| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Griffiths : My hon. Friend wants to put up the best case that he can for the barrage and the lake, but, as I understand it, the water behind the barrage will be completely different in nature from that which is now held in the docks. The building of the barrage will change the whole water regime in the Cardiff bay area. That is why there is such a big difference and one cannot compare what happens in Cardiff docks at present with the state of play that will pertain after the barrage is built. I find it most disturbing that, on the issue of bay water quality, the promoters did not see fit to get the National Rivers Authority to make a positive statement about the safety of the water and the freedom from pollution and other possible dangers that could be attendant on the management of the water behind the barrage.
My other major concern about the management of the quality of the water behind the barrage would not arise so much at times of low water. One can have water oxygenation equipment and we know that, in many parts of the world, it represents an extremely successful way of
Column 1341
keeping the water healthy for the forms of life to be found in it. But I foresee a major difficulty arising at times when the river Taff is in spate. It is all very well to talk about the diversion of 14 main sewers but that is nothing like the number of sewers that pour into the Taff and Ely rivers at times of severe flooding, which happens very frequently in Wales during the winter months. We are famous for our rainfall. The rivers Taff and Ely readily flood, and the fact that the bay water quality leaflet makes no real mention of how to deal with water quality problems when the rivers are in flood is a major obstacle to our accepting the carry-over motion. There is one further reason why I remain firmly convinced that we should not accept the carry-over motion--it has to do with the groundwater issue. The Minister referred to that and said that amendments had been made in Committee. He explained that further studies would be made in the light of which the Welsh Office would make a decision. Unfortunately, the end result of those studies could still be controversy. I do not think that it would be fair to place such a burden of responsibility on any Minister at the Welsh Office, especially given the high degree of commitment that the Welsh Office has to the barrage and to the present proposals for the development of Cardiff bay.If we consider the groundwater issue, as outlined in this leaflet, which is designed to convince us that the correct thing to do would be to go along with the carry-over motion, we learn :
"The water impounded by the Barrage will raise the groundwater level in south and central Cardiff, which the Promoters have always recognised could affect some basements."
As I understand it, it took a lot of persuasion to get them to that position. Nevertheless, finally and because of the weight of the argument, they were persuaded to take account of this issue. In the beginning, however, the promoters tended to dismiss such arguments and only after seeing the weight of the evidence did they begin to accept that they would have to do something about the matter. The leaflet also states :
"Independent experts commissioned by the Promoters say that this will not cause structural damage"--
hooray--
"cellars may become damp or at worst wet--but groundwater experts say that most properties will be unaffected."
There is a nice diagram to illustrate that point, but it does not convince me.
We are then told :
"Under the Bill there will be a comprehensive protection system for residents. The Bay management must survey properties within an agreed Protected Property Line' and undertake remedial action at no cost to occupiers. The protection will last for 20 years from the time of remedial work. The Development Corporation will initiate the general surveys and there will be a detailed code of practice to safeguard householders' rights.
Surveys will be undertaken over a wide area and will ensure that no property is without protection. It is estimated that only about 1,600 properties may require work and residents will have free access to an independent Complaints Administrator.
Residents outside the Protected Property Line' will also be fully safeguarded by the provisions of the Bill."
But why are they not dealt with in the same way as those within the protected property line?
We are then told--this might be looked on as a comfort to sustain the argument for the carry-over--that
Column 1342
"More computer modelling work on groundwater aspects is already underway to cover points of concern in the Petitioners' evidence. This will be reported to the Secretary of State and will be taken into account in his decision."Yes, but that is the crux of the whole way in which the Cardiff bay barrage and the Bill intended to enable it to go ahead have been examined. We are running before we can walk. We are putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Flynn : My hon. Friend must accept that the last time we discussed this matter he was one of the few who showed a detailed knowledge of the environmental reports that had been made. My hon. Friend is not doing himself justice tonight by quoting a weak summary of the argument when he knows that a great deal of respectable scientific work has been carried out. The collection of headings and generalisations to which he refers are untrue.
Mr. Griffiths : I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we do not want to detain the House--
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : What I am conscious of is that we are dealing with a carry-over motion to which I hope the hon. Gentleman will refer from time to time and that he will not get carried away with the general argument.
Mr. Griffiths : I have been trying to keep that at the forefront of my mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, all evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker : You could have fooled me.
Mr. Griffiths : The trouble is that interventions often cause me to go down the wrong track.
If I can be allowed to carry on with what I want to say, my answer to the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Flynn) is that I do not dispute the fact that a number of studies have been carried out--some are still being carried out--on the groundwater aspects of the building of the Cardiff bay barrage. I contend that it is inappropriate for us to be discussing the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and the carry-over motion that will enable the Bill to continue on its course through the House while the studies are incomplete.
The most important point of all is that the people who could be affected by the rising groundwater should know the results of all the surveys before we give the Bill further consideration. We can have differences of opinion about the importance or otherwise of the sites of special scientific interest, but we cannot have a difference of opinion about the fact that the barrage should not go ahead until all the studies are completed and available for our inspection. We should not allow the studies to go on and then let the Welsh Office decide once they are completed. That would place the Welsh Office in an invidious position. It has already made it clear this evening that it fully supports the barrage. If there is still contention about the effects of the groundwater after the studies are completed, it would be wrong to let the Welsh Office decide. That is why I hope that the House will reject the carry-over motion.
12.6 am
Mr. Gwilym Jones (Cardiff, North) : As you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) went into detailed arguments about different parts of the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), he discussed the economic case. Indeed, the hon. Member for
Column 1343
Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney concentrated upon it entirely. I believe that both hon. Gentlemen made the case for the motion.Within the narrow confines of what we can properly debate on this motion we cannot resolve these detailed economic matters or some of the other points that have been mentioned. The logical outcome of passing the motion would be to allow the Bill to go forward to Report stage, when all these points can be properly dealt with, all the detail can be examined and, I hope, when all hon. Members can be satisfied, at least as far as that is possible. These matters should be discussed on Report, not in a debate on this motion.
I shall try to remain within the limits of the motion and not be called to order. I want to respond briefly to the lengthy contribution made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). I shall not discuss the minor part of his speech dealing with the environment, because I have a healthy appreciation of his concern for environmental matters ; but the major part of his speech was about the backing for the Bill. He went so far as to misrepresent the fact that seldom has there been a Bill that enjoys such overwhelming support in South Glamorgan.
Four of the five Members who represent South Glamorgan strongly support the barrage Bill. Many councillors in the Cardiff city, South Glamorgan and Vale of Glamorgan councils support the Bill. More than 80 per cent. of councillors in the area support it--a good demonstration of the support among the tiers of elected representatives in the area.
Support for the Bill is not confined to one political party. The Labour party controls South Glamorgan council, the Conservatives control the Vale of Glamorgan council and Cardiff city council is a hung council. Both major parties in Cardiff strongly support the Bill.
Mr. Morgan : I think that the hon. Gentleman may be misleading the House. If he means that Labour councillors support the project he may well be right, but he is not right if he means that the Labour party supports the project. Four of the five general management committees of the Labour party are against the barrage. [Interruption.] I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is sitting behind me, is trying to say. In the last 12 months those general management committees in South Glamorgan have voted against the barrage by majorities of 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1.
Mr. Jones : I hope that I am not misleading the House. I cannot speak well about Labour party management committees, but the sotto voce comment from behind the hon. Gentleman suggested that he might well have been misleading the House. In every respect it must be true to say that all elected representatives from the major parties are in favour. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) would like to contribute to the debate because I understand that the minor party, the Liberal party, on Cardiff city council and in South Glamorgan is very much in favour of the Bill. I urge the House to support the motion.
I appreciate the built-in frustration of debating a private Bill. That has been well covered. However, for the moment it is the only way for us to consider the matter and it has resulted in long and exhaustive consideration. In its
Column 1344
way such a Bill is no different from other Bills. Earlier, we debated the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and a great raft of mainly Government amendments went through in a short time. It is naive for anyone to expect a Bill to emerge unchanged at the end of the parliamentary process. Such a Bill would be a minor one. Bills are made better by amendments. Mr. Win Griffiths : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?Mr. Jones : I hope to be brief but I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Griffiths : I would not expect the Bill to remain unamended. One of my major points was that such a contentious issue as groundwater should be settled before the Bill is debated. That is my objection to the motion.
Mr. Jones : How can we make progress without accepting the motion? The matters that worry the hon. Gentleman can be moved forward and debated at another stage.
The Bill has been improved by the consideration that it has already had. The fact that we are discussing an exceptional measure fully justifies the basic principle of a carry-over motion. The Bill is exceptional because of what it will achieve. It will lead to the redevelopment of south Cardiff and new jobs and homes and will be a tremendous boost to our economy and to the capital city of Wales. Of course, that is already happening, because Cardiff is talked about far and wide. However, the benefits from the Bill will extend to a wider area. It would be a tragedy if the motion were defeated and the Bill were lost.
There has already been a substantial investment in the Bill of time, money and activity. Many people, such as hon. Members, the two councils, the development corporation and others have made that investment. It has not been mentioned so I shall put on record our thanks to the four members of the Select Committee who spent 26 or 27 painstaking days going through the Bill. They were my hon. Friends the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks), and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). We owe all of them a debt of gratitude.
That Committee was quite innovative. I think that it was the first time that a Committee has taken evidence outside the House on the matter. Certainly, it must have been the first time that a Committee took evidence in song on it. It would be a tragedy if all that hard work and exceptional consideration were lost. Not least, it would be tragic in view of all that has been done to resolve the reasonable doubts in south Wales. Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) my impression of south Wales is that opposition to the Bill is fast receding. From what I read of the front-page headlines in South Gamorgan, opposition in the Labour party there is receding. The greatest attempts are being made to resolve all the legitimate concerns. All along, those who have wanted to promote this scheme have appreciated the concerns, and all involved have been doing all that they can to help those who are worried that they might be disadvantaged by what happens if the Bill is passed.
I noticed recently that the city council gave money to the Cardiff flood action committee, not because it agreed with the position that the committee had taken but in the
Column 1345
spirit of trying to help those who are worried by the Bill. That same spirit has been shown by everyone, particularly the officials of the two councils and the development corporation.If we were to carry on with the detailed arguments, we should not achieve the real purpose of the motion. The only way to resolve the detailed arguments is to agree to the motion so that we can have further debates. Not to resolve it in that way would be the greatest tragedy for south Wales.
12.17 am
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : I wholeheartedly agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and others about the sad passing away of Councillor John Reynolds, who was the Labour leader on Cardiff city council and who served as a member of the board of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The very first job that I ever had was as a tutor-organiser with the south Wales district of the Workers Educational Association. I was told that my job was to go out and find more John Reynolds. He had been a booking clerk, and he went on to make a major contribution first to education and then to the public service, serving on the city council for several decades. For the two years that I was with the WEA, I tried to find more such people, before handing my job on to others who are far better known in public life and politics.
I ask the House to sink this barrage before it sinks half my consituency.
Mr. Flynn : That is a wild exaggeration.
Mr. Morgan : I feared that there might be a sedentary comment from the back row in response to that, although I am not sure what the definition of wild exaggeration might be. Anybody who thinks that that is a wild exaggeration should turn to the evidence presented to the Select Committee on this point. Earlier, we had the presence of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), but there are no members of the Committee present now, so I had better read the evidence of a witness expert in groundwater computer modelling, which is a way to predict what would happen after a barrage was built. This is relevant to whether we should agree to the carry-over motion.
The House will have to allow for the elision in the banter between the witness and the Chairman in these questions and answers. The Chairman asked :
"Thousands of people will suffer from groundwater problems if the model is wrong?"
Dr. Miles, the witness, said :
"Yes, and rather than enhancing Cardiff, it would turn it into a laughing stock ; this is the city that turned itself into a swamp--how would that look in the papers?"
Later, the Chairman asked :
" Urban swamp' was your own phrase. I tried to rhyme Miles' with urban swamp' "--
this is the banter--
"and I failed to come up with something, I must confess!" Dr. Miles, having done the donkey work necessary to make an accurate prediction, within the best parameters, using the best technology in computer modelling and accurate field work when collecting the data that goes into the computer model, predicted that the barrage would
Column 1346
present a serious danger of turning the low -lying areas of Cardiff into an urban swamp. That is the risk that I am being asked to take on behalf of my constituents.I take the matter seriously because we are being asked to pass a carry-over motion even though the studies are not yet complete. It is obvious from the debate that this is a unique motion. We are being asked to approve, on behalf of our constituents, a pig-in-a-poke. The technical studies were demanded by a majority of the Select Committee. One member wanted to throw it out, but the other three agreed that, procedurally, the Bill should come this far, even though they did not think that it was proper for the barrage to be built. From what the Minister said earlier, we will not know the results of the studies for another 18 months. We are being asked to continue the life of the Bill even though that is irrelevant because the actual decision will be made not by Parliament, with most unusually restricted rights for petitioners and objectors, but by the Secretary of State for Wales after he has had written representations and has consulted his new expert from the centre for irrigation studies at Southampton university.
As far as I am aware, never before have we been asked to approve a Bill that is subject to the Secretary of State having the last word. It is like the Select Committee saying that it did not really think it safe to proceed with the barrage, but it did not want to kill the Bill. We are being told, "Bear with us, take it all on trust and the Secretary of State will play a fair-minded, neutral, quasi-judicial planning role when he makes up his mind in 18 months."
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is my hon. Friend aware that next year could be election year? If so, the carry-over motion means that we will be discussing the Bill in election year. What happens in an election year? The Government start Bills but do not finish them. The Prime Minister will be deciding the date of the election, she will be looking for that window of opportunity, she will be fiddling every set of statistics that she can, she will not know whether she is coming or going, the ERM will go sour, and in the middle of all that someone will say to her, "Do you know, Prime Minister, that we have not yet finished the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill?" What is she likely to say in the middle of all that? It will be, "Stuff the Bill", or something like that. She will not come here in her carpet slippers at 10 or 12 o'clock at night to vote for the Bill. She will have other fish to fry.
I am hoping to speak in the debate about the electoral consequences of the Bill. In some circumstances, they could be helpful to the Labour party. I am looking at it from both angles. Has my hon. Friend examined it from a wider political view?
Mr. Morgan : I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has given us yet further proof that he is not thinking of crossing the Floor. It is quite likely that there will have been an election before the results of the further inquiries are known, yet we are being asked to pass a carry-over motion tonight.
We must consider the alternatives if the motion is refused. The promoters of the barrage could return when they have finished their studies. They could then say that they have used the best technology available and the best computer modelling experts, and then give their prediction for the level of groundwater in the affected low-lying areas
Column 1347
of the three constituencies concerned. We will then know the price of the barrage ; tonight, we are being asked to buy a pig-in-a-poke. The groundwater issue is of concern to my constituency. Obviously, it also affects the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The barrage will be in his constituency, but water does not respect parliamentary boundaries. On the other side of the River Taff, it will also affect the highly marginal constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). In terms of residential areas, my constituency will be most affected. Roughly 40 per cent. of them fall within my constituency, 35 per cent. within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and 20 per cent. within Cardiff, Central, the Under-Secretary of State's constituency. The barrage will have an effect in those areas.If the mouths of the Taff and the Ely are impounded, the resulting lake may be in my hon. Friend's constituency, but two fingers of it will extend into my constituency and that of the Minister. But the water under the surface, residentially speaking, affects my constituency more than any other, so I am very concerned about it.
Mr. Skinner : Residentially speaking?
Mr. Morgan : I do not know whether my hon. Friend remembers his days underground.
Mr. Morgan : He would have been extremely conscious of water under the ground. Water beneath one's house is as important as water flooding a coal mine. I do not want my constituents to live in the equivalent of a flooded coal mine.
Since about 7.30 this evening I have been in a position to present some new evidence to the House on that very issue. It is pretty sensational because it cuts completely across the assurances given in the wonderful pop-up birthday card sent to all Members of Parliament by Cardiff Bay development corporation, at great public expense, and about as factual as one.
The information that I want to give to the House is the result of the fieldwork carried out by--
Mr. Michael-- rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put :--
The House divided : Ayes 132, Noes 10.
Division No. 323] [12.26 am
AYES
Alexander, Richard
Amess, David
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ashby, David
Atkins, Robert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Baldry, Tony
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Boswell, Tim
Bottomley, Peter
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Bowis, John
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Chapman, Sydney
Chope, Christopher
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Curry, David
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Dixon, Don
| Next Section
| Home Page |