House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Feb 1991

Mr. Rowlands : No, I shall not give way because I am asking the Minister whether he will give us the assurance that that is the proportion of public to private sector involvement, as he described it in his letter.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett : I shall give the hon. Gentleman this assurance. I am convinced that there are adequate safeguards to control public expenditure on the scheme.

Mr. Alan W. Williams rose--

Mr. Michael rose--

Mr. Rowlands : I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Alan W. Williams : My interpretation of the Minister's evasiveness on this matter is that he cannot give an assurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that that £547 million will escalate and that the

Column 97

costs involved could be £600 million or £700 million, most of which will come from the public purse? Given the recession that we are now in--and if we have another Conservative Government, we shall never get out of it--the £1,500 million that the Minister projected will never come and the amount involved will be more like £1,000 million. We shall then be left with a multiplier not of 7 : 1 but of 2 : 1, if that.

Mr. Rowlands : What my hon. Friend has just said is absolutely valid.

Mr. Michael : I am keen that we should all operate on the same figures. That is why I sought to intervene a moment ago. Although I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's interesting conversation with the Minister, I want to ensure that we are all making the same assumptions

Mr. Rowlands : I was referring to the Minister's letter.

Mr. Michael : Yes, I am referring to the Minister's letter also. My hon. Friend knows that I have been given a copy. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the £547 million includes the cost of the primary distributor road--the PDR--and the costs of a substantial number of other schemes. I questioned that at an early stage, because it seemed that all sorts of things, including the PDR, should not be included as barrage- related costs. We in south Cardiff have been waiting for relief for communities, such as Grangetown and Butetown, and for the building of the PDR. It has nothing to do with the building of the barrage, but I understand that it has to be included for legal reasons. Does my hon. Friend accept that the figure relating to the construction of the barrage, which is what we should really be concerned about, is £125 million of the figure to which he referred?

Mr. Rowlands : Yes, of course I accept my hon. Friend's last point because that is the direct cost of the Bill. However, the Minister's letter stated that barrage-dependent expenditure to maximise the full potential is £547 million. I am quoting the Minister's figures--not mine or my hon. Friend's. The Minister has said that £335 million of that amount is public expenditure. I am simply seeking a modest assurance from the Minister that at least that proportion, which I think is horrific, will stand. I have not received that assurance and I hope that the Minister is satisfied with the control mechanisms for public expenditure.

I should like to remind the House--

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale) rose --

Mr. Rowlands : I know that my hon. Friend served on the Private Bill Committee, but I should like to develop my point a little and then I shall happily give way to him.

We are told in the same letter that there are control mechanisms in place in the Welsh Office to ensure that costs are well under control. Let us consider first the cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has mentioned--the cost of the Bill itself. It started at £84 million--that is on the face of the Bill. At the same 1988 prices, the cost then rose to £113 million. Now, at 1989-90 prices, the cost is £125 million. According to the letter, the outturn cost is £147 million. I doubt whether the control mechanisms on which we are supposed to depend are well illustrated by that increase in expenditure.

Column 98

Mr. Hood : I chaired one sitting of the Committee examining the Bill, when we interviewed three Treasury officials. We asked about control, but the officials could not give us assurances. We already had high inflation then, and now we also have a deep recession. I asked whether the £547 million could rise to £600 million or £800 million, and they could not answer. That may help the point that my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. Rowlands : That is helpful. For all the words in the Minister's letter, the reality is that the control mechanisms are not effective.

I have a suggestion to put to the Minister which I hope that, with his great Thatcherite tradition, he will accept. Why do we not cap the public expenditure that will result from the Bill? That should appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who goes around capping everybody else. We could put into the Bill rigid public expenditure-capped limits on every item of expenditure. We could follow the channel tunnel principle, which he supports, so that, instead of having a public expenditure element in the Bill, the £125 million could be raised in the private market, as funds for the channel tunnel were. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 has a section that forbids the use of public funds in the building of that tunnel. I have no doubt that the Minister supported, in his fervent Thatcherite way, that fundamental principle. If he believes in control mechanisms and the rest, will he support amendments to the Bill to introduce such rigid caps, so that at least the proportion of public expenditure to the private expenditure does not get out of hand, as it is doing now? That constructive suggestion should fall on welcoming ears now that the hon. Gentleman has been elevated from the Back Benches to the Front Bench.

Mr. Rogers : Many of us have not had the privilege of seeing the Minister's letter. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether there is any assessment of returns on the expenditure? The Minister has, quite rightly, said that, given the proportion of private expenditure--I presume that every penny of that expenditure is costed in for a return out--the public money going in will have little return. Does the Minister mention any return, or does he expect the development corporation to repay public expenditure when it makes its huge profit?

Mr. Rowlands : There are rates of return on investment to be found in the various documents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that he did not think that the Butetown link should be included. Whether it should be or not, I have one point to make about it. The 1.5 miles of the Butetown link is to cost an estimated £95.5 million. I picked up the Welsh Office Government expenditure plan. In table 7.4 on roads and transport, figures are given for the new construction programme, the main trunk road programme and various other roads. Except for the Briton Ferry-Earlswood section, no other road has a cost per mile higher than the 1.5 miles of the Butetown link. My hon. Friend has done his constituents proud in achieving this fantastic commitment. I do not engage in the politics of envy when I suggest gently that 1.5 miles for £95.5 million is a cost that should raise an eyebrow or two. The equivalent of the Butetown link for developmental purposes in my constituency is a programme that comes within the trunk road programme. It is called the Pentrebach-Mountain Hare route, phase 2. I thought that

Column 99

the cost of that programme was high, but I have learnt since how modest it was. It is clear that I shall have to increase my demands on Secretaries of State. The cost of the programme was a mere £4.4 million a mile.

We heard at long last great announcements from the Dispatch Box about the delayed Llanbradach scheme. Will the cost of that scheme be £60 million a mile? As I have said, the cost of the Bute link is £63 million a mile. It is said that it is part of a scheme, but it has cost a great deal of money. Even the Under-Secretary of State might raise an eyebrow if he were asked to think about £63 million a mile and the needs of Pembroke. There is other road expenditure that has to be taken into account. The cost per mile of the A55 has not reached £63 million. The Briton Ferry-Earlswood links with the M4 would not cost so much per mile.

Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the one-and-a-half miles of the Butetown link? Has there been a 17 per cent. or 20 per cent. return? Bearing in mind the major links with the major arteries that we are rightly building in the Principality, it is extraordinary that the cost of a 1.5 mile link should be so enormous.

As I have said, I am not engaging in the politics of envy. It is only right, however, to cross-examine at considerable length when we come to the public expenditure implications of projects such as the Butetown link.

I am a great fan of the marvellous comedy "Only Fools and Horses". In the penultimate episode, Uncle Albert went missing. Rodney, the nephew, and Del Boy find Uncle Albert down Tobacco road, where he had been brought up. Tears were streaming down his eyes. That was his reaction when he saw the London dockland of today, the world from which he had come. He was understandably nostalgic, but it was a world that had to go. The nephew understood Uncle Albert's feelings. He understood the thoughts that were passing through his mind. As a member of the young generation, he was turning his back on the yuppie land of marinas and the dockland development that Uncle Albert had seen. The person who admired that development and considered it paradise was Del Boy. He stood before the development in amazement and, in effect, said, "This is Paradise. If only I could get my hands on one of the apartments and hang around for a couple of years, some Arabs would buy it from me at a greatly inflated price."

There are not too many schemes such as that which is to be seen in the dockland area of London, but I fear that the Cardiff bay barrage yuppie residential schemes are part of Del Boy development and Del Boy society. Such activity might have been a feature of society in the 1980s, but I do not believe that it will be part of the 1990s. That is why I shall vote against the further consideration of the Bill.

9.18 pm

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the Uncle Alberts and the other inhabitants of Tobacco road are very much in Grangetown and the docks area generally. They will not be thrown out.

Perhaps I should declare an interest as a relative of mine, the widow of my late brother, has recently bought a

Column 100

house in Channel View road at a cost of rather less than £40,000. She has not moved into a new development. I am talking of council houses that were built in the 1930s. There is much older housing as well, which was built in the previous century. That is to be found in Ferry road. The housing in Avondale road was built in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Housing in the docks area, near the Hamadrayad, was built in the previous century. Some of the most recently built housing there is that which was provided to replace temporarily--in fact, most of the houses have become permanent--dwellings in the Madras street and Thomas street areas of Grangetown. Those could by no stretch of the imagination be described as yuppie areas ; the reverse, indeed, is the case. It is the established community, not the yuppies, that will benefit hugely from improvement of the environment.

The great curse of the coast of south Wales was described by Tennyson in the words

"Break, break, break.

On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!".

He was describing the haven under the hill--the haven was Penarth--and the tall ships that went by. Tennyson stayed in the Hanbury arms, which is in my constituency, in the last century. The problem then was the same as the problem now. This is not a beautiful area. For 18 hours a day the view is not of a reflecting sea or of beautiful waves ; it is of a mudscape. Sadly, since Tennyson's time even the mudscape has deteriorated greatly. The mud is now heavily polluted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is absolutely right when he refers to the disgraceful way in which we have fouled our rivers over the past 150 years. Restoring those rivers, preferably to the state that they were in 200 years ago, must be a major cause. It is conceivable. I hope that I am not being too autobiographical when I say that, as children, we used to swim in the Taff, near the Penarth road bridge. I remember vividly the feeder, which was exposed. There are now buildings there. During the war, boys would dive for coins. The river was in a terrible state at that time, but it is now becoming a fish habitat once more.

There has been reference--how serious, I am not sure--to fish passes. This issue has arisen only very recently. I understand that Mr. Creswell, the National Rivers Authority's spokesman on these matters, gave evidence about fish passes. There was no challenge at the time, but another Bill will provide an opportunity for that. That Bill, which will involve my constituency, casts its shadow before it. I understand that in the Usk, which has been rich in fish life for at least 10,000 years--there may be objection to that period--is still rich in fish life. The number of fish caught in the estuary of the Usk, which is in my constituency, is eight times as great as the number caught in the 100-mile stretch that runs through the countryside. There is a very strong vested interest. The most remarkable thing about the fish is that they have been so robust over the years. Some of them have managed to swim through the fouled waters of the lower Usk, whereas, for many years, they have not succeeded in the Taff or in the Ely. It is gratifying to see such an improvement in water quality.

A great deal has emerged from this debate. It has been much better tempered than many other debates. The question of water quality is, of course, paramount. I am told that the worst that we can expect is water quality such as is to be found in Roath park lake and Bute east dock,

Column 101

which supports fish life and, at present, cormorant life. Although there is pollution there, it is not such that people find it disagreeable. At present, the great problem about the Cardiff bay area arises from mud held in suspension, which gives the water an ugly brown colour. There may be other reasons as well, but the principal one is mud in suspension.

While on a boat trip with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I was fascinated to notice how nature had defied the experts. In the area, at least 20 cormorants have managed to survive, even though the water is not transparent at all. According to the experts, those birds should not be able to survive. Cormorants need to be able to see through water in order to fish. But nature tends--as the cormorants and other birds are--to be far more robust and better at looking after itself than many people suggest. There are many other examples throughout south Wales of birds finding other habitats.

There has been no mention of the measures which will be taken under the Bill to establish an alternative habitat. There is an exciting proposal in the area of Wentloog, some of which is close to my constituency. Such measures have been taken elsewhere. That development should be well worth while. Great colonies of birds have moved from Collister Pill, an area at Magor in the Monmouth constituency. Those areas were drained for agricultural reasons and the habitat of tens of thousands of birds was destroyed. The birds moved to a wholly artificial, man-made habitat at the Uskmouth power station. They settled there and feed on the mudflats. They breed on the Uskmouth power station land. They have adapted successfully. There is much pessimism about the Bill. So many people fail to see that it is a magnificaent concept. We should feel excited about the scale of it and what it will do. It will make an enormous difference. Throughout the world- -for example, in Australia and in Baltimore, in America--hugely successful schemes have been undertaken to allow people to enjoy living near areas of reflective water. The human species likes to live in such pleasant surroundings.

Mr. Rogers : Does my hon. Friend argue that we should spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to create reflective water?

Mr. Flynn : I am saying that the Bill has many advantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) suggested that all the money was intended to create jobs ; he calculated the cost of each job created. But the Bill has so many advantages that one cannnot pin down the value of the Bill to one.

There has been a generous spirit in the debate tonight. It is significant that no one accused anyone of having a

beggar-my-neighbour policy, but certain hon. Members adopted a defensive attitude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, we should all realise that prosperity as well as dereliction is contagious. We live in a single economy in south Wales. What is good for Cardiff will be good for Newport and the valleys. We welcome the £800 million investment in the valleys even though we may have been doubtful about some of it and the amount. We should like to see a great deal more investment spread to the valleys. They will benefit from the Bill.

Column 102

Furthermore, Cardiff is our capital city. I have a special pride in it, in spite of being wickedly provoked on Saturday night when I attended the dinner of the Welsh Baseball Union. Welsh baseball is a splendid sport played only in the favoured areas of Cardiff, Newport and Liverpool. Welsh baseball is different from any other type of baseball. I was introduced to the assembled guests as, not the Member for Newport, West but the Member for Cardiff, Far East. In spite of that, I feel a loyalty to the Bill.

I see the proposed barrage as a most exciting development in south Wales. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and others have rightly argued about the Bill and questioned it. The important matters raised, especially that of ground water and the history of the area, should be examined in great detail. If it is discovered that the worst fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West will be realised --we all hope that they will not be--the Bill and the entire project will be friendless in the House. I hope that that will not be the case.

Mr. Morgan rose--

Mr. Flynn : I shall take the hint.

I think that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who intervened on the subject of fish passes, was being unduly pessimistic. Salmon are strong, resilient fish. They have survived. They go through waterfalls and all kinds of pollution. The great problem is that salmon need water coming down the rivers. They need sufficient rainfall. Global warming and our warm summers will cause them more problems than getting through fish passes, which are established and work well.

We look forward to the day when the many objectors, both serious and less so, are answered and we can stroll together along the magnificent banks of Cardiff bay.

9.31 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : I welcomed the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) when he said what a good- natured debate we have had this evening, throughout the entire three hours and especially on the Opposition side of the House, although there was one exception, when the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) spoke. He rather surprised us all. He tried to exhibit mind-reading skills that we did not know he had. He was not trying to work out whether hon. Members such as myself disagreed with him, but our motives for doing so. I do not think that the House would function if we started to smear any hon. Member who disagreed with us by saying that they had heard voices. That was completely unnecessary. We all do our work in our own way and look after our constituents' interests. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has a better way of looking after his constituents' interests than I have, no doubt the results will show after the next election. That is when the matter will be put to the test.

I can tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central how he would be right to say that I had heard voices and that that is why I am opposing the Bill. However, I did not hear voices in the sense that he meant. It was simply that I walked around my constituency in Pontcanna and met a pensioner, who told me that he had lived there all his life, he knew all the pensioners, and he knew that they did not want the barrage. However, that was not sufficient basis for deciding to oppose this measure.

Column 103

The next stage in my decision to oppose the barrage came when I was called to meet Dr. Noake, who was paid for by Cardiff Bay development corporation, as a second-opinion consulting geologist engineer. He was educated and lives in south Wales, and is an experienced consulting geologist. I was asked to meet him because he had been working on the barrage proposals and their effect upon the drainage of the low-lying part of Cardiff west, Cardiff central and Cardiff south. He told me that in his opinion--he was paid for by the development company, but jointly chosen by it and the objectors, as it was thought to be the fairest way to operate--having studied the scheme, the geological contours and the way in which the water table operated, he thought that the low- lying areas of Cardiff would fail to drain in certain circumstances if the barrage were built and that that would have the obvious consequence of a rising water table. A locally based, professional engineering geologist told me that there could be problems for draining the low-lying parts of my constituency and others, so again that made me take notice. I then set to and I read the entire evidence submitted to the House of Lords and decided that as the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West it was my responsibility to oppose the barrage because more low-lying residential areas are in my constituency than in that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).

The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central seems to object to this process. He seems to think that because I did not oppose the barrage on the first day I heard about it, I sacrificed my right to oppose it at any subsequent stage. That is obvious nonsense. One has to accumulate the necessary facts to form an opinion in the best way that one can as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman also seems to think that because I was the industrial development officer for the county of South Glamorgan I must somehow have been aware of the barrage proposal and must have favoured it before I came to this House. He forgets that I ceased to be the industrial development officer for the county in 1980, more than six years before the Secretary of State for Wales thought up this proposal. So any connection between my previous employment and my right to oppose the barrage on behalf of my constituents is a complete mystery to me. I will have to write to him when this stage is over to find out what he meant by hearing voices and whether he considers that to be a proper parliamentary remark for one Cardiff Member to make about another. Apart from that, the debate has been good natured on all sides and there has been a great deal of understanding. The fact that we may differ and that we have formed our views in different ways does not affect our ability to put them on record for the purpose of trying to persuade our colleagues to vote for or against the barrage. We are being asked to consider the Bill as amended by the Select Committee, which did its work thoroughly and diligently. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) signed a minority report. There were 72 petitioners overall--one of the many parliamentary records set by the Bill. Many of the petitioners were not well off. They were not corporations and they could not call for expenses and first-class railway tickets to London,

Column 104

as we can and as companies can. Had they had to come to Parliament, they would have been put to considerable expense and might have prejudiced their jobs by taking time off. The Select Committee wisely accepted a request to hold sessions in Cardiff to let those petitioners appear, and it met for an entire week in South Glamorgan county hall. Something similar has happened only once before. We are grateful to the Select Committee for doing that and enabling many of my constituents to appear at minimum private expense.

What the Select Committee did was curious and highly innovative, and requires serious consideration. It approved the Bill but not the barrage. It said in effect, "We are not in a position to give the barrage the go- ahead. We accept largely the ground water case made by the professional engineering witnesses who appeard on behalf of the objectors." Those witnesses were Dr. John Miles, Professor Ken Rushton and Brian Connorton from Thames Water. By and large the Select Committee accepted the bulk of their objections to the work that has been done so far. In effect, the Select Committee said, "We are not willing to pass the barrage. We want to pass the buck on the final decision to the Secretary of State for Wales after more ground water studies have been carried out." Studies should be carried out over a full four seasons because measurements are being made of rainfall and its effects on the ground water table to try to get an impression of the process going on under the soil in Cardiff. Most of the objectors in my constituency think that if the Committee was not ready to pass the barrage, it should not have approved the Bill. They wonder what the Committee meant by approving the Bill when it was not ready to approve the major works which the Bill would empower the corporation to do. I understand that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale signed the minority report ; I am paraphrasing his views but he said that if the Committee was not ready to approve the barrage it should not send the Bill back to Parliament. My hon. Friend wanted the ground water studies to be completed so that the Bill would come back to Parliament to give the scheme the go-ahead only provided that the additional information warranted it.

Mr. Michael : Obviously my hon. Friend develops the chronology in accordance with his own views and his reading of the evidence. Does he accept that the decision of the majority of the Select Committee and the interpretation placed on it by experts and engineers, including the independent experts on whom I have depended, are reassuring and that the additional work which was to take place anyway was, as it were, the belt and braces in addition to the considerable safeguards in relation to ground water?

Mr. Morgan : If my hon. Friend thinks that that version of events is better than mine, perhaps I should read out Hydrotechnica's version, contained in the interim report that the company sprang on everyone in Cardiff--everyone of whom I am aware, at any rate--last Thursday. On page 2, we read :

"At the Commons Committee stage of the Bill, Proofs of Evidence were presented by Professor K. Rushton, Dr. J. Miles and Mr. B. Connorton, on behalf of the Petitioners, which were critical of the modelling work and which cast doubts on its reliability.

As a consequence of this, Hydrotechnica was instructed by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in March 1990 to

Column 105

examine the modelling work performed by WEL, and the Proofs of Evidence, and to give an opinion. Hydrotechnica reported one week later accepting the competence of the Petitioners' advisers to comment on the work, and agreeing in large measure with the comments made. Hydrotechnica did however state we believe from our concept of the system that these conclusions' "--

those of Wallace Evans--

" are essentially correct '

It became clear that the deficiencies identified in the modelling work needed to be addressed, and such action was undertaken by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. The Bill passed the Committee stage, with the condition that Hydrotechnica should carry out further modelling over a 12 month period ending on 31 July 1991." I do not want to engage in a barren argument about whether my version is superior to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I rest on the Hydrotechnica version.

Mr. Michael rose--

Mr. Morgan : No, I will not give way ; I think that three versions of the same event are quite enough, with only 20 minutes to go before the witching hour.

Mr. Rogers : Will my hon. Friend give way on this specific point?

Mr. Morgan : Yes, given my hon. Friend's professional knowledge of geology.

Mr. Rogers : This has nothing to do with my expertise as a geologist. I have long given up that profession ; my point relates purely to common sense.

It appears that the Bill will have a minimal effect on houses in low-lying areas as a result of ground water. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to get rid of all such possibilities by allowing the models to cover at least four seasons? Is it not foolish to proceed with the Bill in its present form, given the present assumptions about ground water?

Mr. Morgan : Let me make it clear that the proposal is to compensate for the damage being done by remedial work. It is anticipated that at least 1,000 houses may be affected by the waterlogging of basements, for instance, and my constituents do not understand why they should put up with such botheration.

There is a wider and more important point at issue, however. We are now being asked to accept the Bill without the barrage, but to take the barrage on trust when the additional ground water studies have been completed on 31 July. That is a unique parliamentary device : it is rather like General Colin Powell's words to the United States press corps the other day, when they were looking at the laser print. He said. "Trust me ; I have had to change the photographs a bit to stop the Iraqis from understanding where we get our information from."

How much trust can my constituents--who constitute a large proportion of the objectors--put in the House and the Secretary of State for Wales, given that, since 7 February, we have had a document signed by the Government Chief Whip telling all Ministers to be present tonight to vote the Bill through in the Lobby--and also to procure the presence of all parliamentary private secretaries? They are the unpaid members of the payroll voters who hope for promotion next year. The Welsh Office will, apparently, be acting quasi-judicially at the end

Column 106

of a planning inquiry, but we know that the Government have been whipping the Bill through on the quiet all the time.

Mr. Hood : As a Member of the Select Committee and as the individual who wrote the minority report, may I cast some light on my hon. Friend's comments about the Committee's views? The Committee unanimously accepted the evidence of Rushton and Miles. We would not have supported the Bill without the amendment backed by the majority which gave the final decision to the Secretary of State. Judging from the advice that we have been given by the Clerk, I do not believe that the Bill will proceed any further, whether or not the House supports it. There was gerrymandering. The Bill was not accepted because of the dangers. That was dishonest. Therefore, I cannot support it. I do not criticise the three other members of the Select Committee. They came to an honourable decision, but the advice we received and the evidence we heard led me to believe that the Bill would not be supported by the Secretary of State for Wales. We were advised that the Bill was flawed. That was the reason for the amendment. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend to develop his point.

Mr. Morgan : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central will say that he heard voices, too. If he did, they were the right ones. His words will be warmly welcomed by a large number of my constituents whose houses are low lying and near to the river.

Additional ground water studies began after the Select Committee disgorged the Bill on 14 May. The Cardiff Bay development corporation said that as most of the work had already been started it would be completed by March. Luckily, the Select Committee was able to put that straight. The corporation was firmly put in its place by the Committee. It was told that the work would begin on 1 August 1990 and would end on 31 July 1991. Over a full 12 month period that allows readings to be taken from the boreholes of the rise and fall of the tide, heavy rainfall and drought. A large number of boreholes have been drilled in the three constituencies affected ; furthermore, a few have been drilled in the Cardiff, North constituency. Hydrotechnica's interim report was published last Thursday. The Committee appointed Dr. John Miles to give a second opinion and to act on the petitioner's behalf. It was felt that that would reassure them that the Committee had done its work thoroughly and that it would not allow the petitioners to be railroaded by Hydrotechnica or any other consultants. Consultants are pulled both ways--in one way by their professional reputations, which they want to protect, and in the other way by the fees that they receive from their clients and by their customer-client relationship.

In addition to the protection afforded by Hydrotechnica's good name as professional experts in hydrogeology and computerised modelling of ground water, Dr. John Miles was called in to give a second opinion. When he was asked whether he had read the interim report and had been given a chance to comment upon it, he said that he had not--that he had not been told that it was to be published and that therefore he had been given no chance to comment upon it. The report was therefore published for public relations purposes just

Column 107

before the debate by Cardiff Bay development corporation. It told Hydrotechnica that it needed a report before this debate but Hydrotechnica was told not to show it to Dr. Miles in case he said that he wanted certain alterations to be made to it, or that he disagreed with it. The interim report was not shown to that second opinion, Dr. Miles, who had been appointed by the Select Committee to look after the interests of the ground water objectors.

That is no way to deal with the Select Committee's views on the ground water objections to the Bill. That is a poor advertisement for the trust that my constituents, who have ground water objections to the Bill, can place in the way that the Cardiff Bay development corporation works. It does not seem to appreciate that the Select Committee wanted evidence from other geologists and engineers as well as its own evidence. The corporation should read a few texts on philosophical humility. It should have realised that when the Select Committee told it that it wanted the corporation to appoint consultants and to refer everything that its consultants proposed to a second opinion, it ought to have done so and then made use of that second opinion instead of ignoring it. It should not have tried to go behind his back just because a big debate was to take place in the House of Commons. It is similar to what happened when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He cut base rates by 0.5 per cent. on the last day of the Labour party conference and the last working day before the Conservative party conference. The right hon. Gentleman thought that that was a clever move, but it has rebounded because markets have lost faith.

I am concerned that the same process will occur again. My constituents who object to the Bill may ask, "What trust can we put in this elaborate structure that the Select Committee created to defend our interests? One need not worry about Hydrotechnica and the Cardiff Bay development corporation railroading you, because there is Dr. John Miles." The development corporation did not consult Dr. John Miles when it wanted to bring out an interim report.

Dr. John Miles, Professor Rushton and those of my constituents who object to the Bill will probably tomorrow--unless the cold weather holds it up-- sink boreholes in certain parts of Cardiff to act as a double check. Professor Rushton is one of the world's great experts on computerised modelling of ground water behaviour. Boring holes is the only comeback they have against the development corporation's underhand behaviour. I do not criticise Hydrotechnica--the firm has an immense reputation--but all consultants are pulled by the attraction of fees while obviously having to consider their professional reputation.

Economic arguments have been made for the barrage. We heard a great deal about the promises of huge numbers of jobs in the Cardiff area. We even heard that the development may in some way skew up the pattern of development in south Wales because too many jobs may accrue in Cardiff and not enough in other areas. We have heard that the development may make Cardiff bigger than Bristol, double its size and make it an important European capital city of the 21st century. The Cardiff Bay development corporation's record on job creation is abysmal. The corporation existed in prototype form from about February four years ago, so it

Column 108

is virtually the corporation's birthday. More than £100 million of public funds has been given to it and it has acquired many sites. During a period that included a considerable boom in industrial investment, by British standards, the development corporation has managed to contribute only a new Volvo garage to Cardiff's economic life.

That is a poor return for four years of effort. It is a taster of the incompetence and overweaning behaviour that will characterise the corporation's behaviour. It does not have to abide by the rules governing local authorities and because it has been a favoured child of the Government. Therefore, it is not able to bargain and to negotiate in the same way as people who live in the real world. It is neither in the private sector, because it is publicly funded, nor in the public sector, because it does not have democratic

accountability. One tends to get the worst of both worlds. Four years of effort have given rise to one imported car garage--just the sort of thing that will put Britain back on the right track to economic growth. If any hon. Member knows of a development to which the development corporation has managed to give birth, I should be pleased to amend my statement. My understanding is that Bay Track Volvo in Cardiff bay is the only project that the development corporation has managed to get together in four years.

We have not heard the Government's solution to the problem of the highly nutrient-rich water of the bay. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the water quality of the bay will be as good as in Roath park lake, which is surrounded by some of the most attractive housing in Cardiff, and in Bute dock. However, it is far more nutrient-rich than Roath park lake and is a far shallower environment than Roath dock, which has steep sides. Large mats of algae will form, as they did last summer and the summer before last in the shallow feeder lakes into Roath park, which had to be removed in lorries. When mats of algae are allowed to decay they give off an anaerobic stench, and that will be a characteristic of the bay. It is accepted by the bay's promoters and their water consultants that mats of algae will form in the summer, when people will expect to be able to toddle around and enjoy Cardiff bay at its best. During the fine weather, unfortunately, the eutrophication and the low oxygen levels--

Mr. Michael rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to. Question put, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered :-- The House divided : Ayes 189, Noes 17.

Division No. 68] [at 10 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Amess, David

Anderson, Donald

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Atkins, Robert

Atkinson, David

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bellingham, Henry

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bowis, John

Boyes, Roland

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Next Section

Home Page