| Previous Section | Home Page |
Moss, Malcolm
Murphy, Paul
Needham, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Norris, Steve
Oppenheim, Phillip
Paice, James
Patnick, Irvine
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James
Porter, David (Waveney)
Portillo, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Price, Sir David
Riddick, Graham
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Ryder, Richard
Sackville, Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Sheerman, Barry
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Skeet, Sir Trevor
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Speller, Tony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Squire, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor
Stern, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Sumberg, David
Summerson, Hugo
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Trimble, David
Trippier, David
Twinn, Dr Ian
Waddington, Rt Hon David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wallace, James
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
Wheeler, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann
Winterton, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy
Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Ayes :
Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
and
Mr. Jack Aspinwall.
NOES
Column 1308
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)Callaghan, Jim
Cryer, Bob
Dicks, Terry
Eastham, Ken
Illsley, Eric
Morgan, Rhodri
Parry, Robert
Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Tellers for the Noes :
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and
Mr. Ron Davies.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Promoters of the Heathrow Express Railway Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session ;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time ; That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session ; That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted ;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Column 1309
Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [ Lords ]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [ Lords ] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session ;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended in the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table ; That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
9.28 pm
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : I shall be brief in asking the House to agree to the carry-over motion, but, with the leave of the House, I shall be happy to respond to points made in the debate if that is helpful.
Mine is a simple plea : do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, for a better environment and for homes and jobs by voting against a motion that simply allows for full debate in the new Session. I hope that even opponents of the Bill will support the carry-over motion and welcome, as I do, the prospect of proper and full debate on Report.
I have been asking myself whether there are any reasons of any weight for refusing a carry-over. Frankly, there are not. There are, of course, important issues for us to debate on Report, and I shall refer briefly to two. First, there has been a great deal of argument about groundwater. There has also been a great deal of avoidable confusion and some disinformation, but groundwater is undoubtedly a matter of concern. I took the matter seriously from the beginning. When I found that the arguments were becoming technical and esoteric, I demanded the right to appoint my own independent expert to review all the evidence progressively, in order not to have to choose between the corporate view of the development corporation and its advisers on the one hand and the committed opponents of the Bill on the other. These matters will be debated further on Report, but let me give a succinct summary of the position today.
I remind hon. Members that impoundment is not to a level greater than the current position. The level of impounded water will be between the present high water level and the present low water level. I would certainly not support the building of the barrage if the evidence suggested that my constituents were under serious threat. If serious doubts about safety were to arise now or in the future, I should cease to support the Bill--so would South
Column 1310
Glamorgan county council, Cardiff city council and others involved in the promotion of the Bill. But that is certainly not the case to date.There is a continuing debate about detail, but that must not be allowed to obscure the fact that all available evidence continues to provide a reassurance that the original conclusions remain valid, that, combined with generous safety margins, they provide the basis for confidence in the future and that the selection of plus-4 to 4.5 m ordnance datum for the impounded level is reasonable and sensible. Details will rightly be the subject of debate on Report and of public debate when the additional studies are completed, but there are no grounds for general doubt which would justify refusing further consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : Is my hon. Friend saying that at this stage, in discussing safety, he takes no account of the urban swamp hypothesis which was put forward by Dr. John Miles in Committee and which it appears the Select Committee accepted?
Mr. Michael : I am aware of the evidence provided by Dr. John Miles and others and I have taken account of it. The conclusions which have been reached and which are supported by the evidence to date and the generous safety margins provide the basis for confidence in the future. The selection of plus-4 m to 4.5 m OD for the impounded level is reasonable and sensible. I have taken account of the evidence given to the Committee. I have taken independent advice and I state that with confidence. Were the position to change, it would be a different matter, but that is the position now.
The second major issue that has been debated, and which is of considerable interest to some of my colleagues, is wildlife. I can understand their concern, taken in the context of a general threat to estuaries, but, as I have pointed out frequently to colleagues and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, they are attacking the wrong case in opposing developments in Cardiff, because here their case is weak. However, that, too, can be debated on Report. We can also talk then about the artificial lagoon which is a major and significant attempt to reconcile development with conservation--indeed, it is a landmark in attempting to do so.
Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : My hon. Friend said that the case of those who are concerned about conservation is weak. Surely he has read the examination in the Committee of the witnesses brought by the promoters of the Bill and the petitioners against it. There was general agreement that there would be considerable destruction of wildlife in the bay area and that we would be in breach of our obligations to protect a site of special scientific interest which is protected under the Ramsar convention and which is entitled to protection under the European directive on wild birds. There was consensus in the Committee. How can my hon. Friend say that the case is weak?
Mr. Michael : I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in these matters but, with respect, I think that he stretches the evidence given in Committee and the strength of the case made by the RSPB and those interested in wildlife. A number of issues need to be discussed, but, as I was about to say, I maintain that there are significant positive aspects in the attempts that are being made to reconcile
Column 1311
development and conservation and that the barrage will bring positive effects in encouraging wildlife and a living environment in Cardiff bay. It will be appropriate for us to discuss those aspects on Report and when we have the conclusions of the Select Committee before us. Those two questions have been debated in the past, and I submit that in no sense are they matters on which to base opposition to the carry- over motion, which is the only motion before the House tonight.The Bill's opponents have advanced further arguments. They say that they do not like the private Bill procedure. I agree. It is an antiquated procedure which requires amendment. The procedure has been diabolically unfair to the promoters, to me and to my constituents, so I share the concern about it.
People have said that they do not like development corporations. By and large, I agree with them, but in this case the development corporation is working in partnership with local elected representatives.
Other issues, such as the removal of the tip in my constituency, have been brought into the debate and a proposal to provide two new schools for the most deprived area in Cardiff even came under threat recently. I submit, however, that none of these matters provides any ground whatever for the refusal of the carry-over motion. The supporters of the Bill are also involved with a number of other important issues, such as how to preserve existing jobs, how to bring good-quality new jobs to the area, how to provide affordable housing and housing for rent and how to balance the existing communities with the new communities that are to be created.
I remind the House that the whole development area is in my constituency and that, while groundwater may affect constituencies other than mine and new jobs will help other constituencies, most of the matters that I have listed affect my constituency and my constituency alone. However, for the purposes of tonight's debate, the important thing to remember is that they are not relevant to the Bill. Even if one has persuaded oneself that they are relevant to the Bill, one must nevertheless accept that they do not represent the slightest ground for rejecting the carry-over motion. I hope that even the Bill's opponents will accept that and will not indulge in spoiling tactics.
So far I have concentrated on the defensive arguments but there are many positive arguments in favour of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Mr. Jones) and I have sought to provide as much information as possible to hon. Members about the Bill's positive benefits, and I shall not take the time of the House by expanding on that information. The arguments against it can be fully explored on Report and we should set aside those issues which do not, in any way, justify a refusal of the carry-over motion. The positive arguments are far more important. The Bill will make possible the creation of a quality waterside environment. That potential has been proved by the development that has already taken place at Bute east dock, where we see fishermen and cormorants and where there is Dragon boat racing at the weekend. Local people make use of the place. They talk there and enjoy the environment. The same water quality will pertain in Cardiff bay once we have impoundment.
I was involved in the economic development of Cardiff for 16 years as a councillor before I came to this place. I
Column 1312
was involved in the redevelopment of the central area of Cardiff, which is now acknowledged throughout the world to have been a success. I have been involved in trying to help small firms and businesses. The present development of south Cardiff and the bay area--the fact that people are coming into that area--is built on faith in the Bill's success and on the record of success that we have achieved in recent years.This is my first opportunity to place a certain matter on record, albeit that it involves a slight diversion from the motion. In the latter part of the Committee stage, we heard comments about the Labour councillors who supported the development of south Cardiff and the barrage and, in particular, the three who were elected by ballot of their peers to be members of the Cardiff Bay development corporation board. I refer to the leader of South Glamorgan county council, Councillor Lord Brooks, to Councillor Paddy Kitson, who represents the most deprived area of the city, and to the late Councillor John Reynolds, the then leader of Cardiff city council. Between them, they provided more than 100 years' service to the city and the Labour movement of the area. I am sure that the remarks about a master-servant relationship to the board came from ignorance rather than malice, but it is sad that those remarks were made when Councillor John Reynolds had unfortunately passed away.
John Reynolds was a kind and gentle man ; a lion in defence of the defenceless and when fighting for the future of the city that he loved and in the service of which he destroyed his own health. He had the toughness of a true friend, the courage to withstand and forgive the pettiness of others and, above all, an absolute integrity which made him a giant in the Labour movement of Cardiff in a way in which the author of the minority report clearly did not understand or appreciate. I ask the House to understand the way in which the Bill was supported by John Reynolds and the others who represent their fellow councillors on the board and the fact that the Bill has not commanded uncritical support from the late Councillor John Reynolds, myself, or the councillors of the city and county who represent the area. It has commanded the critical, careful and genuine support of elected representatives who are determined to do their best to achieve a real future for their constituents.
Therefore, I return to my basic and simple plea to the House--do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, a better environment, for homes and for jobs by voting down the Bill on a motion which, I remind the House, simply allows the Bill to be carried forward for a full debate on Report in the new Session when any hon. Member can have an opportunity fully to discuss the issues raised in this important Bill.
9.41 pm
| Next Section
| Home Page |