House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Apr 1991

Dr. Marek : I have never before had the privilege of being cut off in full flow by Members on my own side, but it has been an instructive exercise. The Government have now abandoned the Bill.

Mr. Flynn : My hon. Friend will regret that.

Dr. Marek : Let us see some evidence. I shall be happy to regret it, if it happens.

Only 52 Members wanted to close the debate. I shall be happy to sit down immediately if the Minister, or a sponsor of the Bill, attempts to answer some of the questions that have arisen under the new clauses, but so far

Column 330

nothing has happened. The Minister remains silent, perhaps because his troops are not behind him : only 52 are here. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth were present to answer some of my questions.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : Before the Division, my hon. Friend was talking about new clauses 6 and 8. All that we are doing in those two new clauses is called for a plan. No work or expenditure would be needed ; it is a precautionary principle. The building of the barrage will pose a danger of serious pollution problems. Our request is very modest. How can hon. Members claim any "green" credentials while refusing to adopt a precautionary plan?

Dr. Marek : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am glad to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has returned : I beseech him to answer some of our questions. It is a great pity that he was not here for most of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West.

Anxiety has been expressed about the cleanliness of the lake and the health aspects. The Minister refuses to open his mouth. He has been given strict instructions by somebody not to speak.

Mr. Michael : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing pleasure at seeing me and I am pleased to be here for his speech. I was present for large chunks of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and found them enjoyable and enlightening. Some hours ago I answered the questions that are raised by the amendments. My answers were contained in brief and modest interventions and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) heard some, if not all, of them. They were brief and to the point. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with the points that were made.

4.30 am

Dr. Marek : I am grateful for that explanation, which is better than what we have had from the Minister, who has not said anything.

Mr. Michael : The Minister must account for himself. He does not represent a Cardiff constituency. I do, and my constituency includes the whole of the Cardiff bay development area, although that development has serious implications for other Cardiff constituencies, especially those of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist). That is why we take such a positive interest in the matter.

Dr. Marek : I appreciate that, and not for a moment do I think that it could be otherwise. However, the Welsh Office has a central role because it is responsible for almost every facet of administration in Wales. The leaked letter from the Secretary of State for Wales to the Home Secretary states that he sees

"the Cardiff Bay development as a vital component in one of the most exciting urban regeneration projects in Europe."

In view of the serious problems raised by some Opposition Members about pollution that could be caused by the barrage, Treasury spokesmen should have given their view. That is done for most other private Bills and I do not understand why the Welsh Office should write

Column 331

secret letters to other Ministers and not be prepared to account for its secret action in the full glare of television and the other media.

Mr. Michael : My hon. Friend is quite wrong to describe these letters as secret. They are extremely public and everybody seems to be repeating like a mantra references to them. My hon. Friends obviously intend to be helpful, but they are giving the Secretary of State publicity for supporting the Bill. The matter is important and I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the co-promoter of the Bill is Labour- controlled South Glamorgan county council. That positive support comes from the members and leaders of that authority, and those people live in the area of the proposed development. I accept that it may be difficult to perceive that from the long-distance perspective of Wrexham, but I assure my hon. Friend of that positive support. I hope that that will encourage him to support that Bill, even if my earlier comments did not.

Dr. Marek : I am extremely glad to have that reassurance. I hope that my hon. Friend will remain in the Chamber, because I intend to direct my speech principally at him. He cannot pretend that the Government have nothing to do with the Bill. The letter contains the names of many Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but I will not detain the House by reading out all of them.

Mr. Michael : I have written to hon. Members asking them to support the Bill. Why does not my hon. Friend give me some credit for what I have tried to do? Why is he so concerned to give publicity to the Secretary of State for Wales? My hon. Friend's attitude is most unfriendly.

Dr. Marek : I have not brought my hon. Friend's letter with me into the Chamber.

Mr. Michael : My hon. Friend put it straight into the bin.

Dr. Marek : No, I did not. It is in the House. I could produce it in a few minutes.

Mr. Rogers : Talk of the letter is obviously disturbing some of my hon. Friends because they find themselves in the same camp as the Tories. It is clear that the Government have a strong locus in these matters and that is why the Under-Secretary of State should answer some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. The Government have put hundreds of millions of pounds of public money into the venture and much of that money will be spent on works that are included in the Bill. Surely the Minister should justify that expenditure. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will understand that Back-Bench Members, for whatever reasons, may or may not support the Bill, but if the Government spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money they should answer to Parliament for that expenditure.

Dr. Marek : I agree with my hon. Friend.

Two of my hon. Friends have proposed closures of the debate and those motions have not been carried. I would expect my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to admit that there is some substance in the arguments that have been advanced or at least to recognise some of the fears that are reflected in the new clauses and

Column 332

to promise to consider the new clauses carefully, or even perhaps to accept some of them. If it is not possible for that to be done on the spur of the moment, he could at least get together with the Government and say, "The Bill has not passed through the House as we thought it would when we embarked on our consideration of it at 7 pm. We had better adjourn the debate so that we can consider what must be done. Perhaps we should meet my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to discuss the best way of proceeding with the Bill."

Mr. Michael : I made it clear earlier that serious issues were being raised by hon. Members, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in opening the debate. As I said to him, however, the issues are covered by the wording of the Bill as far as they should be, and that other more general items should be covered in more general legislation. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that we shall have the opportunity to deal with the more general items when, in the near future, we have a Labour Government.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said in his intervention, the Bill involves a massive public investment in my constituency. If the money is not spent in that way, it will not be spent elsewhere in Wales. Instead, it will remain in the coffers of the Treasury. I wish that my hon. Friends would allow the investment to take place in my constituency. It will do so much for the housing, the environment, the jobs and the well-being of my constituents. Surely that is the basis of our debate. I remind my hon. Friends, as they seek to debate important issues, that the benefits to which I have referred will be at stake at the conclusion of our debates.

Dr. Marek : In principle, I do not dissent from that, although I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda is shaking his head. if we can get the Bill right, I would not be against the redevelopment of this part of Cardiff. I have been round the area, although not on an official tour. I have carried out research and I believe that the Bill contains much that could be put right. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will believe that I approach this debate constructively. I am not speaking just for the sake of it. I should like answers to my questions and in the absence of satisfactory answers, there will have to be a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth needs 100 hon. Members to force the closure and he and the Government cannot achieve that. I believe that I have raised serious points and if they can be answered I will willingly finish my remarks.

Mr. Rogers : My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is asking my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to answer his points and those answers are not forthcoming from my hon. Friend or from the Government Front Bench. Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham and give him one of the answers that he seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that huge sums of public money had been invested in his constituency. That is true. However, one would have thought that he would have asked for a return on that money. The returns do not arise from extra building land or land for houses. If we consider the matter

Column 333

carefully, we see that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth would be adversely affected. The direction of the profits on the public money is revealed in a report of a consultant employed by the Cardiff bay development corporation. The report states that the projected land value in the area with no barrage, simply with regard to business space, is £130 million. However, with the barrage, the consultant expects the same building space to be worth more than £1 billion. It is worth £900 million in land values alone. With respect to the total of business space, industrial space, retail space, residential and leisure space, the land value in the area as a result of the massive investment of public money to the company will rise from £211 million to £1,300 million. That is where the profit on the public money is going. That is one of the answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was seeking and he was unlikely to receive such an answer from the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is more interested in his constituents than in the money-grabbing people involved in the venture--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) will confine himself to the new clauses.

Dr. Marek : I am sure that we shall be able to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda later. I will not dwell on the point now, but the point is significant and it should be considered. If large profits are to be made, they should go to the people of Cardiff and not be siphoned off somewhere else. That point should be answered, preferably by the Minister.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) appears to have described a strange new Government strategy. It seems that public money is being used to generate inflation. Is not that a strange departure? I know that there has been a change of leadership in the Conservative party and the Conservatives do not know which way they are going, but this is a strange philosphy.

Dr. Marek : It might generate inflation, although I do not suppose that it would generate inflation if it went to Majorca.

Mr. Michael : My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda was led away because he looked at the returns. My point is that the returns on public investment should relate to housing, jobs, the environment and the economy. The environmental issues that we are debating in this group of amendments are very important, but they are satisfied by the provisions in the existing clauses. Therefore, the amendments are unnecessary.

4.45 am

Job creation is not just in the interests of the city of Cardiff ; it is also in the interests of the rest of south Wales, including the constituents of many hon. Members who object to the Bill. Their constituents come now and in future will come in larger numbers to work in the city. I do not begrudge such a benefit to local communities and economies.

Dr. Marek : I do not intend to deal with the economy, which is the subject of a later group of amendments. My

Column 334

hon. Friend maintains that the new clauses are otiose because these matters are already included in the Bill. New clause 8 states, as do the other new clauses :

"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". Does the Bill contain a provision that states that before any work starts a plan shall be produced showing the sewer outfalls discharging into the area? If the Bill contains such a provision, I can dispense immediately with that part of my speech. If, however, it contains no such provision, it cannot be wrong to include a clause that would give to the people of Cardiff the right to know exactly how many sewers are pumping sewage into the rivers and surrounding areas. They ought to have that information.

The second half of new clause 8 says that a plan shall be published

"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."

If the Bill already provides for that, I hope that someone will point to the page and line of the Bill that says so. If it does not say that, what is wrong with adding the new clause to the Bill? It is a simple question and it demands an answer. I am sorry to say that at this stage the Minister, hiding behind his secret letters, intends to say nothing. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth can say something about it, I shall be grateful.

Mr. Michael : The point is that diversion of sewer outfalls upstream of the barrage must be a matter for Welsh Water and the National Rivers Authority. It does not arise directly from the creation of the barrage. We have already undertaken to divert the sewers that feed into Cardiff bay. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham was here when we debated that matter at an earlier stage. Had he been here he would have heard that that is not a matter of dispute between local Members of Parliament. The new clause goes way beyond what is appropriate for inclusion in the Bill. It deals with matters that we should all like to see resolved, but they ought not to be loaded on to the back of this Bill.

Dr. Marek : I am reassured to some extent. At least something will be done in the area of the bay. As I am not an expert in water treatment, and as there seems to be no objection from any of my hon. Friends, I am quite happy to take my hon. Friend's word in respect of that amendment.

New Clause 6 says :

"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."

The second part of the provision is simply an explanation of the need for the first part ; it does not demand any action. Let me repeat the words from the first part :

"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".

Can my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth tell me why there should not be published a plan indicating what provision has been made for these activities?

Column 335

Mr. Michael : Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to stretch your patience by repeating points that I made earlier, but my hon. Friend almost demands that I do so. Currently, Welsh Water and NRA do not consider that phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping are required from the outset to achieve the necessary water quality. However, as I said earlier, paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 69(13) cover that situation where works are required upstream of the inland bay. The undertakers are required to meet the cost of any works that are necessary, over a period of 20 years, to satisfy water quality standards. This provision could include phosphate stripping if the water quality standards so required. The point, which has been well made by my hon. Friend, is covered in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that, too.

Dr. Marek : It is a reassurance to a certain extent. However, there is no absolute guarantee of phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping in any of the waters coming in from the head waters.

Mr. Morgan : If phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping become necessary within the first 20 years, the development corporation, as co- promoters, will have to pay Welsh Water and the NRA to do the job. A great fear is that if that responsibility can be dodged for the first 20 years, it will be dodged. There may be arguments about variations in climate conditions, the appropriate technology, the compulsory acquisition of land, and the location of phosphate stripping and nitrate stripping plants. Are the plants to be located at the sewage works as add-on components or will the people concerned do the much more ambitious, but possibly necessary, job of locating them where the waters actually enter the bay so that all possible sources are covered?

Nineteen years could easily elapse before a plan is agreed. With a little delay, the 20 years could be gone. In that event, who would pick up the tab? It seems that that is left completely in the air. Will the Cardiff city council, as the legatee body, pick up the bill or will the NRA, as the monitoring body, be responsible? The NRA will not have the necessary capital funds for a scheme costing £50 million. Or will Welsh Water--a private business--have to meet the cost? If so, its shareholders will not be very pleased. This fear has been expressed to me by very senior people in the NRA in Wales.

Dr. Marek : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. I shall read carefully what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said. He mentioned complying with standards. Will he say that those standards will be complied with on time and not 20 years later, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West suggests?

Mr. Michael : I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to be around for more than 20 years, during which time I shall ensure that compliance is not dodged. It is in the interests of my constituents that I ensure that it is not. I hope that the NRA will pursue vigorously the requirements of the Bill and that future environmental legislation will make the requirements more stringent and will insist on timeous compliance with them. The Bill offers a series of tight and testing requirements--they have been described as draconian--and I and others who have supported the Bill will ensure that they are enforced.

Column 336

Dr. Marek : I shall weigh those remarks carefully when deciding how to vote on the new clause.

New clause 5 provides :

"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 and its proposals for removing, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate."

There may be no proposals for the removal, relocation or improvement of such sources, but what is wrong with producing and publishing a plan pertaining to the sources of leachate? I am sure that the citizens of Cardiff would like such information at their fingertips. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth any helpful comments to make on that?

Mr. Michael : I hope that all my comments are helpful--they are certainly intended to be. My hon. Friend has misread the Bill. The Bill requires outfalls from Ferry road tip, Cowslip, Cogan and Penarth dock to be removed, relocated or diverted, to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority. There is a requirement on the developers to satisfy, by one or other of those means, the requirements of the NRA.

I do not want to go into detail on the drafting of new clause 5, but there are deficiencies as it asks for a report. It is not clear what is meant by sources of

"groundwater in hydraulic contact and proposals for removal, relocation or improvement."

The Bill is quite clear.

Dr. Marek : My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West could perhaps enlighten us on the meaning of that phrase. Before I invite him to do so, may I say that if my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is right and there are only three sources of leachate, we already have half the answer to the question raised in the new clause. If the NRA were to publish its proposals for the removal, relocation or improvement of such sources of leachate, the new clause would be otiose. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West seek to intervene?

5 am

Mr. Morgan : Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said that he did not understand the wording that I had drafted in the new clause about hydraulic contact with the barrage. It is simple. The structure on which low-lying Cardiff is built used to be drained by artificial drainage ditches, rather like the Dutch polders which I am sure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have seen on your trips to the tulip fields. Those have been built over and cannot be seen, but there is water flowing under the ground from the rivers when the tide is in.

If we retained a high water level, water would flow back and forth permanently along the old drainage ditches and under people's houses. Therefore, all the time there would be washing out of any pollutants from a tip or any other chemicals which might drain down from the clinker which was used as a standard building material to provide foundations over the 100 years or so when there was massive use of coal. Clinker, of course, contains all manner of polluting trace elements which will drain down into the ground water in the old drainage ditches with the impounded water in the lake.

Column 337

Dr. Marek : I am grateful for that explanation. I will bear carefully in mind the statements of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

The conditions of new clause 17 may well be satisfied. In any case, I do not see any reason why the new clause should not be added to the Bill. It is similar to new clause 5. It says :

"Before commencement of impounding by means of the barrage the undertakers shall produce and publish proposals for the sealing of the Ferry Road tip to the satisfaction of the rivers authority and the Environmental Health Officer of the city council that no material risk of infiltration of the inland bay or of groundwater by leachate from the tip will occur."

I should have thought that that was an important new clause and that every citizen of Cardiff would wish to be satisfied that that would happen. If it is anywhere in the Bill, I hope that the Minister will tell me where it is, and I will be delighted to say no more about it. It is a sensible provision. I am sure that citizens of Cardiff will want to be satisfied that there is no material risk of infiltration. The new clause does not ask for the impossible. There could be immaterial risks of infiltration because there is no such thing as 100 per cent. success in such matters. I commend the new clause to the House and hope that it will be passed in due course. New clause 19, which deals with algal scum, says :

"Before the commencement of impounding, the undertakers shall commission and publish proposals for the proper disposal of algal scum arising in the inland bay that are consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal and in adjoining waters."

That is probably the most difficult of the new clauses. It certainly asks for no more than that the commission should publish proposals for proper disposal--but exactly what does "proper disposal" mean? It can mean different things to different people.

When the clause says that the proposals must be

"consistent with the preservation and maintenance of good water quality standards at the site of disposal",

that is also open to interpretation. That new clause is perhaps a little too loose and I would have made it tighter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall listen carefully to see whether he can illuminate the matter for me.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House the book first referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) entitled "Toxic Blue- Green Algae". It is a report by the National Rivers Authority published in September 1990. On page 79 it states : "Knowledge of the environmental effects of the toxins"

produced by the algae--

"is largely based on circumstantial evidence."

If the document is to be believed--and I think that it should be because it is a scientific paper :

"Toxic blue-green algae have been recorded from UK lakes for many years, although no major ecological perturbations have been attributed directly to the effects of the toxins. Their potential for causing problems is well documented. Toxicity data obtained by intra-peritanial injection indicate that toxins produced by blue-green algae rank amongst the most toxic compounds of biological origin."

The next statement is important ;

"The main uses of water which are most affected are those of general amenity, recreation and livestock watering."

I am concerned that a scientific paper states, first, that evidence about the environmental effects is based largely

Column 338

on circumstantial evidence and, secondly, that the main uses of water most affected are those of general amenity and recreation. That is precisely what water in the barrage will be used for. I think it right--and I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will also think it right--that those matters should be raised. It would be, not a terrible calamity, but very sad if the Cardiff barrage were built merely to increase the capital value of the land by £900 million--as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said--and it was then discovered, with hindsight, that nobody would have built it because of the environmental and toxic effects of the algae that could develop in the lake.

It is difficult to prove the case. All that we can do is listen to the arguments--I have done so--and make up our minds at the end of the debate about which way we should vote.

Paragraph 12.16 on page 81 states :

"The clear message, however, is that there are no easy options and many of the control methods currently available are not likely to be effective in the short term. The possible exceptions to this are whether there is sufficient depth for destratification to be effective."

I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to be able to give us the answers all the time, but I should like to hear that there is sufficient depth for destratification to be effective. However, listening to my hon. Friends' speeches, there seemed to be much concern about whether the control options that are being proposed--certainly as described by them--will be effective. It would be wrong to build the barrage and then have to say with hindsight, "Sorry, we did the wrong thing. We shouldn't have built it." That is the crunch question.

Of course that area of Cardiff has to be developed. Let me pay tribute to the Government. On occasions they have recognised that there is problem there and that the area needs developing. I do not think that that is at issue in the House this morning. What is at issue is, have we got it right, are we going about it the right way? There are serious questions about the barrage and the problems of controlling algae and they have not so far been dispelled to my satisfaction.

One issue that pertains to the new clause regards the management of the lagoon, which is important. We are talking about pollution in the lagoon and ensuring that it is clean, healthy and contains good water. I should like to compare two Bills, as there have been more than one. I have here what I hope is a copy of the latest Bill. The trouble is that it does not say which one it is--it would be a lot easier if it had a date on it so that we knew which copy was which. I also have a copy of a previous Bill. The only way that I can identify it is that on the new copy, on the second page, underneath the heading "Cardiff Bay Barrage [H.L.] Arrangements of Sections", "50/3" is printed and "50/2" on the old Bill. Therefore the "50/2" Bill must be an earlier version than the "50/3" Bill, but I am sorry that I have not been able to find out precisely how early.

Clause 54 of the old Bill--

Mr. Michael : I am trying to follow what my hon. Friend is saying, but he has thrown me a little with his references to the lagoon, which is not dealt with in the new clauses before us at present. If I am wrong, perhaps my hon. Friend would draw my attention to the part of the new clauses that he is referring to. I have a feeling that I am missing an important point.

Column 339

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I was getting slightly worried when the hon. Gentleman seemed to be dealing in some detail with the lagoon. I think that it would be more appropriate to discuss that when we come to amendment No. 115 and those grouped with it, which specifically deal with the lagoon.

Dr. Marek : We shall certainly come to that consideration, and I understand that it is different. I shall explain this in detail later as there is a significant change in the management of the lagoon in the old Bill when compared to what is stated in the new Bill.

Mr. Michael : There may be some mistake. Would my hon. Friend tell us what he means by "the lagoon"?

Next Section

Home Page