| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. John Patten : My hon. Friend has raised an exceptionally important point which we will have to consider in the twin-track approach encompassing this Bill and the Child Support Bill, which is in another place. However, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 gives a new power to the court to levy costs against solicitors who put in for unnecessary adjournments that lead to the problems which my hon. Friend has accurately described. It would be a very good thing, too, if the lawyers had to pay occasionally.
Mr. Carlisle : Knowing the sympathy that my right hon. Friend the Minister has on occasion to show to the legal profession as a result of his duties, I can see how that remark matters to him. However, he is absolutely right. Such a remedy exists, but I should remind him that in several cases, even with the powers under the existing system, let alone those proposed in this Bill, magistrates do not use their powers to the full. On many occasions the magistrates' sympathy seems to be with the absent father
Column 60
or they are swayed by the legal arguments made by the solicitors representing them. As a result that brings more misery to the lone mothers and their children.Part of the Bill's aegis is that it will give some incentive to negligent fathers to go out to work harder to ensure that maintenance is paid. That is a somewhat pious hope. Sometimes absent fathers get themselves into financial trouble because of the so-called responsibilities that they take on in second or third marriages or in other relationships. They get themselves into virtually impossible positions and usually the taxpayer has to fund that irresponsibility.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that many lone mothers are dependent on income support and on some form of social benefit simply because the absent fathers are not paying their way. The problem is experienced not just by the wronged married woman ; it is experienced also by the second, third or other woman who, perhaps unknowingly, has the children of the recalcitrant gentlemen known in my constituency as tower block stags who tend to jump from one flat to another, with no responsibility for the children they father.
Mr. John Patten : There is either something wrong with the amplification system or with my hearing. None of us on the Government Front Bench could hear the last word in my hon. Friend's phrase.
Mr. Carlisle : I was referring to tower block stags, who leap from one bed to another within my constituency. I suppose that that is humorous in a way, but it is also tragic for those who, for whatever reason, are caught.
In all sincerity, I can tell the House that the saddest cases that come to me--and I am sure to other right hon. and hon. Members--involve young girls who have been conned into producing children which they do not want. They must then take full responsibility for them and then go on their knees to their Member of Parliament and also plead with the social security to assist them. Many of them are ashamed of what has happened and are not willing to name the father who, of course, gets away with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said, many women are afraid to name the father because of the possible consequences.
The Bill will provide some assistance but only a small amount. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a Bill of responsibility. That is what the House and our constituents should be concerned with. Sadly, in the last decade or two, responsibility and discipline within the family have slipped, and are slipping further despite gallant attempts by various Governments to reverse the trend. Regrettably, the Bill will affect many people, perhaps far more than we who frame it and hope to pass it would ever envisage. The situation worsens day by day.
We and, I hope, the Opposition welcome the Bill. We welcome the spirit with which it has been presented and the spirit in which it has been received. If it brings some comfort to those lone mothers and children who suffer under the present system, it will be of some benefit. I hope that it will bring some relief to taxpayers who have picked up enormous bills for the negligence and indiscipline of many absent fathers. I fear that it may not go far enough, but, together with the Child Support Bill, it may at last reverse the terrible tide.
Column 61
6.32 pmMrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay) : I congratulate the Government on this timely measure which will bear down on those irresponsible fathers who refuse to pay the maintenance ordered by the court. Power for the courts to attach a father's salary and make sure that the wife or partner receives money is long overdue.
I do not like the term "lone parent" because there are always two parents. There is no such thing as a one-parent family, a term that we seem to have dropped. We are talking about families which are invariably fatherless, but as that could mean widows, it is more correct to say that we are dealing with fathers who have scarpered from their families. The mere fact that a father has cleared off and has left his wife to go to such lengths to get maintenance tells us something about him. It is necessary for the courts to be given extra powers to ensure that such fathers meet their obligations. The statistics on fatherless families show that about 41 per cent. of the women are divorced and that 23 per cent. are unmarried. What about the other 36 per cent.? Are they widowed mothers? Perhaps the Minister can supply that information when he replies.
As hon. Members have said, we are dealing with a difficult area of human relationships. There is often great bitterness between the parties, and sometimes the mother is unwilling to prosecute for maintenance because she fears for her existence. Many marriages break up because of fear. Incompatibility has meant that the marriage has foundered, and we are left to do something about the resulting untidiness. In debating such matters we usually deplore the divorce rate, but sometimes divorce is the most humane and sensible course. Divorce is not always bad. In the old days women were often trapped in unhappy and brutal marriages, perhaps for all of their lives, because they could not afford to separate, establish themselves and support their children.
Time and again I have made the important point that we who pontificate on these matters take a technical viewpoint to see how we can tidy the loose ends or block loopholes. I know some women who are bringing up children on their own. They meet for moral support and self-help so that one can look after the children while others go shopping. The Children Act 1989 is in danger of making that illegal because it requires people who look after children to be licensed. When I talk to the women in such groups, I always ask what they want me or the Government to do to help them. I am concerned not about what my colleagues think is right, but about what such women want. They never ask me for increased child benefit. Some of them say that they want the husband to pay for the children, but more often than not they say, "I do not want to pursue him in the courts because I am afraid of the consequences. I want to be able to go out and earn a bit of money so that I can support the children." They feel that it is more dignified to do that. Although the Bill will place much greater constraint on the father, I hope that when we consider the matter in another Bill we will take note of the feelings of women.
Mr. John Carlisle : Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the women's obvious sense of pride in wanting to stand on their own feet, the father has a responsibility to make some provision? The hon. Member for Kingston
Column 62
upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) spoke about limiting privacy. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage such women to ensure that the absent father pays his dues, if only for the sake of the children. They would then enjoy a better standard of living.Mrs. Gorman : I agree with my hon. Friend. Fatherhood and motherhood are for life, and fathers also have a responsibility. However, some women would not thank us for pursuing the husband or father through the courts in the way that we or the court might think right and proper. That is because of the consequences to the mother. It should be borne in mind that every unhappy marriage breakdown is a tragedy with its own circumstances.
Mr. Randall : The hon. Lady spoke about the aspirations and desires of women to whom she has spoken. She has said that their top priority is to be independent and earn a living. I am a male and not as qualified to speak on the matter as a woman, but in my experience many women with babies and children want to be able to stay at home. Although the decision must rest with the woman, it is obvious that she cannot stay at home with the children if she has a job. The hon. Lady does not seem to support the notion that some women might like to have that option and that their top priority might be some sort of guaranteed regular income, perhaps from the father.
Mrs. Gorman : The hon. Gentleman reinforces my argument that almost every case is different and that women have different views on the issue. I remind him that throughout history women with young children have worked. In Victorian times some mothers with 10 children went out to engage in cleaning or laundering or some other work. Often an idealised view is taken of women staying at home and raising their children. That is the ideal, but the reality of most women's lives is not like that. Women often need to earn extra money. Of course, choice is what matters, but the fact is that 80 per cent. of mothers with young children stay at home with them whereas most mothers with school-age children--almost 70 per cent.--go out to work. It is not uncommon for women with children--of any age--to find that they need to work.
In the past, a woman who was widowed in a war would have raised her children without any help from the state. She would go out to work and do a fine job. Because women are multi-competent and extremely able, they can make their own way in life when they are left in the lurch by their husband. Indeed, many would rather do that than risk the punishment that might be meted out to them by the children's father if he is a violent man, and unfortunately in this world there are many men who mete out violence to women, mainly because women are not taught how to defend themselves--but that is another story. I come to the role of the employer, which has already been mentioned, and to the question whether those concerned--either the woman receiving the payment or the man who is making the payment through a court order or by having the maintenance deducted from his salary --will want their employer to know that they are involved in such circumstances. It is impossible to prevent such circumstances from influencing the attitude of an employer. It is no good saying that that is private information because it will inevitably have an effect on the employer. I feel strongly that in deciding on this
Column 63
legislation, if fathers are prepared to make a private arrangement, we must do all that we can to ensure that we do not lose that good will. Even if that involves only a mere 7,000 of the 82,000 cases that we are talking about, those 7,000 cases are still important and valuable. We must preserve the privacy of the man if he is prepared to do the right and decent thing and to reach a suitable arrangement with his wife.After a woman has gone through all the court proceedings to get maintenance from her husband's wages deducted at source, she may be awarded just 1p per week maintenance in arrears. That sometimes happens even today because the magistrates think that they are taking account of the real circumstances in that case. If a woman goes through the process and is awarded only a derisory maintenance payment, she feels insulted. The Bill does not cover the amount of money that a magistrate may award, but I believe that the courts should be discouraged from making such decisions. A woman may have gone through many unhappy emotional experiences to get that far, and it is insulting for her to be treated in that way.
Sadly, the Bill is necessary in today's society because people's sense of responsibility has been undermined. That has increased under the welfare state, which has adopted the attitude that if an individual will not accept his or her responsibility, the state will do it. We will not cure the problem until we reverse the attitude that the state must be the last resort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, we must stop ourselves always rushing in with the public purse, because that is what lies at the root of this problem of irresponsibility. If we do not expect people to be responsible, in many cases they will be irresponsible. That is a sad fact of human life.
Although I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, we have yet to debate many other aspects of this subject.
6.44 pm
Mr. Randall : With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to some of the comments that have been made in this interesting debate, which has been wide ranging although the Bill itself is narrow, dealing only with maintenance enforcement.
The Minister referred to the CBI levy and to the consultations that are taking place on that. I cannot remember whether I asked him to give us more detail about that, because it could have a crucial impact on debtors. I should also like to know more about the reciprocal arrangements with the EEC. As a result of 1992 and all that, the problems of maintenance enforcement could be seriously exacerbated as people move around the various member states of the Community more and more. Therefore, I was concerned when I heard that the reciprocal arrangements with the EEC are not working very well. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is not in his place. He talked about family life and said that it was of paramount importance. Although we would all agree with that, I submit that the Government's taxation policy is also a major factor causing the break-up of marriages and of family life-- [Interruption.] I am sorry, I see that the hon. Gentleman is here, albeit in a different seat. The gap between the better-off and the less
Column 64
well-off is unquestionably growing in this country. Such pressures can cause the break-up of marriages-- [Interruption.] That is a well-known fact, but other social pressures can also have an effect. Mr. John Carlisle rose --Mr. Randall : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I had wanted to be brief because I made a long speech earlier.
Mr. Carlisle : I was sorry to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way, but he must give the House the evidence about the startling fact that he has just announced. He has said that the difference between the so- called "poor" on the one side and the so-called "rich" on the other has contributed towards the break-down of marriages. Where exactly is the evidence for that? If the hon. Gentleman does not have it, perhaps he could inform the House of it at a later date.
Mr. Randall : I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware, because so much has been published about it, that, under this Government, there is a growing gap--I chose my words carefully--between the better-off and the less well-off in this country.
Mr. Randall : I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
Mr. Carlisle : I said, "Possibly".
Mr. Randall : Well, the hon. Gentleman does not know, but Opposition Members do know and it is a matter of concern to us. It is one reason why the Labour party has been amending its taxation proposals. We want to compensate for that sort of thing and, in our taxation policy, to do the things that would be good for families. The Government's taxation policies run contrary to the well-being of family life. Many of the troubles we have been discussing today emanate largely from that.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford made a good point about defaulting. He is absolutely right that we should take steps to prevent defaulting and thus to reduce the workload of the courts. There is no doubt that a lot of the time that is currently taken by the courts in dealing with maintenance orders and ensuring that payments are made could now be avoided.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to standing orders and payments. I do not want to go over the argument yet again, but I feel that the hon. Member for Chelmsford does not understand the people with whom we are dealing. Some of them--not all--are out to bust the system and once one recognises that, one realises that the system of payment to a wife must be strong enough and resilient enough not to be abused in this way. The hon. Gentleman made a good point in his question to the Minister about something on which I had touched--debtors who do not bother to turn up at court. The hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) also mentioned that point. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
The hon. Member for Luton, North referred to the effect that absent fathers have on the taxpayer. He spoke about the tower block stags in his constituency. I was pleasantly surprised by his description of the young lady who came to visit him in his constituency surgery. He
Column 65
obviously has a soft spot for people, although that is not apparent from his political image. He reacted in an emotional rather than an objective way to her and I would have expected the latter. The hon. Member for Billericay put great emphasis on irresponsible fathers and I intervened on that point. She also spoke about the desire of women not to receive an income from benefit but to be free to go out and earn. However, lone parents--I know that she does not like that term, but she knows what I mean--are in a difficult position because they cannot share the burdens of parenthood. Those with young children, especially if they have no support from their own parents, encounter great problems. If we are to provide choice for women in that position, and allow them to live comfortably, the top priority is to give them a guaranteed income. The hon. Lady speaks authoritatively on this and has given the House the benefit of her experience.I look forward to the Committee stage. I hope that the amendments that will be tabled will encourage proper debate on the Bill, and, if agreed to, make it more effective. I have been encouraged by the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House have shared a belief in the basic principle underpinning the Bill, which is that those who have maintenance orders served against them should act responsibly and fulfil the terms of those orders. Where that does not happen, we need a mechanism to ensure that they are fulfilled. If the Committee can make that mechanism work as effectively as possible, we shall have given credit to the House of Commons. More importantly, we shall have helped people who desperately need an improvement in the system. The failure in the existing system has meant that children and families are enduring the distress and trauma to which we have all drawn attention. The Bill will help to alleviate those problems. 6.53 pm
Mr. John Patten : With the leave of the House, I shall reply. This has been an interesting if short debate, founded on considerable agreement between the two parties represented in the Chamber--there has been no representative of the Liberal Democrats. We believe that something needs to be done and we have agreed that a useful Bill will be brought to fruition by the Committee.
We have heard some remarkable speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave us some important statistics and put his finger on a number of significant policy points. He also provided the House with a good keynote phrase for the Bill when he said something along the lines of, "It is better to prevent default than to have to enforce the measures after default." That underpins what the Bill is about and shows why it deserves an unopposed Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) demonstrated that authority and robustness, mixed with compassion, for which he is well known. He drew attention to the link between this Bill and its big brother or sister, the Child Support Bill, which is going
Column 66
through another place. He treated the House to what was, for my money, all too short a passage on responsibility and the rebirth of it in the 1990s. He reflected on the adverse changes that have followed a diminution of family responsibility in the previous two decades. That passage will bear rereading.My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) also spoke about responsibility and I agree with everything that she said on the issue. She spoke about divorce and the effects of that on society, about the equally important issue of working women and about how these provisions can help them. I suspect that the issues that interest her, as they interest me, will be debated when the Child Support Bill reaches this Chamber under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay does to try to help women in a number of groups. Although they may not want to go to court to get the maintenance paid to them, perhaps because they fear physical violence--the police are doing more about domestic violence in this decade than they did in the previous decade--I ask her to urge them to think again about ensuring that those payments come. After all, it is the children of the marriage who will suffer. I hope that the quick and clean mechanism that the Bill will set in place will encourage women who face those problems to do something to ensure that the absent father, or the absent mother in about 3 per cent. of the cases, faces up to his or her responsibility. That motif of responsibility has run through each of the speeches made by my hon. Friends.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I do not have a great deal of time to refer to all the points that he raised. However, I have time for a couple of important ones. He asked about what would happen if people refused to pay standing orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, the courts have many ways to get money from the absent spouse if he will not pay by standing order. Furthermore, he can be fined up to £1,000. If he will not pay that fine on top of not paying the maintenance--most maintenance payments are in arrears of 15 weeks--there is always prison to encourage him to pay up. We do not want to send people to prison, but we must have that for a last resort.
Direct debits are not provided for because the court could not adequately exercise supervision over variations in direct debits. Under direct debit mandates, the person who gives the authority can vary the order, but the courts should have that power. The courts will have an important role and I believe that, after an initial surge of business, their business will diminish greatly, just as the amount of money flowing to spouses and children will increase greatly as a result of the provisions of this welcome Bill. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).
Column 67
Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
7 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance or ruling on the way in which we shall conduct our proceedings this evening. One of the difficulties lies with the decision whether the Bill should return to the House for further consideration in the light of the impending ruling by the European Court of Justice in the Leybucht bay case, which is recognised by the Government to be a similar matter. It is recognised also that that case is relevant because the promoters have sent a lawyer, as have the two Departments concerned, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, to observe the proceedings of the European Court.
I ask for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because two material considerations will make this evening's proceedings less comprehensive and less well informed than they should be. First, we do not have an English translation of the proceedings of the European Court. Indeed, we shall not have one for another 10 days. That is what I am told in the letter that I received from the Treasury Solicitor of 11 February, which reads :
"As requested I enclose a copy of the opinion of the
Advocate-General in French."
I would not wish to trouble you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or other hon. Members with any quotations in French, which would not technically be in order. The letter continues :
"We are having the opinion translated into English, but the translation will not be available until the end of the month." It is explained that, unlike the French and German versions, the English translation will not be an authorised version.
As I have said, the promoter and the sponsoring Departments--the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment--recognise the relevance of the proceedings of the European Court and have sent lawyers, at public expense, to observe them at Luxembourg. The public, including my constituents, have paid for that. The lawyers observed the proceedings on 5 December and heard the Advocate-General's verdict.
When the House receives the Bill back from Committee on 18 February, it does not seem too much to ask that we should ensure that our consideration of it is fully informed. We should adjourn consideration until a proper translation of the proceedings of the European Court is available to us. As the production of the translation will coincide with the day on which the final judgment will be delivered--the Advocate-General's opinion is usually about 90 per cent. of the European Court's final opinion--an adjournment would enable us to take into account the verdict in our consideration of the Bill. It is thought that the verdict will be highly favourable to the objectors' case, and it should have a bearing on our consideration of the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred to an opinion of the Advocate- General, which was prepared for the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in the course of a case which the hon. Gentleman rightly said related to the proposed
Column 68
development of the Leybucht bay in Germany. The document in itself does not have a direct bearing on the consideration stage of the Bill that we are discussing this evening. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deploy the opinion in arguing that we should not proceed with consideration of the Bill, I shall be able to hear him. But I must tell him that all the documents that are directly relevant to our consideration of the Bill are available.Mr. Morgan : Further to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tabled a question last week because I was promised the document in question on 12 November by the Secretary of State for Wales. As nothing happened in the intervening three months, I tabled another question, which was answered on Thursday of last week. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales,
"pursuant to his reply of 12 November 1990"--
he has promised that an English language translation of the Advocate- General's opinion would be placed in the Library shortly or as soon as possible after it was available. My question continued : " Official Report, column 49, when he will place in the Library an authorised English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion on the Leybucht bay case heard at Luxembourg before the European Court of Justice."
This is material, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were not, I would not detain the House. The Secretary of State replied :
"An English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion prepared by the court is unlikely to be available for some time. However, I understand that an English language translation prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be available very shortly. I shall be placing a copy of this in the Library of the House."--[ Official Report, 14 February 1991 ; Vol. 185, c. 589. ] What does the Welsh Office have to hide? Why has it not placed the translation in the Library so that we can read it? Why will it not do so until after the House has had a three-hour debate, during which we might be relying on our own attempts to translate the French, German or Dutch in which the opinion was originally written?
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that the judgment concerns special protection areas under the EEC's bird directive, and that neither Cardiff bay nor--
Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. We are now entering into debate, and that turns on my response to the original point of order. Hon. Members are raising debating matters. The opinion to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred is not material to our consideration this evening.
7.5 pm
Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
I am pleased to ask the House to give consideration to the Bill, which I hope will speedily complete its remaining stages through the House. It may be useful if I mention the Leybucht bay case, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on a point of order. I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have said, that the opinion is not a document that is necessary for our debate this evening. It is important, however, for the House not to be misled. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend referred to it. It appears that he has followed these matters with care and has read the
Column 69
Advocate-General's legal opinion. He must now be aware that the Leybucht case is completely irrelevant to the Bill and does not help his argument.I am surprised also that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West raised the language or languages in which the translation of the opinion is available. I am sure that he read the South Wales Echo on Saturday, and especially the article which set out liberal quotations from the opinion by opponents of the Bill. The opinion of the Advocate-General is that the Commission's complaints should be rejected. That is what he recommends on his interpretation of the facts of the case. He takes the view that the Federal Republic of Germany did not contravene the directive. He further suggests or recommends that the Commission should bear the costs of the disputing parties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said, the Commission's interpretation of the directive is relevant as it applies to a special protection area, which Leybucht bay is but which Cardiff bay and the Severn estuary are not. He does not dissent from the view that the directive at article 2 is a balancing exercise, weighing up, on the one hand, the protection of birds and, on the other, public health and safety, economy, ecology, science, culture and recreation. I argue that in all the documents that are relevant to this evening's debate it can be demonstrated that matters of public health and safety, economy, ecology, science, culture and recreation demand the speediest possible passage of the Bill through the House.
I wish to repeat a simple plea. I ask that the House does not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, for a better environment and for better homes and jobs that meet their aspirations. I still retain the hope--
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for long, but perhaps I should tell him that I was in the Chamber on Thursday when, during business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked the Leader of the House about the whipping arrangements for a private Bill. Most of us believe that unofficial whipping has been taken place on private Members' Bills for a considerable time. My hon. Friend was able to unearth correspondence from the Government Chief Whip in which he advised Conservative Members to vote in accordance with his instructions this evening on this piece of private Member's legislation. The Leader of the House said that he was not responsible for whipping, and we know that that was a correct statement.
Once a Conservative Chief Whip starts putting in writing instructions to Tory Members to vote in a certain fashion on private Members' Bills, the procedure for such Bills is broken down. Surely this is a matter for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What steps are to be taken?
Madam Deputy Speaker : As the hon. Gentleman, like all other hon. and right hon. Members, knows, the Chair has a great many responsibilities, but concerning itself with what goes on in the Whips' Office is not one of them. I was in the Government Whips' Office for far too long to want to involve myself in such things now.
Mr. Michael : I am glad to be able to say that it is not a matter for me either. It is a matter for the Government how they vote. However, my hon. Friends and I have sought to persuade others to support our view. I retain the
Column 70
hope that opponents of the Bill will be satisfied now that it has survived an arduous passage thus far. I hope they will be satisfied with the many safeguards that have been built into the measure, and will recognise the need for the major investment that the barrage itself will bring and for the private investment that will be attracted.Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda) : Many of us in the Opposition have no objection to investment for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, we have a slight difference when it comes to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds by the Government, to what purpose, I am not sure.
Mr. Michael : It is for the Government's representative to defend their decisions on public investment. However, I am rather surprised to hear an argument against public investment which would be of considerable benefit not only to my constituents but to those of my hon. Friend also. I hope that the public benefit argument will persuade my hon. Friend to support me in the Lobby at the end of this debate.
Mr. Rogers : I represent a constituency which, measured by any socio -economic indicator, is one of the poorest in the United Kingdom. That being the case, I certainly do not have any objection to public expenditure. However, I do not want to see public money being poured down the drain--or the barrage, or whatever.
Mr. Michael : I do not want to get involved in a knockabout, but, like my hon. Friend, I represent an area in which there is considerable deprivation. I am sure that he recognises, for instance, the deprivation in places like Newtown--in particular, on the dockside. Having worked with unemployed people in that area, and previously in the Ely area, I am very keen that misery and unemployment such as we saw in the past should not be repeated. It seems to me that this investment is the best means of avoiding that situation.
Cardiff is a great city. It is a string of communities, each with its own character. Indeed, my friend, Councillor Paddy Kitson, who is chairman of the county's economic development committee, likes to refer to the area as a string of pearls and of opportunities. The barrage and the development will reunite Cardiff with its seafront. It will offer a future to communities that in the past have lived in dirt and have known poverty. It will offer a new lease of life to the old communities, and new communities will have a life of their own to complement those.
The barrage will help to protect the city against the threat of flood. Last week the Department of the Environment issued a publication that referred to the need to consider this matter in the context of the future of our coasts. The barrage will provide a positive opportunity in this respect.
One matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have agreed from the beginning is that the Crown water issue needs to be treated with great seriousness. I am satisfied with the findings that have been made to date. Even Woolworths gave a promise that satisfied the Committee. Subject to public consultation on additional work, and to the expert advice on the basis of which the Secretary of State will be asked to make his judgment, all developments to date in this regard have been reassuring.
Column 71
In the current recession, we face difficulties. The figures that were produced by the economic appraisal cover a period of 15 to 20 years. It is very important that we should see early progress in this development, so that Cardiff may be the subject of successful regeneration. In the past, we have seen successful regeneration of the city centre, and I am proud to have played my part in that process, which was led by the public sector in partnership with the private sector.A massive project like this cannot be evaluated and summarised in a few minutes--which is all that is available to me this evening. The local councillors have spent much time on all the issues involved. The barrage proposals do not have uncritical support from the elected representatives. The support has been, and is, critical, careful, sceptical and conditional.
Mr. Morgan : My hon. Friend has referred to the successful redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff. I agree that the evolution of the retail central area has been remarkably successful. Does he agree--my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may well have personal knowledge of this matter--that the successful redevelopment of Cardiff city centre took place only after a major change in strategy? The original overweaning, over-ambitious Ravenseft development was thrown out, and a much more logical evolution of the existing centre was agreed on. A big development would have wrecked the town centre. That happened because the people of Cardiff rose up and said, "We do not want this big development. It will cost too much, and will take away the Cardiff that we know."
Mr. Michael : As usual, my hon. Friend has run off down the tram- lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who at that time represented Cardiff, North, will recall the successful battle that led to the stopping of the Hook road. My hon. Friend equates two different issues. I was associated with the successful redevelopment of central Cardiff after 1974, and I believe that that project bears comparison with the redevelopment of south Cardiff. Both of those projects are based on a partnership between the public and the private sectors, involving an exhaustive examination of the issues, endeavouring to ensure that the public interest is properly served.
This Bill has survived the Select Committee procedures of both another place and this House. So long as the safeguards are in place, and so long as we test each piece of evidence to destruction, as we have done to date, local people will want the project to go ahead. The evidence, in terms of the provision of jobs and homes and of protection of the environment, remains overwhelming. That is true for my constituency in particular, but I submit that it is true for Cardiff as a whole--indeed, for south Wales as a region. It is for that reason that 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, homes and jobs ; support the motion and allow this Bill to make progress through the House.
Column 72
7.18 pmMr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : I apologise for intervening in a debate on a Welsh matter. I do so for one reason about which I shall be brief.
I should like to know a little more about the provision that is made in the Bill for fish passes, which are essential if the run of migratory fish on the River Taff is to be preserved. I am glad to see that that is mentioned as a significant factor. I look forward to being able one day to fish the Taff. I want the promoter and his colleagues to be frank with the House and, if there is time, tell us that they are confident that the works set out in the Bill will have the desired effect.
Mr. Michael : I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this has been the subject of very serious discussion since the earliest stages of the Bill--not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with his considerable interest in fisheries matters, made sure that was so. For that reason--with the best possible advice that could be obtained, and following consultation with fisheries interests--the pass has been built into the proposals to ensure a better future for the fish, as well as for humans, following the building of this barrage.
Mr. Onslow : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have seen the provision in the Bill to build the pass, but I want to be sure that there is reason to suppose that the fish pass will work. The hon. Gentleman should know that some fish passes do not work. A great deal of money is spent on them and by the time that people find out that they do not work, it is too late. It is impossible effectively to restore a run to a river if the fish pass is deficient.
Mr. Michael : That is why there has been the closest consultation. It is a point which I have been careful to note in correspondence with the promoters from the early stages. We must ensure that the best possible advice is available and that a fish pass which will work is built.
| Next Section
| Home Page |