As I understand it, a fish pass monitoring programme is being undertaken by the promoters and this will be supervised in conjunction with the National Rivers Authority. The fish monitoring scheme will be for marine and coarse fish, as well as migratory fish such as salmon, sea trout, shad and elvers. Only when such systematic and scientific monitoring is undertaken will it be possible to conduct a rational debate about this issue.

Finally I should like to touch on a point that features both in the briefing prepared by the Barrage Action Group and in instructions to the Committee submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. It is to do with the impact of the Usk Regeneration Scheme on the rural economy of the Usk valley. In its briefing the Barrage Action Group asserts that: fishing rights represent a considerable capital asset in the hands of riparian owners, the value of which has been estimated at £3.2 million". What is the basis for this estimate which on the face of it looks highly plausible? A representative of Newport Borough Council telephoned the Action Group's PR consultants for further information. He was told that the figures derived from a study being undertaken at Portsmouth polytechnic by a Mr. Hatcher and entitled An economic evaluation of recreational salmon in the UK.

When Mr. Hatcher was approached by a representative of Newport Borough Council he explained that his report had been commissioned by MAFF, that it was not public and that it would not be released until MAFF agreed to do so. He explained that the Barrage Action Group had telephoned some months ago and that he was concerned that the figures he gave them on the telephone could be interpreted to suit their case. He made clear that it was not possible fully to understand the figures without having the full report.

All this indicates that we are dealing in assertion, speculation and unverified data. Such speculation will not help us to arrive at sound and proper conclusions about this Bill. It would be helpful if MAFF would publish the commissioned report so that we could all study its findings and so that the implications can be debated more fully in Committee.

Wales and the town of Newport, together with the rest of the United Kingdom, are now enduring a recession. Nevertheless the people of Newport are endeavouring to invest in their own futures and in the futures of their children by improving employment opportunities in their town. It is my hope that your Lordships will support their attempts to deal constructively with both the current recession, the after-effects of the 1981 recession and the closure of coal mines in Wales.

I hope that we can conduct the debate around this Bill on the understanding that it is being promoted by a community concerned to protect the invaluable flora, fauna and fish of its great river; a community desperately in need of job opportunities and improved life chances; and a community concerned to raise the quality and safety of life in a town that for too long has had to suffer the terrible turbulence of the Usk and its tides. I beg to move.

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

8.23 p.m.

Lord Moran

My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for setting out so clearly the objectives of this Private Bill against which 23 petitions have been submitted. It has been helpful to have the explanation because until tonight it was by no means clear what exactly the Usk barrage was intended to achieve. Was it simply to improve the aspect of Newport's waterfront by covering up the so-called unsightly mudflats or was it to attract new investment? The preamble to the Bill states merely that the construction of a barrage: would facilitate the development and improvement both of the river and of the areas adjacent thereto". It is hard to see how it can improve the river. The petitions suggest that it is likely to do the opposite.

Now that Swansea has a barrage under construction and Cardiff has a barrage project which is being considered in another place I suppose it was inevitable that Newport, though situated on a river with a much more important fishery than those of the Tawe or the Taff, would want one too. Barrages are in vogue and I know of 18 projects at various stages. Whether it is wise to tamper with so many of our rivers which have run freely to the sea for millions of years and to block them with concrete dams is open to question; that is quite apart from the serious environmental problems which that inevitably creates.

Some of the projects are carefully and thoroughly worked out; others are not. I am afraid that this project bears all the signs of having been put together with excessive haste. I wonder why Newport Borough Council is in such a hurry. Clearly, if a local authority wishes to construct a barrage which is a major infrastructure project it ought to recognise that the effects of it on a river are substantial and irreversible. Surely the sensible way to proceed is to have thorough consultations with all the bodies concerned—first and foremost in England and Wales with the National Rivers Authority but also with the Nature Conservation Council, its successor bodies and all the non-governmental organisations concerned—and to modify the plans as necessary to meet their concerns. When all that has been done and when all the details have been taken care of then, but only then, it can put the project to Parliament. It is hoped that we shall come nearer to that in future Sessions when environmental assessments must accompany Bills of this kind as recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Private Bills. Unhappily, that procedure is not yet in force.

As regards this Bill the consultation has been quite inadequate. There may have been a good many meetings but too often the promoters have been unable to answer the questions put to them. The chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust, Sir David Nickson, wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales in January stating that: There is an overwhelming impression that the project is being driven through with very limited consultation, and less agreement, with official and voluntary bodies". Happily the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is present tonight and can tell the House authoritatively of the NRA's position. But I know that for months past the NRA has been trying to obtain details from the promoters but frequently has been unable to do so. The NRA's petition against the Bill makes clear the many points on which it is not satisfied or on which studies and modelling are still proceeding. I shall give your Lordships one such example. At the end of last week I asked an NRA official, who is intimately concerned with the project, what might be the effect on fisheries of a partial intrusion barrage bringing salt water into the impounded lake at certain times, as I understood this project to be. To my astonishment he told me that the promoters were still unable to tell the NRA whether they planned a tidal exclusion barrage or a partial intrusion barrage. In other words, they have still not settled the fundamental design.

That is quite extraordinary. Surely it is wrong that your Lordships should be asked to consider a project, the basic principles of which are still being worked out. It is plain enough that the Bill has come to this House prematurely. Parliament should not be treated in this cavalier way. The commonsense course would be for the promoters to withdraw the Bill in order to consult more deeply and widely and to give a great deal more time to proper consideration. If this were a Public Bill we should unhesitatingly reject it. As it is a Private Bill that course is not open to us on Second Reading.

However, the Committee should consider carefully whether the project has been properly thought through with adequate consultation and whether it is fundamentally sound. If the Committee concludes that it is not, it should reject the Bill. It should bear in mind that some petitioners whose interests may be seriously affected are having to spend large sums of money which they may not easily be able to afford in order to brief counsel to appear before the Committee. If the Bill and the project are defective it would be wrong to send the Bill to another place because the petitioners will have to spend more money to protect themselves.

This is one of the first occasions on which a barrage proposal has come to this House since the setting up of the National Rivers Authority. Under the Water Act Parliament gave the NRA the responsibility for safeguarding our rivers. The NRA has been carrying out that duty with vigour and dedication. As part of its duty it has found it necessary to petition against the Bill. Its petition is comprehensive, clear, expert and, I believe, totally unprejudiced. It would be wrong for your Lordships, so soon after the Water Act, to set aside or override the views of the NRA on such a matter. Therefore, unless the NRA can be fully satisfied on all the major points that it has raised we should not allow the Bill to proceed. If the NRA can be satisfied, then clearly the Bill should be amended to ensure that its anxieties are fully met.

I come now to the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper. Its object is to ask the committee to consider six points which I believe are highly relevant. However, the committee may not otherwise be able to address some of those points as they are not mentioned in the petitions.

First, the committee should consider whether one really needs to build a barrage to push on the economic development of Newport, an objective which in itself all of us would welcome. I do not believe that the promoters have fully made out an economic case for the barrage, identifying and comparing all the capital and operating costs and benefits. Nor, as I believe is normal in cost benefit analysis, have they compared the proposed project with at least one other option for achieving all or some of its key objectives; for example, an alternative programme for investment designed to stimulate development in Newport, not including the barrage but including the construction of the southern link road and other measures such as environmental upgrading along the river corridor. I believe that such an analysis should be required from the promoters so that the committee can determine whether the barrage proposal represents the most cost effective approach.

The report from Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte entitled The Economic Impact of the Usk Barrage does not do that but focuses entirely on the barrage, says little or nothing about costs and makes no attempt to separate out the economic impact of the barrage from the associated proposals.

The second point concerns the likely effect of the Cardiff Bay development on this project and whether the construction of this barrage designed to attract investment in this region is likely to achieve its economic objective. In other words, is there room for another investment-related barrage in South-East Wales? If we are to risk serious environmental damage of the sort feared by the petitioners, the committee should be sure that the planned economic benefits are real and not illusory. In the current economic climate there is not an unlimited supply of new investment.

The third point is what will be the effect of the construction of the barrage on the community charge or whatever may replace it in Gwent and Newport. I am convinced that the costs associated with the barrage will turn out to be far greater than the promoters' estimates. I understand that in its latest budget Newport is already putting 20 per cent. of its community charge towards the barrage.

The reason for the fourth point is to ask the committee to consider the possibility that the European Community's draft municipal waste water directive, on which sub-committee F of which I am a member will shortly be reporting, may lay down that certain waters should be classified as sensitive requiring the removal of nutrients—notably phosphorous and nitrogen—and asks the committee to look into the financial consequences of that.

At present the River Usk is not eutrophic. In other words, it is not enriched by nutrients causing an accelerated growth of algae and plant life so affecting the water quality. However, the impounded lake may become so if the barrage is built. If so, it is likely to be classified as sensitive, which may involve the removal of phosphorous. There is a population of about 195,000 in the Usk Valley above Newport, of whom some 175,000 would be covered by the directive. I am told that phosphate stripping costs very approximately £50 per head in capital costs and £7 per head per annum in operating costs. Those costs would inevitably be put on to the promoters who could therefore face capital costs on this alone of some £8.75 million and running costs of perhaps £1.25 million per year. Clearly the committee should look at that.

The sixth and last point is the impact of the projected barrage on the economy of the Usk Valley and whether, for example, a reduction in the value of its fisheries would adversely affect not only angling clubs and fishery owners but hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, tackle shops and fisheries in that area and reduce prosperity, employment opportunities and tourist revenue in that part of rural Wales. I know that many people in the Usk Valley are deeply worried. Some of them, like the Crickhowell Community Council, have written to me. Cosmetic improvements to the surroundings of Newport should not be allowed to damage the livelihood of people living and working higher up the river.

I hope that the House will agree that those questions are pertinent and reasonable and should be gone into by the committee.

Some noble Lords may be surprised that there is nothing in my draft Instruction about conservation or fisheries. The reason for that is simple. I am advised that Erskine May does not allow points to be included in instructions if they are already covered in petitions. The petitions from the NRA, local wildlife trusts and anglers' organisations cover those points.

Conservation aspects certainly should not be neglected. In particular, the committee should satisfy itself that there will be no damage to migratory runs of the rare twaite shad, which are only found in the Usk, Wye or Severn or to populations of otters, dependent as they are on the supply of eels, to fish resident in the estuary and to other forms of bird and plant life. I know that the NCC in Wales is anxious about those matters about which not nearly enough research has yet been done.

Apart from the draft Community directive, there are other aspects of water quality and of the river regime covered in the petitions which the committee should examine carefully. The elimination of the discharges of raw sewage into the river from Newport is not really relevant as that must be dealt with anyway. However, there is the problem of sedimentation—the washing down and deposition of river gravels and silt above any barrage, and the need for the promoters to pay for regular dredging and removal; the management of the river; the possibility of algal blooms; the reduction or stopping of tidal flushing; the question of public health and immersion sports; the question of midges; the effect of introduction of salt water if a partial intrusion barrage is planned; whether the discharge of treated effluent into the impounded lake would create problems; the question of storm water discharges; the prospect of the formation of scum on the lake; the possibility that oxygen levels in the lake may fall and the consequences of this; the problem of debris—dead sheep, supermarket trolleys, pieces of plastic and so on —being brought down from towns and farms higher up in the Usk and how that will be dealt with; and all the points raised in paragraphs 27 to 32 in the petition from the NRA, paragraphs 13 to 15 of the petition from the Welsh Salmon and Trout Anglers Association and paragraph 21 of the petition from the United Usk Fisheries Association.

In the past two years we have all heard of the problem of toxic blue/green algae and of dogs dying after drinking lake water. There are many other problems when the natural river flow is tampered with. The committee needs to satisfy itself that all those problems can be satisfactorily surmounted and that the promoters would shoulder the full burden of related costs.

Lastly I come to fisheries. I have no personal interest in the Usk fisheries because the Usk is not my river. However, I have a concern as I work for the maintenance and improvement of fisheries in Wales as chairman of the NRA, Welsh Regions' Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee and as president of the Welsh Salmon and Trout Anglers Association.

At present the Usk is a beautiful as well as an important river with the rare combination of first-class trout fishing and at times good salmon fishing. Its runs of salmon contribute also to a significant commercial fishery in the estuary. I am sure that the committee will want to pay very careful attention to the points raised in paragraphs 17 to 23 of the petition from the NRA and generally in the petitions from the Salmon and Trout Anglers' Association, the Welsh Salmon and Trout Anglers Association, the United Usk Fishermen's Association and a number of others.

The key question is whether the migratory fish—salmon, sea trout, shad, eels and lamprey—will or will not be able to get up and down the river past the barrage. If not, then the population of all those fish in the Usk could be wiped out. To do that simply to achieve the "prettification" of the surroundings of Newport would in my submission be unforgiveable.

Noble Lords will realise that Usk salmon and the other species are threatened by two barrages this one and the proposed Severn barrage on which the NRA has concluded: there are very significant problems … yet to be resolved, particularly in respect of fish passage through the barrage". Although research on that problem is continuing, it is my understanding that we are still no where near finding out how a yard long fish, swimming vigorously against the current but being sucked slowly backwards through a rotating turbine can escape destruction. Mortality could be 100 per cent. there.

Those may be separate projects to your Lordships, but to an incoming Usk salmon there would be extreme hazards of trying to pass through the Severn barrage turbines and then having to face the Newport barrier. The prospect of any fish surviving that double obstruction seems to me remote.

With the Usk Barrage, the incoming fish would have to negotiate an estuary with greatly changed flow patterns. They would have to find the fish path, get through it passing suddenly instead of gradually from salt water to fresh and then find their way through a largely still water artificial lake some 12 miles long in which they may be liable to heavy predation from pike to the river upstream. The problems seem to be enormous and probably insurmountable. Fish passes are not always effective and not only need to be carefully designed but also skilfully operated. Recent radio tracking revealed that even the well-known fish pass at Pitlochry is much less effective than was originally thought and that many fish do not make it past the dam but swim round below it, eventually go back downstream and are seen no more.

I do not believe that a fish pass has ever been installed and found to be effective in a river with a tidal range of 45 feet or one with anything near that range. We are being asked to take a leap in the dark. I understand that in the discussions now proceeding between the promoters and the NRA, a fishlock, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is being considered—a modification of the Borland lift as used in parts of Scotland. But Borland lifts are not always effective and no one has ever tried one on a river like the Usk. I understand that the NRA still remains to be convinced that the overall operating regime of such a pass will permit the unimpeded passage of fish. Its petition tells us that any loss of Usk salmon could not easily be made good. Moreover, on many high tides the barrage would be tide-locked, with the water level below higher than that above. During those periods the NRA tells me that water would need to be pumped through the fish pass to attract fish through. The promoters will need to demonstrate to the NRA how much water will need to be pumped and then agree to pay the capital and revenue costs involved, which could be substantial.

There is then the equally serious problem of the downstream passage of salmon kelts, smolts and other migratory fish species, especially shad. I understand that at present it is planned that the fish should pass down through the fish pass or over the top of the sluice gates, or both. At low spring tides passage over the sluice gates would involve the fish falling some 10 metres on to energy dissipating baffles covered by only 1.5 metres of water.

I am aware that today the borough council issued a briefing saying that the statement that fish migrating downstream will have to fall 10 metres over the barrage is "totally incorrect" and that fish pass designs are available to demonstrate that. I have checked and it is true that the fish will not have to fall 10 metres at all stages; they will have to fall less at neap tide. But at low spring tides 10 metres is the correct distance. Do any noble Lords believe that many fish could survive a fall like that, quite apart from the severe stress involved?

In its petition the NRA spoke of the major threat to the existing fisheries in the river and estuary. I suggest that the committee should satisfy itself that that major threat can and will be removed; that if the barrage were to be constructed no damage would be done to the fisheries. It will not be good enough for the NRA, or the committee, to agree to plans which have only a fair chance of succeeding, for once built the barrage cannot be removed. They must be satisfied beyond any doubt that safe passage for migratory fish all the way upstream and also downstream can be assured; that the operation of any fish pass will be effectively operated under NRA supervision; and that full monitoring will be carried out—all of course at the expense of the promoters. If the committee is not satisfied beyond doubt then neither it nor we should allow the Bill to proceed.

The Secretary of State for Wales will need to be satisfied that the design of any fish pass will enable all migratory fish to pass safely through a barrage before he gives his provisional approval to it. In that context I shall say a word or two about the attitude of the Government. The Welsh Office has been kept fully informed by the NRA. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, will tell us what the Government's view is. I realise that they usually take a neutral stand on private Bills, but I hope that in due course they will let us have their views. If they do, I hope that they will give their full support to the NRA, bearing in mind the need to preserve the quality of water and the fisheries of this valuable, beautiful and so far unspoilt Welsh river.

I believe that this is a bad Bill and that the case for the barrage is a thin one. It seems to me that we have to balance some possible speculative benefits to Newport, which are not necessarily valid, and the fashionable wish to cover up mudflats against enormous potential damage to a notable tidal river. I am in no doubt that the arguments against the barrage greatly outweigh those for it. However, I am sure that our committee will look into all aspects of it very carefully and without prejudice and that if it is not satisfied it will not hesitate to reject it.

8.45 p.m.

Lord Crickhowell

My Lords, I do not intend to range quite so widely as the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I certainly do not intend to debate tonight the wider merits of the Bill. I rise because it is important that the House should have before it the views of the National Rivers Authority regarding the effects of the Bill.

I have a good deal of personal sympathy with the objectives of the promoters and I understand why they have brought forward a measure of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in introducing the Bill quoted a letter from Dr. John Stoner saying that the NRA would be anxious to find a way forward. He spoke of a spirit of compromise. I am certainly prepared on behalf of the NRA to approach the matter in that way. However we are confronted with some formidable difficulties.

Those difficulties were brought out clearly in a letter I received this morning, which many other noble Lords will have received also, from the mayor of the borough of Newport. In the letter he makes a number of assertions. He says that, it is not accepted that the barrage will adversely affect the migration of salmon, sea trout, twaite, shad, eels and lamprey". He goes on to say, It is confidently expected that post-barrage both upstream and downstream waters will support at least as good if not better populations of fish than exists at present … The only way in which the rural economy could be affected is if the barrage diminishes the run of migratory fish. This is not considered to be a possibility". Later in the letter he says that, The character of the river upstream of the barrage will remain in its present form". All those are fairly controversial assertions. I need only quote from one passage of the NRA's petition to illustrate that there is a good deal of room for doubt about them. In paragraph 23 of the petition the NRA says: the Authority apprehends that the Bill poses a major threat to the existing fisheries in the river and estuary and it humbly submits that the Bill should not be allowed to pass unless the Promoters can demonstrate that that threat can be satisfactorily overcome". I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that the Bill is premature. I share also his concern that it has been presented without a comprehensive environmental study. The simple fact is that due to the lack of technical information from the promoters about the models that will be required and about which I shall have more to say, the NRA is not in a position to be satisfied that the requisite water quality standards can be achieved.

I propose, as briefly as I can, to go through the main statutory responsibilities of the National Rivers Authority and spell out our concerns in regard to the consequences of the Bill. It is perfectly true that the National Rivers Authority, Welsh Region, has been in discussion for a long time with the barrage promoters, the Newport Borough Council and its consultants. But despite many meetings, the developers have so far failed to satisfy the authority that its statutory interests are fully protected.

First I shall refer to flood defence. The NRA has a statutory duty to undertake a technical audit of the scheme and ensure that the proposed barrage will neither make worse the incidence of flooding in the river upstream nor result in any reduction of the existing flood defence standards. To ensure that that can be achieved the NRA laid down the necessary design criteria. I can confirm that the design criteria required have been incorporated in the barrage design. But the hydrodynamics model produced by the promoters has not been separately validated yet by the NRA. Until that validation has been carried out, the NRA cannot give formal approval to the model.

There is an important outstanding issue referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the accumulation of river sediments. That takes place in all reaches of the impoundment. In particular it will take place in the upper reaches where large quantities of river gravels will be expected to accumulate relatively quickly. The effect of the accumulated gravels and sediments on the river channels, the passage of migratory fish and the effect on water quality when they are in the process of being physically removed has not yet been investigated to the satisfaction of the NRA.

I now turn to fisheries. It has been pointed out that the authority has a statutory responsibility to maintain, improve and develop salmon, trout and coarse and eel fisheries. In the Severn and Usk estuaries off Newport the NRA also has sea fisheries responsibilities. The barrage will constitute a major obstruction both to the upstream and downstream passage of migratory fish, including salmon, sea trout, shad, eels and lamprey. Migratory fish, as we have heard, will have to negotiate the barrage itself and also pass through the altered tidal zone downstream and the impounded water upstream.

Although the success of fish passage through these river reaches will be principally determined by the water quality, it is probable that the changes in the flow regimes anticipated as a consequence of the barrage will affect migration rates and have adverse consequences both for fish survival and catchability. The promoters have not as yet provided the NRA with the information on water quality or flow regimes necessary to permit the effect on fish migration to be fully assessed.

As the House has already heard, any fish pass design will require the approval of the Secretary of State. Accordingly the NRA has required the promoters to seek such approval for their proposals which must allow fish migration in both an upstream and a downstream direction. The promoters have not yet produced a fish pass design which satisfies the NRA that salmonids and other species will have unobstructed passage through the barrier. We have heard about some of the possible difficulties.

We have heard too about the hazards to salmon going downstream. We have heard views put forward about the possible fall in different states of the tide. I noted the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. But the promoters have not yet indicated to the NRA exactly how these problems will be solved or provided detailed information on the proposed operating regime for the barrage sluices. Comparatively little is known at present about the estuarine and marine fish species that come into the Usk estuary. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has told us, the NRA has asked the promoters to commission a baseline survey to tell us something about the diversity and significance of these species and to give us other information about the present condition of the fishery. Until the results of the survey are known it is not possible to judge the effects of the barrage on the fish populations or whether such effects can be mitigated.

After all the requirements that I have described so far are met, there will remain an element of uncertainty about the future success of fish migration. Therefore the NRA thinks that it is essential that a comprehensive monitoring system is set in hand to determine, among other things, the effectiveness of the measures that are designed to assist the passage of migratory fish and the extent to which the fisheries are affected. So far the promoters have not satisfied the NRA that a monitoring programme can be developed which has the capability of adequately determining the effect of the barrage on the salmon fishery.

Notwithstanding all these measures, there is a real possibility that at the very least there will be detrimental effects on the fisheries. Therefore, the NRA is very concerned as to how any such effects might be mitigated. Once again, I must tell the House that the promoters have not yet demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NRA that effective mitigation measures can be employed to compensate for any effect of the barrage on fish stocks. In the light of all these concerns, and in view of the authority's statutory responsibility to maintain, improve and develop fisheries, it will be clear that we had no alternative but to petition against the Bill until protection of the Usk fisheries is assured.

I wish to say a few words about conservation. Under the Water Act 1989, the NRA assumed the responsibility to further conservation in the riverine environment. The major conservation impact of the barrage proposals is on fish species and those fish-eating birds and mammals which feed on migratory fish in the upper reaches of the river. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to that. Unless the promoters have fully addressed the fisheries issues that I have already described, clearly the authority cannot be satisfied that the conservation interests in the river upstream have been adequately protected.

A good deal has been said already about water quality. The NRA has the responsibility to maintain and improve the quality of the aquatic environment. The proposed barrage will result in a fundamental change in the existing water quality regime of the estuary, not necessarily for the worst, because there will be gains and losses. In order to ensure that its responsibilities are complied with, the authority has formulated quality standards to ensure that adequate protection is afforded to the water in the estuary downstream of the barrage and the impounded water behind it both for the total exclusion and partial inclusion scenarios that have been referred to. It is true that there are still alternative options which I understand have not yet been decided on.

There are many interacting processes which will affect water quality. Those processes are very complicated. In order to understand and predict what is likely to be the water quality conditions after the barrage is constructed, computer models are being developed by the promoters. Those who have followed the passage of other Bills will know that those computer models and the interpretation of them give plenty of ground for argument and future disagreement. I suspect that we shall have a great many experts pontificating on the subject from both points of view.

I now wish to make a brief comment about the sedimentation model that is required. We must have it to predict both the sedimentation rates and the effect on the water quality. As I have said, that has not been completed. It is absolutely essential that we should have it. The question of dissolved oxygen in the river is of crucial importance for the well-being of fish and their passage through this part of the river. If the barrage is built, the comparatively still water upstream may well experience lower dissolved oxygen levels because of the reduced mixing and increased residence time behind the barrage. Even when the crude sewage inputs are removed, oxygen demands will still be experienced from the remaining treated sewage effluence, the river and the sea water. Additional demands may also arise from time to time from dying algae in the bottom waters of the impoundment and so on. Therefore the NRA will have to be satisfied that the stipulated dissolved oxygen levels will be maintained at all times.

The mathematical model required to describe and predict these water quality conditions is heavily dependent on the inputs from the hydrodynamics and sedimentation models to which I have already referred. The NRA is responsible for giving consent to all discharges of sewage into the estuary and, as the House has already been told, it has insisted that the existing crude sewage discharges above the proposed barrage will have to be removed. The existing treatment of sewage effluent from near Caerteon will continue, but this effluent may require improved treatment. Storm sewage outlets may remain upstream and downstream of the barrage, and so we have to have full hydraulic analysis of the sewage network. Once again I have to say that that work has not yet been presented to the NRA.

That is where we stand. I again confirm that the NRA is not taking up a position against the Bill if its requirements can be met. I repeat my personal sympathy with the objectives in terms of urban social and economic renewal that the promoters have. But it will be clear to noble Lords that the promoters so far have failed to demonstrate on a number of very fundamental issues that the construction of a barrage across the Usk estuary will not adversely affect the statutory responsibilities of the NRA in respect of both the protection of the environment and the uses made of the waters affected by the proposals. For that reason we hope that the committee will pursue very carefully the matters raised in our petition.

9.1 p.m.

Lord Hooson

My Lords, it seems to me to be axiomatic that when promoters seek the approval of Parliament for a Private Bill that is to give them wide statutory powers to achieve certain objectives a very heavy onus lies on the promoters. It seems to me that to describe this Bill as premature is to flatter it. I was absolutely astonished to learn that there has not been a full environmental study of an important scheme of this kind, not only a study of the Usk at Newport and the likely effect of this development, but of the whole of the Usk Valley. Paragraph (a) of the proposed Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, raises a very important question: whether the economic development of Newport and the adjacent areas could be better achieved by other means than building a barrage". This means considering not only the economy of Newport but all the factors with which we are concerned. It seems to me that barrages are an "in" thing. These days everybody who has a river must have a barrage. There are four major rivers running through Brecon and Radnor: the Taf is to have a barrage, a barrage is in the process of being built on the Towy. It seems to be argued that therefore the Usk must have a barrage. Next there will be a scheme for the Wye, the fourth river, to have a barrage. There is a great deal of nonsense in this attraction of barrages to urban developers. Because a river 12 miles away has one, so we must have one.

Some barrages are justified. They may have a very good economic justification. There may be a very good environmental justification for some barrages. There may be a recreational justification in some circumstances. But if promoters come here seeking a barrage, they have to establish a need. What is the need for this barrage? I ask the question rhetorically.

From the way that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, moved the Second Reading of the Bill —he lives in England as far away from Newport as I do in Wales, but like him I know the Usk Valley very well and I know Newport pretty well too—it appears that the main justification for this part of the scheme is entirely cosmetic. No one can doubt the need and the support that should be engendered for the urban regeneration of Newport. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the promoters are in a position to establish that a barrage is needed as part of that. It is an essential part that all the disabilities that might flow from a barrage are to be tolerated because of the benefits it will bring.

As all who pass near the estuary of the River Usk at the time of low tide will know, it has a great deal of mud in it and has very high banks. We have heard that it has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, second only to the St. Lawrence river, I think I heard somebody say. But the Usk has been like that for at least 2,000 years. It seems to be an astonishing proposition that suddenly it must have a barrage and that the economic regeneration of the centre of Newport cannot take place without a barrage. What is the justification for the barrage?

If the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, is passed and the committee comes to consider whether the economic development of Newport and the adjacent areas could be better achieved by means other than building a barrage, a great deal of study will be required.

I now move to paragraph (f) of the Instruction because I am not personally concerned about the other matters. It refers to, the impact of the proposed barrage on the economy of the Usk Valley". I know that the honourable Member for Brecon and Radnor, Mr. Richard Livsey, opposes this Bill because he is concerned about the effect on the economy of the Usk Valley. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who I know has had to leave for another appointment, referred to the doubts the river authorities feel about this project with regard to fishing. I am told that the value of the riparian ownership of the fishing rights in the Usk Valley is about £3.3 million. I am also told that the estimated benefit annually to the economy of the Usk Valley of anglers using local hotels and farmhouses and having local fishermen help them is about £650,000. To an area where employment facilities are very poor, where there is very little other employment and where the rural economy depends very heavily on bed and breakfast and on the tourist industry, the proposed development poses a serious threat. Those who promote a Bill such as this must satisfy the House, Parliament and any committee not that it might be all right but that things will be all right.

For example, it was said that the fish pass was based on a pass put in the River Garonne in France. The Garonne is a completely different river from the Usk. I was surprised to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that members of Newport Borough Council are going to Cwym Rheidol next Tuesday to see the fish pass there. I should have thought that if they were promoting a Bill of this kind they would have seen it at least a year ago so they would know what they were talking about.

Not only is there an effect on the fisheries and on the economy of the Usk Valley but there is also the effect on the environment. There is a great deal of mud in the Usk. What will happen when the barrage is across the Usk and all that mud is held back? The still lake behind the barrage can hardly be used for recreational purposes because the water quality will not be high enough. I understand that those advising the promoters have advised them of that fact. Why will it not be of sufficient quality? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that there is a good deal of pollution in the River Usk. I understand that there are 11 sewer outlets from which untreated sewage passes into the river. Whose fault is that? If it is suggested that the matter of the 11 outfalls will be corrected and the sewage will be treated, nevertheless to pour treated sewage into a still lake is a serious matter. It will have effects on the oxygen content. It will have effects on the standard of the water.

All these factors lead me to believe that this is not only a premature Bill asking for powers which Parliament should not grant on this kind of information and evidence but also that Newport Borough Council has not thought through the need for a barrage. Every support should be given to Newport for its urban regeneration. But from everything I have read so far and heard in the debate today I should have thought that it has fallen lamentably short of making out a case for the barrage.

9.11 p.m.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, time is getting on and I shall try not to detain your Lordships more than is absolutely necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has given us a very clear explanation of the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. I frequently have occasion to travel by train to Newport. The river generally seems to be at low tide when I do so. On each occasion I find the vistas of mud banks extremely depressing. I can understand the wish of Newport Borough Council to tidy up that part of the river. From time to time the town is afflicted with disastrous flooding. One can well understand the wish of the council to alleviate that too and reduce the risk of flooding. At the same time it wants to improve the amenities for its residents.

At first I was inclined to give the Bill my support. I am grateful to Newport Borough Council's advisers for briefing me on the subject. Now, however, it is with great regret that I feel obliged to withdraw my support for the Bill. I have to explain to the House that I am a fisherman myself, though to my regret I have never fished the Usk. Most of my fishing has been on the River Wye and its tributaries. It is often frustrating and rarely successful. Last weekend my wife and I went down to Wales and had the opportunity to talk to some of our neighbours, including the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who fish on both the Wye and the Usk. I find that they all vehemently oppose the Bill and are counting on me and on other noble Lords to speak up for them. It is as a result of my conversation with them that I feel obliged to oppose the Bill.

The success or failure of any barrage depends on whether or not it enables the passage of migratory fish in both directions. The salmon, along with other species, is a migratory fish which starts its life in a river. At a certain age it goes down to the sea, where it puts on growth on rich feeding grounds in the Davis Strait, off the west coast of Greenland. Then, after three or four years, it returns to the river of its birth. How it finds that river has never been satisfactorily explained, but the fact is that by some means or other it is able to do so. It makes its way to the head-waters of that river or to one of the tributaries, where it spawns.

To get past the barrage, the fish has to find and negotiate the fish pass. There is no guarantee that it will do so: it may fail to find it and return to the sea. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has told us that the salmon could be attracted to the fish pass by the trapped water which comes through it. At any rate that is the theory, but it is by no means certain. Assuming that the fish has found and negotiated the fish pass, it will then find itself in the lagoon above the barrage in comparatively still water. I say "comparatively still" because although water will be flowing through the lagoon, it will not be flowing at the same rate as in the undammed river. There is a danger that the fish will become disorientated and will not know which way to go.

The curious thing about the salmon is that once it enters the river from the sea it stops feeding entirely and eats nothing at all for as long as it is in the river, which may be several months. As a result, it loses condition at a steady rate, and in spite of that it finally spawns at some time in November or December in the head waters. The process of spawning is in itself very exhausting and it can leave the fish in a very much weakened condition. It is in that extremely weak condition that it has to make its way back down river to the sea. It will be lucky if it manages to find the fish pass and get through it safely. What is more likely to happen is that the fish will jump over the barrage.

The noble Lord, Lord Moran, has told us that the River Usk has a range between high and low tides of as much as 45 feet —the second highest in the world. If, when the fish jumps over the barrage, the tide is out at that moment the fish will be faced with a fall to the water on the seaward side of anything between 30 and 40 feet and of landing on the seaward side into a depth of water of only four or five feet. There will therefore be a grave danger of the fish, already in a very weak state, being stunned and possibly not surviving.

The whole prospect fills me with alarm. The effect on the upstream fisheries which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has already told us, are a very strong tourist attraction at the moment, could be quite incalculable. The riparian owners are up in arms about it and are strongly opposed to this whole project. Every river is different and the River Usk, like others, is unique. The design of the fish pass is crucial if it is to satisfy the NRA's position.

They have made their position quite clear, and they will not be satisfied with the scheme unless they are satisfied with the design of the fish pass. Whether or not that pass will work no one will know until it is completed, and by that time it will probably be too late to do anything about it. In any case it will cost a lot of money. Therefore I feel that Newport Borough Council has not given sufficient thought to the effects of the scheme on the upstream river. They have concentrated mostly on the effect on Newport itself, and on the possible alleviation of flooding and on improving the amenities for their residents; but they have not given enough thought to the consequences further upstream.

It is not the practice of your Lordships' House to refuse a Second Reading to a Private Bill, and if this Bill gets a Second Reading it will go to a Select Committee. However, I can foresee it having a very rough passage through that Committee, and it may take some weeks. I shall not oppose the Motion for the Second Reading but at the same time, considering the possible effects on the general economy of the Usk river, I do not feel that I can honestly support it.

9.18 p.m.

Lord Mancroft

My Lords, I am not an expert on barrages in general, nor indeed on the River Usk in particular, as other speakers this evening are. However, I have become over the years increasingly worried about our ability in this country to achieve in harmony two very important goals in our national life. The first of them is the goal of development: the development of our towns and cities, of our housing needs our industrial needs and recreational facilities and, with them, the road developments that they entail.

The second aim, which is vital to our way of life, is the preservation of our traditional way of life and the conservation of our beautiful little island. There is increasing pressure throughout the whole country, as the same people who demand more houses, more jobs and more roads also require more green and pleasant land to admire and play in. Those two aims seem incompatible, but the ever-increasing task is to find an acceptable balance. Today, we are faced with another ghastly dilemma: are we to permit a much needed development at the risk of destroying the environmental amenities of the River Usk and at the risk of damaging the salmon irreparably—not to mention the other fish or are we to put a stop to the revitalisation of Newport, prevent the cure of an industrial hangover, and condemn the citizens to continue to live with unemployment and negative growth for ever? The answer, I hope, is neither.

Newport Borough Council has gone a long way, although perhaps not yet all the way, in its attempt fully to investigate the destructive elements of its plans. Of course things will not be as they were before, but that has always been so. Over the centuries, Britain and its peoples have had to adapt to meet changing circumstances: the Norman conquerors would not now recognise the country they invaded almost 1,000 years ago. Although the forests and heathlands of old Britain are long gone, our countryside, changed as it is, is still largely the envy of the world.

I cannot believe that the people of Newport will mourn much the loss of their unsightly mudbanks, themselves caused by the unsightly industrial development of a bygone era. The evidence suggests that the barrage, and all that goes with it, will improve the water quality. Those things are good. The creation of jobs, the building of new houses, the bringing back into use of derelict land, and the reduction of the risk of flooding are also good. However, there is a price to pay. The question that we must ask is whether that price is too high. New roads, including the southern link road, will have to be built, leaving further scars across the land and bringing with them a much heavier weight of traffic.

Areas of wetland are threatened, although at the moment there is a difference of opinion on that issue. Other areas of wetland may eventually be created. Most important of all, there is a danger that the salmon will be unable to adapt to the inevitable changes in the river. That would be a disaster for the salmon and those involved in the salmon fishing industry, principally hoteliers.

I am not yet wholly convinced that the Bill's sponsors have proved their case, but neither have its opponents. The evidence is thin. However, it seems clear that it would be ludicrous were the Bill to fail merely because the fishing lobby and the pro-barrage brigade could find no middle ground. But for that one area, the Bill has struck a good balance—a balance that we should more often seek with such developments. As yet, neither side's argument is lost or won; but on the evidence before us, I believe that we should let the Bill proceed slowly on its way and allow the committee to examine it at greater length than we can tonight.

9.23 p.m.

The Earl of Clanwilliam

My Lords, I must declare an interest in that a member of my family is involved with Newport Borough Council and the promotion of the Bill. I have another interest in that I have friends who live and fish on the Usk. Whether I shall be friends after I have finished my speech is a matter for speculation. However, I have faith in their Christian charity.

Noble Lords on all sides of the House have raised serious objections to the Bill and criticised Newport Borough Council. It is only fair to say of Newport Borough Council that it retained for a considerable time the best hydrological, fishery and accountancy advice available. It has come forward with the Bill having considered the matter to the best of its ability. The fact that the Bill is not acceptable to your Lordships now does not mean that it could not be reformed in Committee in due course. I hope that it will be.

As my noble friend Lord Mancroft has just said, there are two problems. There is the problem of the local environment and that of the fishing lobby. It would be a great pity if they were to clash irrevocably. I fully understand that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has a duty and responsibility laid upon him by the National Rivers Authority. He is perfectly right to impose the most stringent rules to ensure that he carries out his responsibilities and duties in the proper manner. This also applies to the noble Lord, Lord Moran.

The Bill was ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. First, a number of local needs should be dealt with and they have been clearly rehearsed. There is the problem of sewage treatment and increased employment in an area where mining has left a pool of unemployment. There is a need for flood mitigation which has been clearly covered and for general industrial regeneration in Newport. The barrage requires an enhanced environment which will overcome the legacy of industrial waste that makes up the noxious mud banks of the lower river.

The council has taken great trouble to obtain professional advice on all aspects of the Bill and the advice is that the barrier will create a clean, freshwater flowing lake, not one that will be still. It will not suffer from algal infection and that is clearly stated in the advice that the council has been given.

The investment in the development park will largely pay for the treated sewage and provide much needed employment. The environment will obviously be enhanced by the permanent lake. At the moment, raw sewage is evacuated through the river at high speed on the ebb and is returned with equal velocity on the flood. It creates a terrible environment in which the people of Newport live.

It is at this point that the second problem occurs in the shape of the fishing interest. As my noble friend Lord Swansea said, from January to October the salmon which are the main interest of the objectors, return to spawn following the freshwater scent of their birthplace. That they survive the present effluent is a striking demonstration of their native sense and an argument that they will not be deterred, while there is a flow of fresh water, from returning to the source of the river.

The council, I am sure, are much interested in preserving the valuable game fishing interests, an activity that brings large sums to the riparian owners of the river and to the hotel and tourist trade in the area. It is not in the interests of the council or of Gwent, which equally supports the Bill, to damage the industry in any way. They are at great pains to provide evidence and justification of the claims of their advisers. At the moment they have not been able to persuade noble Lords or the NRA of the force of their arguments. Objections refer to the lower oxygenation of the water through a slower flow rate in the lake, it is not a still lake. There is objection to the effect of the barrier as a blocking agent. There is a remarkable description of the hydraulic lift by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which is 25 metres by 10. It will be in permanent operation and will overcome the problem of the 45 foot range. The fish will not be required to climb 45 feet at any time, nor will they be required to drop 30 feet as was suggested. The maximum drop, I believe, will be 10 feet or 2 metres.

Salinity is another hydrological problem but it is being covered by the experts. There is the possibility of siltage with gravel at the top of the lake. I agree that that has not been fully covered but I hope it will be dealt with in the course of the Committee stage.

I ask that the submissions should be heard by the Committee, which the professionals have had some difficulty in providing, in view of the two-year drought in the river which has also seriously affected the fishing quality. That matter should be raised in Committee. I hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading.

9.30 p.m.

Viscount De L'Isle

My Lords, I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government and to the Opposition for allowing me to make a brief speech towards the end of the debate. I must immediately declare an interest in that I am married to a riparian owner. My marriage brought me to Wales for the first time 25 years ago. Before that time I had never visited the Principality. Over 25 years I have learnt to love the incomparable Usk Valley, with its fast flowing stream where salmon have run over millions of years.

Any fast flowing salmon river brings delight not only to fishermen but also to nature lovers and countrymen, for all delight in living waters that are pure enough to allow the annual passage, both up and down river, of that wonderful and beautiful migrant fish. Newport Borough Council proposes a barrage scheme. The purpose of the scheme is not to prevent the occasional flood nuisance. Its principal purpose is cosmetic. I have read the petition of the National Rivers Authority and I listened with great interest and respect to the speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell.

Were the Bill to pass into law, it would be too late even to palliate this cruel interference with nature. It is most unlikely, as the NRA petition strongly implies, that investigations, experiments, models and other devices will function to perfection, as all those devices are untried and experimental by admission.

This morning's post brought me a letter from the mayor of Newport. He enclosed a report on the scheme from the borough's point of view. The report expresses great confidence in the scheme. One almost wonders why His Worship the Mayor does not predict great improvements in River Usk salmon stocks. The final paragraph of that report explains more graphically than any other publication what may be expected from the scheme when it states: It is not envisaged that the water quality in the Usk would be worse than many other inland waters where water-based recreation takes place. However, it is considered to be sensible not to expose swimmers to the risk of ill-health. Nevertheless, non-contact water recreations, such as rowing etc. is considered to be an acceptable risk". I hardly think that is a great recommendation as regards salmon.

Recently the NRA has been entrusted by Her Majesty's Government with the responsibility of securing the purity of rivers and the good quality of fishing. The NRA is charged with responsibility for all other aspects of riverine life. I hope that Parliament, and least of all this Chamber, will not add, through its own motion, to that melancholy list of rivers in England and Wales which were once noble salmon rivers but no longer are.

I cannot oppose the Bill on Second Reading, but I am not persuaded that the reasons for the barrage scheme are in any way connected with the preservation of this great natural resource. Shortly after the Second World War, Alexander Cordell wrote a book entitled The Rape of a Fair Country. It called attention to the unhappy industrialisation of so much of the beautiful countryside of South Wales in the 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that this House, and Parliament in general, will not earn itself the title of the rapist of a fair river.

9.34 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I am very conscious that although I speak from this Dispatch Box this evening I do not voice an official Opposition view of the merits or demerits of the Bill. I speak in a personal capacity and I do not seek to reflect the views of the Labour opposition.

This has been a fascinating debate. The House is divided on the issue. My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon has put forward a Bill as part of a development scheme which is jointly promoted by the two elected authorities which are, at the end of the day, accountable to the people of Newport and Gwent. The twin objectives of the Bill are the environmental and industrial regeneration of a substantial part of the borough of Newport.

Other Members of your Lordships' House have drawn attention to worrying features of the scheme as it stands. They fear that the problems, unless they are resolved, could affect the length of the River Usk and the Usk Valley. So on the one hand we have the voices of the civic leaders of Newport and Gwent, and on the other hand we have the voices of those who are genuinely concerned about the environment. For once the debate is in no way a political debate. The critical question is whether the objectives of the promoters of the scheme and of the objectors can be reconciled.

In fairness to the civic leaders of Newport Borough Council and the Gwent County Council it should be made clear that this is not the first time the council has considered constructing a barrage across the River Usk. That has been a dream of the councillors for some decades. It is not a case of keeping up with Cardiff or Swansea; this is an old dream of the leaders of the council.

I want to thank my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon—whose roots are in the Rhondda valley, and hence his interest in the future of Newport—for presenting the Bill in such a fair manner. He outlined clearly the policy behind the Bill and its main provisions. As I understand it the construction of the barrage across the River Usk at Spittles Point, in combination with the regeneration of the dockland, is seen by the promoters of the Bill as central to the development of Newport. We have heard that it is estimated that the scheme will generate over 2,000 new full-time jobs in Newport by the end of the century. That is a conservative estimate and the figure may be very much higher.

The barrage will help primarily because the mud bank will be permanently submerged under the surface of the impounded waters. It is said that that will create an environment which is attractive to modern industry. We have heard that argument canvassed in this Chamber before. It was canvassed when the Cardiff barrage scheme was before the House. It was canvassed when the Laganside development in Belfast was before the House. That is the vision, and it is supported by district councils in Gwent.

I acknowledge that there are reservations. They have been voiced in the Chamber tonight. Twenty-two or 23 petitions have been lodged against the Bill, and I have read them. The petitions take us on a tour of the river Usk and the Usk Valley, from its upper regions and the steep hills of Brecon, along the lowlands, past Rose Cottage in Newbridge on Usk, until eventually the river reaches St. George's Channel where, as we have been told, it has the second largest tidal rise and fall in the world. The Bill could affect a not insignificant part of the heritage of South East Wales. That matters a lot. It matters to the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I see that it matters to Elaine Williams of Rose Cottage, Newbridge on Usk, who has filed a petition in moving terms in her capacity (as she sees it) as "guardian to the river and the wildlife it supports, protecting it for future generations". There is also the substantial petition of the NRA about which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has spoken with great authority.

It seems to me there are at least three main anxieties which are pretty widely held. First, there is special difficulty over the design of the fish pass. Will it enable the Atlantic salmon, the sea trout and other migratory fish to travel upstream from and downstream to the sea? Secondly, there is a great deal of anxiety about the quality of the impounded waters. That could affect migratory fish as well as human health. Thirdly, there is anxiety about the long-term effect on the character and ecology of the river and the balance of the wild food chain given our inadequate state of knowledge about the river. Fourthly, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, has very convincingly developed the point that it could adversely affect the economy of the Usk Valley, not merely to the extent that it depends on salmon and trout fishery.

Some petitioners feel that the barrage will increase the risk of flooding, but my noble friend Lord Stoddart has explained to the House that the joint promoters believe the barrage will reduce that risk. I notice that other petitioners are not opposed to the concept of the barrage as such but are seeking conditions or powers to be incorporated in the Bill to meet their special needs.

I have touched lightly on the salient features. My noble friend Lord Stoddart has indicated that the joint promoters are conscious of the worries that have been voiced, as indeed is acknowledged in at least two of the petitions. My noble friend has also indicated that the joint promoters are very anxious to work in partnership with the objectors to meet their anxieties.

Referring briefly to the Instruction which has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, it seems to me that the six points raise very relevant considerations, and it is proper that the instruction should go to the Select Committee so it will have an opportunity of examining all relevant issues.

It is my hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and committed to a Select Committee where it can be subjected to detailed, careful examination. It will then be for the Select Committee to advise the House whether in its view the Bill is premature.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I should like to state briefly the Government's views on the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It is traditional with Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, acknowledged. This Bill is no exception to that tradition. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to the powers being sought by Newport Borough Council. However, it is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they seek are justified.

I am aware of the concern about the possible environmental effects of the proposed barrage, particularly on migratory fish. Indeed, I could hardly fail to be aware after listening to the debate this evening; in particular the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and the noble and gallant Viscount.

As we have heard, there are 22 petitions against the Bill in your Lordships' House and the petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee. It is up to the committee to examine in detail the issues involved. So far as concerns the instruction which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will seek to send to the committee, the Government see no difficulty with it and would not wish to stand in your Lordships' way in this matter. I hope that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way to a Select Committee for detailed consideration.

Viscount De L'Isle

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him in regard to the National Rivers Authority, which was so recently instituted, whether the present Government in due course will declare whether or not they support the stance of that authority.

Lord Reay

My Lords, at this stage the Government must remain neutral even though the National Rivers Authority is a government agency. The next stage is to wait to see whether an agreement on some or all of the points in the National Rivers Authority's petition is reached with the promoters.

9.48 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, whether speaking in favour of the Bill or voicing their concern about it. I am even grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who believed that to describe the Bill as premature was to flatter it.

It has been a good debate and the contributions that have been made will be invaluable to the voters and, indeed, to the Select Committee which will consider the Bill in detail. Quite clearly at this hour of the evening I cannot deal with all the relevant points which were raised. I should however like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for his intervention. I also thank him for his forthright criticism which was delivered with his usual courtesy. He raised many points of interest which were repeated by other Members of your Lordships' House.

I must tell him that there is no intention on the part of the promoters to override anything that the NRA has to say. Indeed, they are listening, have listened and will continue to listen to the NRA with the utmost respect. They value the advice that they can obtain from the NRA and hope that agreement can be reached. I also assure the noble Lord that the promoters of the Bill—the Newport Borough Council and the Gwent County Council—are just as concerned as he, and indeed everybody, about the fishing. I can assure him that there is no intention to wipe out the fishing. The promotors, particularly Newport Borough Council, do not think that the benefits to Newport are speculative. They sincerely believe that the benefits will be real and essential to Newport's future.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moran, for putting down his Instruction. It is most useful to the House. I believe that it will be most useful also to the committee. We should like to accept it; we shall certainly support it.

I must answer a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. He referred to the fact that there had been no proper environmental assessment. Perhaps I may explain to him that the Newport Borough Council decided to appoint environmental consultants in 1988 to prepare an environmental assessment in accordance with European and UK Government guidelines. That was due to have been completed prior to the depositing of the Bill. However, unfortunately it has been delayed due to the drought conditions. It is expected to be completed within the next three weeks. I am sure that we shall be interested to hear what it says.

The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, again was most helpful. I am grateful to him for understanding the desires of Newport and Gwent to improve the area. Of course the promoters recognise that the NRA has a statutory duty to ensure that the matters he raised are dealt with and the objections are met. I can assure him that the promoters will continue to discuss everything in detail with the National Rivers Authority and try to reach agreement on all points that he raised.

Perhaps I may quote from the debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill because I consider it relevant. I was struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. In particular I was impressed by one part of it which was so good that it is worth repeating. I should like to quote from it with the leave of the House. At col. 810 of the Official Report of 23rd February 1989 he said: We live in a complex world. There are seldom straightforward answers to man's problems. It is Parliament's job to weigh carefully all the competing considerations and to provide protection so far as is possible against the adverse consequences of any proposed action. But Parliament must also try to identify the greatest good and the wider benefits both for man and for the environment in which he lives. We all want to make a contribution of that kind". I cannot say better than that. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

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

Lord Moran rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that it pay particular attention—

(a) to whether the economic development of Newport and the adjacent areas could be better achieved by other means than building a barrage; (b) to the prospects of such development in the light of the proposed Cardiff Bay development which may be competing in trying to attract investors; (c) to the effect of the Bill on the community charge in Gwent and Newport; (d) in considering questions of water quality, to the draft EC Municipal Waste Water Treatment Directive (COM (89) 518 final); (e) to the need for a road crossing over the barrage in the light of the possible extension to the south of Newport of the proposed second crossing over the River Severn; and (f) to the impact of the proposed barrage on the economy of the Usk Valley.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Instruction standing in my name on the Order Paper to which I have already spoken.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.