House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Feb 1991

Madam Deputy Speaker : That is an important matter for debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Rogers : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the Minister finds this matter amusing. He muttered that we did not ask him. During my speech, I referred at least four times to the huge sums of money being invested. The Minister adds no dignity to his office or to the House by refusing properly to answer questions on the most crucial issue in this debate. We shall take his silence as an ominous sign that the amount of money being spent is as huge as we said it was.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. These are matters for debate and those are not points of order for the Chair. Members who have not yet spoken can raise those matters as the debate progresses.

Mr. Rowlands : Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a further request and ask the Minister to seek to catch your eye to tell the House what he has stated in correspondence about the nature and character of the public expenditure implications of the Bill.

Column 86

8.19 pm

Mr. Ian Grist (Cardiff, Central) : The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) could simply quote the Minister's letter, which contains the explanations. Hon. Members who have not seen it may be interested in it.

I am delighted to be the third of the four Cardiff Members to support the Bill. I came to Cardiff about 28 years ago, and I remember seeing the docks run down and the increasing dereliction of the area. The transformation now taking place and which the barrage promises will make the city world famous again. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, which is a great shame. We would have come further down the road but for some rather wayward opposition to the Bill.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) became a Member in 1987. This measure had already been launched by then. He took his time in finding his Opposition to the Bill and, having heard voices, decided which way to go. I regret the fact that some valley Members have followed a beggar-my- neighbour, envious approach. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is an honourable man. I enjoy reading his comments on Sunday and treasure his company.

Mr. Morgan : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grist : The hon. Gentleman--

Mr. Morgan : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) made some rather unparliamentary criticisms of my motivation for opposing the barrage and said that I had heard voices. I should have liked to put him firmly in his place, but he did not give me an opportunity to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. It is my duty to listen to genuine points of order, and I must do so. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) was coming to the end of a sentence and was about to give way.

Mr. Grist : Actually, I was not about to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will be well able to look after himself when he speaks.

Mr. Morgan : The hon. Gentleman said that I had heard voices and had taken my time before opposing the Bill. I remind him that the Cardiff Bay development corporation was formed in April 1987. I became a Member in June 1987. I read all the evidence that had been presented to the House of Lords and, within hours of finishing reading it, made my decision and openly declared my opposition to the Bill. In what other way does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be proper for a Member with constituency interests to make a decision on a private Bill? Does he go along with the Conservative party Whip, as Ministers always have, as evidenced by the Conservative party Whip of 7 February, which I have in my possession?

Mr. Grist : As a development officer for the county council, the hon. Gentleman probably knew about and well understood these proposals.

Mr. Morgan : Rubbish.

Mr. Grist : That is what I believe. The hon. Gentleman overestimated the opposition in his constituency, which

Column 87

was shown in local elections. The seats were won by local candidates who opposed Labour party members who were against the development.

The Bill does wonders for not just Cardiff but south Wales. Cardiff is the capital. It includes St. David's hall and a great new shopping centre. It is the biggest city in Wales and is a magnet for the area. Roads radiate from it. As I am sure the hon. Member for Pontypridd remembers, development of the A470 was stuck in the 1970s, until the Government built it. That road provides access for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others. A journey to Merthyr Tydfil on the A470 now takes 35 or 40 minutes. New roads in the area have created a close-knit community. The fame and wealth that this development will bring to south Wales will spill out. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will have more people going to the Rhondda heritage centre because of the fame of south Wales. Other people will learn about the advantages of the valleys and the opportunities available to them.

The Bill is not just about south Cardiff, although, heaven knows, it is about reviving that part of the city that has fallen on bad times.

Mr. Rogers : I fail to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Rhondda heritage centre is undergoing construction, before the building of the barrage, and the A470 was built 10 or 15 years ago. It is nonsense to suggest that those developments might take place in the valleys because of the Bill or to try to tie them in to the Bill.

Mr. Grist : If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that the Rhondda heritage centre has been completed and that it no longer needs money to support it, I am sure that the Welsh Office will be interested to learn that. I do not believe that the development has been completed. It still needs support.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about space. If he knew Cardiff, he would know that it is ringed by the bay in the south, the M4 in the north and putative green belts to the west and the east. We need the new land that will be opened up by this development. The barrage will bring a focus to south Cardiff. It will give value to the land and attract industry and investment. It will bring 30,000 jobs and 6,000 houses. Those houses will not be just for yuppies, whom the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) goes on about. A quarter of them will be for social housing. There will be a housing mix, just as happened in the Tarmac development.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd would like to know what the water standards will be. The water near the dock which the county council built will be the type of water in the bay. One would not necessarily want to fall into it but it would not do any great harm if one did so. Fish live in it, birds use it, boats manoeuvre on it and there are displays there. The barrage will bring similar development. If Opposition Members turn down the Bill, they will be looking a gift horse in the mouth. They will not succeed in defeating the Bill, but they will muddy the water. They have not appreciated the evidence given to two Select Committees. Both Select Committees set a precedent by going to Cardiff to hear the views of the people and to see for themselves. That was a new step. No similar Bill has lasted so long and had such close attention paid to it. It has been supported by members of all parties. The hon.

Column 88

Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is far from alone in his view, although it may have sounded that way this evening. He knows that the Cardiff city council Labour party and county council Labour party overwhelmingly support this development. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West gets things wrong every time on this issue.

Mr. Morgan : On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman say that the Cardiff city council Labour party supports the scheme?

Mr. Grist : It does.

Mr. Morgan : Give us the odd fact.

Mr. Grist : As Labour party members dominate the city council--

Mr. Morgan : Where is the evidence?

Mr. Grist : The hon. Gentleman knows his party well. If the local Labour party opposed the Bill, he would say so.

The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a sort of Public Accounts Committee stand-in on this issue. I cannot understand that, but I believe that if he were still the Member for Cardiff, North, as he was between 1966 and 1970, he, too, would support this development.

Mr. Rowlands : The hon. Gentleman's assumption is incorrect. I had the privilege of serving Cardiff, North when I fought an equally grandiose nonsensical city centre scheme. Fortunately, it was heavily modified, and it led to sensible evolution of Cardiff's development. My approach and attitude to these proposals is very much the same. The hon. Gentleman called me a sort of mini-PAC, and he was right. Unlike Ministers, we have not had statements. I received a letter signed by the Under-Secretary of State but obviously written by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to read it out later. The letter gave us some insight at least into public expenditure, but we have many questions to ask about it. I was astonished at the facile speech by the Under-Secretary. It did not develop those issues.

Mr. Grist : I thought that the hon. Gentleman was beginning to get into his stride. He knows that the public money that has gone to his constituency shows a smaller private return than will go into the Cardiff scheme. This is one of the best returns on public money available in any development in south Wales. In all his criticisms of this investment, the hon. Gentleman should remember that fact.

Mr. Rogers : I accept the hon. Gentleman's faith in his arguments because he was the Minister responsible for working out the public investment figures. As he is obviously an expert, having lived with the problem as a constituency Member and as the responsible Minister, will he tell us what return is expected from the £435 million which will be invested?

Mr. Grist : I should happily go over it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. The total is £335 million, which shows how far out the hon. Gentleman was with his figures. Often, we accept low returns to rebuild town centres, to encourage housing development or a shopping centre or to clear a tip site. Such development may have a low return, but it is necessary to build up an area and to make it more attractive and available to new industry.

Column 89

The barrage is commercial investment by the country in the capital city of Wales. I cannot stress that too strongly. I should have thought that hon. Members would want to see a successful capital city. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was quite right to say that the Ravenseft plan crashed when the pound was devalued because the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth had run into a bit of trouble. They had to pay£3 million in compensation--

Mr. Morgan : It was £4 million.

Mr. Grist : It was £4 million, was it? That was when Councillor Ferguson-Jones used the money to start St. David's hall. Ultimately, more money had to be found, and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) topped it up. We ended up with a magnificent concert hall, which reflected well on south Wales as well as on the immediate area around Cardiff. We can all be delighted that, at last, we have a world-class concert hall. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontypridd occasionally attends concerts and other events in that hall. It is good for his constituency and for the immediate environs of Cardiff. The same will apply to the bay development.

I have no hesitation in supporting this highly imaginative, worthwhile and economic transformation of the city that I have the pleasure and pride of representing.

8.31 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with his new-found freedom on the Back Benches to speak for himself. I happily follow him down the history of the Cardiff centre development, which was nothing to do with the Government of the day but resulted from the economics and fundamentals of the scheme. The Cardiff central scheme was fundamentally flawed because it was a grandiose scheme. Huge assumptions were made that depended on enormous expenditure on a roadway, for which a huge part of Cardiff would have had to be knocked down. It would have meant destroying one aspect of the city's retailing sector. It was rejected not only because of the economics but because of the growing feelings of the people of Cardiff.

Mr. Michael : My hon. Friend and I were on the same side of that argument. That scheme involved the wholesale destruction of retailing, homes and communities, in direct contrast with the barrage scheme, which retains and benefits the existing communities as well as building new ones.

Mr. Rowlands : My hon. Friend tempts me to make a comparison. I suspect that I shall be able to show certain similarities in philosophy for that grandiose scheme and for the grandiose scheme of the Cardiff bay barrage development.

Since our last debate, I have taken the opportunity to revisit Cardiff bay. I express my gratitude to the chairman of the development corporation for his kindness and patience in explaining the nature and character of the vision of the development corporation and of some people in Cardiff. I fear that when he has heard my remarks he might feel that I have not drawn the conclusions that he would have wished from my visit, but, nevertheless, I understand the infectious enthusiasm that grows when a

Column 90

grand, visionary scheme is presented. It is natural and instinctive to think that big is best. The same spirit was behind the original Cardiff central area proposals. I can remember the planners, like the chairman of the development corporation, saying how it was bound to be a winner and asking how anyone could dare suggest that such a grand visionary scheme could have flaws or was not the way for the city to evolve.

The same infectious enthusiasm has been expressed for the grand design of the barrage. I do not denigrate that. I understand and appreciate it, but we must not suspend our faculties. I did not do so when I was the Member for Cardiff, North and was placed under such pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will know that I was placed under pressure to be persuaded of the grand vision. I did not buy it then and I do not buy it for the Cardiff bay development. We should not suspend our critical judgment on the public expenditure consequences.

Mr. Michael : I appreciate the serious point that my hon. Friend is making. One should not be taken in by grandiose plans. Does he agree, however, that the development scheme for the centre of Cardiff which was carried through to fruition after the collapse to which he referred was imaginative, important and positive in terms of the development of Cardiff? Will he accept that we must compare the critical examination that we brought to bear on that scheme, when I was chairman of the planning committee, with the way in which many of us have approached this scheme-- not uncritically, but critically and positively?

Mr. Rowlands : I am convinced that my hon. Friend is right that the scheme that evolved as a result of our turning our backs on the Ravenseft and Hook road schemes was sensible, imaginative and made Cardiff city centre such a pleasure to shop in, walk around and to listen to music in. Interestingly, what was decided evolved from existing development rather than from a large scheme being imposed. Following my visit to Cardiff bay, I am offering my untutored impressions of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said how much sensible development has been going on, and no doubt will go on, in this derelict area, with or without the barrage. The most striking impression of my visit to the site was the enormous amount of development that is happening irrespective of whether the barrage is to be developed. The Pengam site has been developed and there is housing development. I was told by the chairman and others that the developers were not selling the existing scheme on the promise of this Bill and that the development would proceed irrespective of the barrage. What will the barrage add to that?

Mr. Grist : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was told just that. Naturally, anyone trying to sell the area and the development would stress that aspect. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that everyone believes that the barrage will come and has taken that into consideration in investing in the area?

Mr. Rowlands : That is an interesting point. In that case, some people may be disappointed. They should not be making assumptions about what the House will decide. Remarks to the effect that we have spent too long debating

Column 91

these issues show impatience with democracy, but patience is a vital quality of parliamentary democracy. If investors have made investments on that basis, they may well be disappointed. Who knows? As far as I know, however, the development corporation has not said, "Come and invest here because there will be a barrage." That is crucial. Even without the barrage, there has rightly been a large amount of exciting development.

Mr. Rogers : Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) has grounds for his optimism that the Bill will be delivered eventually? After all, huge sums have been spent on promoting it--on inviting hon. Members to functions and asking them to come to Cardiff at public expense to see what is what. If the promoters do not get the Bill, they will have egg on their face. My hon. Friend should take account of the optimism of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, who is an ex-Minister once responsible for the Bill. Clearly, he knows something that we do not.

Mr. Rowlands : Who knows? We are crystal ball gazing. My hon. Friend has made a valid point, but I reiterate that a great deal of development has been going on and will continue to go on whether the barrage is built or not.

What is the extra ingredient that the barrage will bring? I can only give my own impression. It will accelerate interest and development in the area. It will generate hype around the sale of the land in the area for high- class commercial and residential development. A curious feature of the present scheme and of all the 1980s property boom schemes--including the development of London docklands--is that they require a huge dose of inflation. They depend on an inflationary boost being given to land prices, rents and commercial developments. It is most odd--indeed, it is nonsense-- that the Government should preach that inflation is the greatest evil in the land while in Cardiff bay and London docklands huge inflationary pressure is placed on property prices and land values. I heard with bated breath how office costs in Mount Stuart square had risen from £2 to £12 per sq. ft.--as if that was a marvellous achievement. I suppose that some may regard increased land values and the rest of it as an achievement. But in Merthyr, wage freezes and cuts in manufacturing costs are what is preached, whereas down in Cardiff bay developers and companies are expected to pay another £10 per sq. ft. for the good of the Cardiff development scheme.

The 1980s were characterised by the nonsensical proposition that what is required is a property-led boom involving a degree of inflation way above retail price inflation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central shakes his head. I do not believe that, with a 1 or 2 per cent. inflation rate, any of the projects discussed in the report would survive for one minute. Behind almost every one of the schemes has been the assumption that--especially if one pours in large sums of public money--land prices, rents and the value of commercial developments will be lifted and that banks will therefore be attracted to the area to help people to borrow against assets inflated by that public investment. That is a curious feature of the 1980s and, thank God, I think that it is coming to an end. The rest of us, and the rest of the economy, have paid the price. For those of us in Merthyr and elsewhere there has been a trickle-down effect of property booms--whether in

Column 92

Cardiff, in London docklands or in the south- east : jobs have been lost, manufacturing opportunities destroyed and investment cut and we have been charged punitive interest rates. That has been the effect of an overcharged property boom. The Cardiff barrage proposal is a late--I think, too late--example of that.

Mr. Grist : Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that rising rents are a reflection of increased prosperity. After all, people have to be prepared to pay them. A firm does not pay increased rents just for the fun of it. It pays them because it recognises that there is enough business in an area to make being there worth its while. Rents are higher in Oxford street than in the outer Orkneys because there are more sales to be had. That is obvious.

Mr. Rowlands : Did not the Government conclude, after their experience of running such a boom in 1986-87, that it was a complete economic disaster? The hon. Gentleman has described exactly what went on in the south-east and other parts of so-called prosperous Britain. People were paying £200,000 for houses worth £100,000. They were taking out 100 per cent. mortgages. That is the very market that Ministers have been trying to crush since the 1987 election. The notion is that we must have a property-led boom with large inflation for the Cardiff bay and docklands development schemes to survive and flourish. The rest of the nation has paid the price for such economic nonsense and I do not see why we should endorse it by supporting the Bill.

Mr. Rogers : My hon. Friend has made an important point. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) does not realise that the people who suffer are those who pay and that the only people who reap the benefit of high rents are the landlords--the corporation, Associated British Ports and all the private interests. I see that the Minister is scoffing. Perhaps he can tell us who else benefits from high rents.

Mr. Rowlands : My hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point. Let me take the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on further. He argued that there was a market which made it worth people's while to pay £12 per sq ft in Mount Stuart square when three or four years ago they were paying only £2. He said that that was a sign of increased prosperity. If that is so, why does not the private sector pay? Why should the public sector make a huge contribution to inflating land values, prices and rents in docklands? The Minister is an arch Thatcherite and, until the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central was sacked, I thought that he was, too. [Hon. Members :-- "A Heseltini."] Oh, a Heseltini. In any case, he seemed dryish in character. But perhaps he is not. If the Cardiff bay barrage scheme is such a good scheme, and if we believe in the market, why should not it go ahead in the private sector? Why does not the development justify itself, rather than the promoters expecting the investment of large sums of public money to make it work? The basic test of such a scheme must be the degree to which it can sustain private sector investment.

Mr. Grist : If the hon. Gentleman wants to play that card heavily, I presume that he will not want urban aid or urban investment which relies on the leverage of public money coming in to bring in private money after it.

Column 93

Mr. Rowlands : I cannot attract this kind of private investment into Merthyr and Rhymney. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central made an aside about the nature of our society, but land in Merthyr and Rhymney is not attractive enough to warrant such investment. It may have been attractive enough 150 years ago when we had the coal that provided the resources which created work for the Cardiff docklands in the first place. However, we cannot attract such investment in 1990.

Of course we need urban aid, but we do not need it to create inflation in our society. Urban grants or urban aid should not boost land prices or inflate house values in my area because that would price the very people that we are trying to support out of the market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth claims that the development will benefit everyone in that part of the world. However, I notice that 25 per cent. of the residential development will be social or low-cost housing and I accept that that percentage is slightly more than tokenism. However, the rest of the development is for the market and we know what the market means in terms of marina-style residential developments.

Mr. Michael : I am grateful that my hon. Friend has referred to that part of the development as being more than tokenism. The debate on the 25 per cent. of the development for social housing for rent, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been an important factor in the discussions involving people in the existing communities. Just as we want to see developments in Wales and just as my hon. Friend wants to see developments in Merthyr and in the other valley communities, we in south Cardiff--which has suffered like the valley communities--have a right to want jobs and the right environment for the future of our people. Are we on the same side of the argument in wanting to see public investment produce good returns?

Mr. Rowlands : We must ask how much that will cost, how it should be financed and what kind of scheme we are talking about. I am sorry that I am now treading on the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, although he is inviting me to do that more and more. I have, to use a nautical term, been trying to steer a middle course. However, the barrage bay concept is not just to develop good, honest south Cardiff. The intention is to transport a London docklands-style yuppie development into Cardiff in an attempt to make the city greater than Bristol. We expect rather more for our city than what has been proposed around the marina- style development.

The development cannot be compared with low-cost housing in Merthyr. Having fought his battles, if my hon. Friend has managed to come out with only 25 per cent. of the development for social housing for rent in comparison to the total amount of public expenditure investment, he has not won.

Mr. Michael : My hon. Friend has been comparing the development with London docklands. The big difference in Cardiff has been the co-operation involving the development corporation in Wales in comparison to what has happened in London and elsewhere. Local councillors like Peter Perkins, the local council member in Grangetown, who is the deputy leader of the county council, and other local authority members have been supporting the scheme after examining it critically to

Column 94

discover what it will do to present communities as well as to the future of Cardiff. Labour local authority members and others have given the scheme a critical and careful appraisal and that has led them to support it.

Mr. Rowlands : I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the way in which the local politics of the scheme have been unfolding. I have no right to enter that argument. However, those of us who represent Welsh constituencies have a right to claim that developments of this kind have wider implications. Inevitably, we are drawn into arguments about priorities.

The essential character of the scheme and particularly that character of the scheme that will be "barrage dependent", to borrow a phrase from a Welsh Office letter, will not necessarily be for the average working folk-- and I put it no higher than that. I do not believe that the amount of public expenditure is justified.

Mr. Flynn : Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are already huge areas of housing around the bay area including Channel view, Ferry road, Avondale crescent and the Hamadryad? There is already a huge amount of housing in place and that is far from being yuppie housing. All that housing will benefit enormously from the improvements that the barrage development can bring.

Mr. Rowlands : There has been a great deal of development around the bay without the barrage.

I want now to consider the Bill's public expenditure consequences. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and rattled through his speech. However, we expected him to consider the public expenditure consequences. Indeed, he wrote me a four or five page letter setting out those consequences following our last debate on the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett : I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman expected me to consider the public expenditure consequences today. On 19 December 1989 and 17 October 1990 the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), dealt with the matter. I sent the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) a nine-page letter on the subject on 13 December, but he did not reply. I assume that he was happy with it.

Mr. Rowlands : I was waiting for the opportunity to cross-examine the Minister when he presented the figures publicly. The Minister took the trouble to write to me because he thought that it would be helpful to have a detailed explanation and clarification following our earlier exchanges.

Mr. Rogers : Surely my hon. Friend should point out to the Minister that the locus of the Welsh Office in the argument is the public expenditure aspect. It is not the Minister's function to advocate a particular scheme, because this is a private Bill. The Minister's and the Government's input into this kind of legislation and discussion should involve the implications for public expenditure.

Mr. Rowlands : That is so. The Minister should have presented the public expenditure implications of the Bill that he has supported in this House.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett : I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted a debate on the Bill's principles. The

Column 95

letter that I sent him on 13 December contains nothing new from that which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central had advocated previously.

Mr. Rowlands : He felt it necessary to place the expenditure implications on record. I would have been happy to curtail my speech if the Minister had set the matter out clearly.

Let us look at what was contained in the letter of 13 December. The Minister confirms that the cost related to the Bill started out at about £84 million. He later confirms that figures have risen substantially. The key part related to the proportions of public and private expenditure. He said in the letter that of the £547 million of barrage-dependent and public expenditure, £335 million was estimated to be public expenditure. That is more than three fifths of the total cost of the scheme.

Mr. Michael : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rowlands : Not at the moment.

Mr. Michael : I thought that my hon. Friend might not give way.

Mr. Rowlands : I shall present the case and then readily give way to my hon. Friend.

As I have said, £335 million of the £547 million for the barrage and associated works which are described in the letter and appendices is assumed to be public expenditure. The letter states :

"The assumption in the January 1990 Update, which we would certainly support, is that there will be a greater degree of co-operation between the private sector and the Corporation". As a result, the Minister says that public expenditure will be £335 million. Will he assure the House that that proportion is correct, and that in six months we will not find a higher level of public expenditure? A huge number of assumptions are made about the proportions of public and private expenditure. The assumption of £335 million is based upon an increased contribution from the private sector. Will the Minister assure the House that that is the true ratio of public and private investment in the scheme?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett : On a scheme of this size and duration, no Minister could give absolute assurances. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the figures of £547 million and £335 million do not take into account the consultants' estimates. We are talking about total private investment of more than £1,500 million, and that includes the cost of all the other developments that will take place. The Bill mentions £335 million of public expenditure which will generate about £7 of private investment for every £1 of public expenditure.

Mr. Rowlands : We are talking about what the Minister describes in his letter, which states :

"In summary, therefore, the most important and up to date figures at a comparable price base

Cost of constructing the barrage : £125.55 million

Total cost of barrage strategy : £547.29 million

Total estimated public sector cost : £335 million".

That is what we are debating, and it is the basis on which the Minister reveals the ratio of public-to-private expenditure. Is the £335 million as a proportion of the £547 million an assumption or an assurance?

Column 96

Mr. Nicholas Bennett : The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what I said. I cannot give any assurance because I do not know how inflation and changes in the scheme might affect the figures in future. Over time there could be changes. The £547 million covers the barrage, the infrastructure costs, improved access, including the link road, and environmental improvements in the scheme. It does not include any private expenditure on housing and commercial developments. The scheme could have £1.6 billion of private investment. That is £7 of private investment for every £1 of public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that.

Mr. Rowlands : I understand it too well, and the Minister is trying to move to a wider point. I am asking about his letter, which plainly states that barrage-dependent costs for maximum development potential are £547 million, of which £335 million will come from the public sector. The letter states that the assumption in the January 1990 update is that there will be more private sector involvement in this barrage-related development scheme. It states :

"The assumption in the January 1990 Update, which we would certainly support, is that there will be a greater degree of co-operation between the private sector and the Corporation in bringing forward developments within the overall barrage strategy. This will result in greater private sector contribution towards investment in infrastructure and reclamation works water features, landscaping and, possibly, car parking and light railway facilities. Clearly, therefore, this will have a beneficial effect on the public sector input and, as I have indicated during our exchanges"-- that is interesting because those last words betray the fact that the letter was written by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, because the only exchanges I have ever had on this matter have been with the hon. Gentleman. The letter continues :

"it is estimated that the public sector will meet £335 million (in mid -1989-90 prices) of the £547 million total cost".

I narrow my question and repeat it to the Minister. In the terms of his own letter, in which he states

"the public sector will meet £335 million (in mid-1989-90 prices) of the £547 million total cost with the balance from private investment",

will he now give the House something more than an assumption? Will he give us that assurance? At least we now know that, according to the Government, three fifths of the total cost of the scheme at the moment is to be met by the public as opposed to the private sector.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Next Section

Home Page