---

Column 326

instructions. They are not going to say anything publicly in the House because they have a large majority and prefer to govern in secret by writing confidential letters from one Secretary of State to another. That is not the way in which we should legislate.

Mr. Alan Williams : It is disgraceful.

Dr. Marek : I think that it is disgraceful and if the Government had any integrity they would at least talk to the sponsor of the Bill, take it away and come back with it another day, having thought about it afresh. If they will not do that, all that we can do is to continue to press our reasonable arguments to find out whether concessions can be made, the arguments find favour or are right or until the sponsor of the Bill or the Minister stands up and tells us where we are going wrong in our arguments.

There are five new clauses in this group and they are governed by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Although I raised the question earlier with one of my hon. Friends, it would help me if the sponsor of the Bill, or the Minister, could give me the present terms of reference for the Cardiff Bay development corporation and say exactly how it approached the Bill. Did it table the Bill because it wanted to make a lot of money out of it? Was it because certain landowners in the area would become extremely wealthy? That is unlikely to be the case on its own. If there was a term of reference relating to the benefit of the people of Cardiff, how strongly has that been put in the articles of association or in the setting up of the development corporation? Only after finding that out can we place some trust in what is in the Bill, and can we believe what we are told, where the Bill does not spell out the details.

All the new clauses are similar and they have rightly been grouped together. The first clause states :

"Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate.".

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) spoke at length on that clause and made many pertinent points that I do not want to repeat. However, I do not think that he has been answered succinctly or effectively by the Minister, by other Members on the Treasury Bench, who have said nothing all evening, or by the sponsor of the Bill.

What is wrong with the undertakers producing and publishing a plan "pertaining to sources of leachate in contact with the waters of the inland bay or of the groundwater in hydraulic contact with the waters of the inland bay and its proposals for removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate."?

The new clause does not state that all leachate must be removed, simply that proposals for the removal, relocation and improvement of such sources must be drawn up and published. It does not mean complete removal, relocation or improvement. It is a straightforward, simple and helpful new clause which, if agreed to by the sponsor or on the Government's recommendation to the sponsor that it is a helpful clause, would enable us to finish our debate on this group much earlier. New clause 5 is thus eminently sensible.

---

Column 327

4 am

New clause 6, which is grouped with new clause 5, states : "Before constructing the Barrage, the undertakers and the water company shall produce and publish a plan indicating where and what provision they have made for phosphate-stripping and

nitrate-stripping of the waters of the rivers entering the inland bay and their tributaries in the event of such provision becoming necessary for compliance with future water quality objectives in the inland bay."

Again, it is a helpful new clause. Although it refers to "compliance with future water quality objectives",

there is no commitment to action apart from producing and publishing a plan. The new clause relates purely to the provision of information and the undertaking of research.

We have not received a sensible reply to our request for new clause 6 to be passed and added to the Bill. The Minister could have told my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that he thought that sensible. The public--the people of Cardiff and of Wales--should know. The Minister has simply sat on the Front Bench and remained quite. Indeed, my hon. Friend is not in his place to tell me why those provisions cannot be accepted.

Dr. Kim Howells : Does my hon. Friend agree that the main reason why the promoters do not agree with new clause 6 is that it exposes the inadequacies of the preparation for the barrage in the Bill, which refuses to acknowledge that there are problems which, at the moment, appear difficult to solve but which, if admitted to in the Bill as drafted, would mean that the promoters would have to call a halt to these proceedings. As hon. Members have already said, it is a bit like praying that a solution to a major problem will somehow come along, provided that one keeps the momentum of the development going, and that the technical problems will be solved when it is convenient to do so. The basis of our objections, as expressed in new clause 6 and the new clauses grouped with it, is that we believe that the solutions should be clear before the development proceeds any further.

Dr. Marek : My hon. Friend makes a helpful point.

What am I to think? I can only think and surmise along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. In the absence of any counter-argument, there can only be the supposition that there are serious problems over what happens to the water. Indeed, I go further and say that the development corporation is probably in this for the money. People working for the corporation are probably earning good money. The chances are that they will make their money selling the houses before the lake is full, and that when it is full, they will be away and the people who bought the houses will have to put up with all the problems. By then the employees of the corporation will have left the job or retired. They would no longer have any responsibility. That is probably too cynical a view. Certainly at this stage, I do not wish to ascribe that view to people working for the corporation. But surely it is up to the Minister--it is now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, as Ministers seem to be taking it in shifts and to be under strict instructions not to say a word.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : The Minister is writing something.

---

Column 328

Dr. Marek : I hope that he is writing a reply to set our minds at ease. It is up to the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to prove to the House that what I have asserted is not the case.

New clause 6 is entirely sensible. It asks for nothing other than the production and publication of a plan.

One might think that new clause 8 caused a problem and would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds. But it says : "Before the commencement of impounding by means of the Barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls discharging directly into the inland bay or into the waters of the rivers discharging into the Bay or the tributaries thereof, showing the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement thereof and the agreement of the owner of each outfall to such removal, relocation or improvement."

A certain amount of action is required by the new clause. It asks first for a plan to be produced and published. No action is required in that part of the new clause. It is simply a question of doing some research, finding out the position and producing and publishing a plan pertaining to the sewer outfalls. No one in the House would object to that. There cannot be anything wrong with knowing the location of the sewer outfalls which discharge into the river. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West brought out that point forcefully in his speech. He said that there are serious problems with storm sewer overflows and that they should be mapped and charted so that we know where they are. I am sure that every citizen in Cardiff would say, "Hear, hear" to that.

The first part of new clause 8 asks for a plan to be produced. The second part of new clause 8 asks the undertakers to show the proposed means of removal, relocation or improvement of each outfall. Some of the SSOs or sewer outfalls may be entirely innocuous. Of course, many of them are not innocuous, so something would have to be done about them. But if a fresh water lake is to be dammed up, every citizen would think it absolutely right for the Cardiff Bay development corporation to examine each of the sewer outfalls and either remove or relocate them. At the very least, it should improve them. There is nothing whatever wrong with new clause 8. Yet we have heard nothing from the Minister. Nor, indeed, have we had a comprehensive reply from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

Dr. Kim Howells : I do not know whether my hon. Friend has enjoyed a tour of the docks with the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The undertakers of the Bill make great use of the fact that there are some particularly noisome, vile sewage outfalls at present. They take one to Pier Head and point down and show a vermin run and an outfall that flows out through the old dock. They say, "How long do you want that to continue?" Then they cast their hands up across the mud flats that stretch out towards the channel and denounce all the mud flats as though they were an extension of the sewer.

As one of those who visited the docks and was shown around, although not as part of the great freebie which I understand took place at a different time, I drew a different conclusion. My conclusion was that those sewage outfalls must certainly be eradicated, but as part of the general eradication of outfalls to which the Government are now pledged. There is an indefinite time limit, but they are pledged to that. The lesson to be drawn from it is that the mud flats should be cleaned up and that they are not

---

Column 329

something to be abhorred. I have found them quite attractive at times. If the course line and river were cleaned up they have the potential to be very attractive.

In pushing this, we are making our overall argument that the clean-up of the estuary can be achieved without the construction of a barrage and we just have answers about what exactly will happen to the sewage outfalls.

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

Question put , That the Question be now put :--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I want to be absolutely clear that the House knows what we are doing. I will put the Question again on the closure.

Question put , That the Question be now put :--

The House divided : Ayes 52, Noes 8.

Division No. 117] [4.11 am

AYES

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Boswell, Tim

Bowis, John

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Burt, Alistair

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Dorrell, Stephen

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Flynn, Paul

Foster, Derek

Gale, Roger

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Golding, Mrs Llin

Goodlad, Alastair

Grist, Ian

Hanley, Jeremy

Harris, David

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hunt, Rt Hon David

Irvine, Michael

Jackson, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Lightbown, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mans, Keith

Michael, Alun

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Moss, Malcolm

Nicholls, Patrick

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Thurnham, Peter

Tredinnick, David

Widdecombe, Ann

Wood, Timothy

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Allan Rogers and

Mr. Elliot Morley.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morgan, Rhodri

Nellist, Dave

Rowlands, Ted

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Tellers for the Noes :

Dr. John Marek and

Dr. Kim Howells.

Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker-- declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure).

---