House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Apr 1991

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glandford and Scunthorpe) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grist : The hon. Member for Glandford and Scunthope (Mr. Morley) is very interested in birds, but I doubt whether he would choose to live by the mud flats unless he was particularly wedded to the bird scene.

Mr. Morley : I have been in the Chamber for most of the night, but I did not wish to interfere in matters that concerned Cardiff. However, there are local, national and international concerns about the ecological effects of the barrage. Does the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) accept that many local people in Cardiff appreciate the value of the mud flats and many business people are investing their money in the regeneration of Cardiff? Firms such as Tarmac Homes have argued that the mud flats

Column 362

would not deter them from investing in the area or in the regeneration that everyone wants. The mud flats can be an integral part of that without the barrage.

Mr. Grist : Tarmac Homes is building homes on developments that are nowhere near the mud flats. The homes are near the Bute East dock and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth explained--although no one paid any attention to him--that the water in that dock is the kind of water that would be behind the barrage. It may not be the kind of water we would want to swim in or swallow, but it is perfectly good for fish, for birds and for water sports and boating, all of which take place on the Bute East dock. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) painted a picture of the nature of the water that was a travesty of the truth. He painted it in the most lurid colours for headline purposes in order to scare people and put them off. It was neither an objective nor an honest approach.

Mr. Gwilym Jones : Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that one consequence of adjourning the debate at this stage will be that we shall be prevented from hearing more from the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is the most noted expert in the House on birdlife in this country. I had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands in his company. He made my visit much more instructive and memorable by taking me on a conducted tour of birdlife in the Falkland Islands. The House ought to hear more about the birdlife before it continues its debate on the Bill. 7.15 am

Mr. Grist : My hon. Friend surprises me by expressing that interest. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe must have been a very engaging companion. I hope that we can look forward to a slide show in the Grand Committee Room to underline the point. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly is also a noted supporter of both bird and other forms of wildlife. We accept him on that basis. Therefore, we should have respected him more had he sought more clearly to express his opposition to the development along those lines. At the end of the day I should still have thought his opposition wrong, since the promoters have gone out of their way to try to find an answer--a most ingenious one at that--to the problem. They have approached the effect of the scheme on both fish and birdlife with the greatest seriousness.

Hon. Members may not be aware of the fact that the promoters have considered the amendments most carefully--in my view, with more care and seriousness than they deserve. When we continue the debate, they will find that the promoters are ready to accept many of the amendments. Had we proceeded, we might have found that that fact led to slightly faster progress through the Amendment Paper, though I accept that it is open to any hon. Member to jigger it up, if he or she wants to do so.

The concerns expressed in the amendments need to be aired and will be aired. I hope that Opposition Members will adopt a more constructive approach and will stop obstructing the scheme, thereby damaging the good name of Wales and Cardiff. They should say plainly why they dislike the proposal. They ought to stop scaring quite unnecessarily both their own and other people's constituents.

Column 363

Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South) : Is not the most grievous lesson to be learned from all this the Labour party's divisions in Wales? As the Leader of the Opposition is a Welsh Member, does it not surprise my hon. Friend that he is not here to listen to and to contribute to the debate? Does it not show the lack of firm leadership for the good of Wales that my hon. Friend so eloquently provides?

Mr. Grist : I was seeking not to embarrass my right honourable neighbour in Cardiff and my other neighbours in south Wales. However, his absence underlines the manifest split in the Labour party that my hon. Friend has underlined, though it underlines itself. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has not given some sign of his support for the proposal. I am sure that my disappointment is shared in other quarters.

Locally, the Labour party has supported the proposal, which is all to its credit. It understood that this is an unparalleled opportunity for a rundown area in a great city to be improved. Cardiff was one of the greatest coal ports in the world at the turn of the century. However, during the past 30 or 40 years the area has declined and rotted. At last we have been given the chance to rebuild. It will be a modern, pretty and exciting development that will provide plenty of work. It is estimated that this development will result in the creation of about 30,000 jobs and in the building of about 6,000 houses, a quarter of which will be housing association and public authority dwellings. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has tried to involve the people of Tiger bay. It has tried to promote training and to involve people in the rebuilding of their area. It has given life back to the area by all sorts of means, such as painting railway bridges and cleaning up places. Involving local people has all too often been an uphill task.

What does the corporation get from the Opposition? It gets suspicion and a refusal to recognise that certain powers are required. It is sniffed at when it requests investment. What happens in the capital city is reflected in the valleys, and sends a beacon out to the whole of south Wales. Following a previous failed city centre development project in the 1960s, we now have a great concert hall in Cardiff. I defy Opposition Members not to be proud of St. David's hall. Performances there are broadcast frequently. It is one of the finest concert halls in the country. Music performed there is broadcast throughout Europe and is carried by the BBC World Service. The same will apply to this development if only hon. Members will take the blinkers off, stop scaring people, and contribute constructively to the debate.

Mr. Michael : Perhaps I can be a little kinder to my hon. Friends than the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist)--my neighbour--has been. At this stage, I speak more in sadness than in anger.

Some of my hon. Friends do not understand the danger in which they have placed the future of my constituents, the future of the city of Cardiff, and an imaginative future for south Wales. Some have shown a degree of sympathy. Some may have hoped to exercise their right of criticism to the full, but that in the end their attempts to prevent the Bill's progress would be voted down. In view of the kind way in which the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has referred to these matters, I shall say no more about them.

Column 364

However, in view of the numbers of Government Members who voted in this debate, Conservatives are not in a position to make remarks about divisions among Opposition Members. The absence of support for the Secretary of State for Wales is an indication of a sad lack of confidence in the very positive development that this Bill represents. I hope that all hon. Members will reflect on the dangers that will be created by the delay in the Bill's progress that is now proposed.

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central for his kind remarks. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have supported the Bill at all its stages. In particular, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West was born in Grangetown and appreciates more than most the precise effects that the barrage could have on the creation of a positive future for people in the area, including his own neighbours and friends of earlier days. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who represents a valley constituency, and Members from Newport and Swansea do not see this opportunity for my constituency--indeed, for the city of Cardiff--as an alternative to development in their own areas. They see it not as a price that they have to pay, but as a positive development, in which they, too, should delight.

It is sad that we have not made more progress. The new clauses and amendments that we have considered were either unreasonable or were already covered by the Bill. I did not support the Bill without giving deep thought to its implications, and I think that my hon. Friends will accept that that has been my position. I ask other hon. Members deeply to consider their objections to the Bill and the way in which they have sought to use up much time by placing obstacles in its way, and allow it to proceed, for the benefit of my constituency and the wider area.

Opponents of the Bill have referred to the excitement about the Cardiff bay development. The development depends on the barrage to attract investment and secure the future of the city. Many of us have considered the type of city that Cardiff will become in the future. We do not want ribbon development until the city meets Newport, West on the one hand and Bridgend and Barry on the other, or goes north until it meets Caerphilly. For years, those on local authorities looked southwards to the land that was owned by the British docks board and sought to bring Cardiff back to its old heartlands and to bring back new life and communities to the south Cardiff area. That is the purpose of the Bill.

The development of the city has continued apace in recent years, not accidentally but because local authorities, and the people who represent the people of Cardiff on those local authorities, have sought redevelopment of the city. I am proud to have played a small part in the development of the city centure. At one time, people left south Wales to shop in Bristol and other places, but now people from the other side of the Bristol channel come to us.

The capital city of Wales is a place of which the people not only of Cardiff but of south Wales can be proud. I still believe that the barrage will help us to ensure its future.

Mr. Gwilym Jones : I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this matter. I served with him on Cardiff city council for more years than we care to remember. We served on the central area committee and

Column 365

the finance committee. Since the failure of the central area development, through the development of St. David's hall and of south Cardiff, there has been steady progress and a bipartisan approach by responsible members of the community. If the Bill were frustrated, it would be the greatest tragedy, a dire frustration and a dreadful betrayal of our city.

Mr. Michael : I agree. We have been fortunate in our

representatives on local authorities. They sought to develop Cardiff airport and attract new investment to the area from Bosch and other firms. Those local authority representatives had the vision to see that the development of Cardiff bay and of the barrage would take the future of Cardiff into a new dimension that would not be available without it, as St. David's hall gave Cardiff a new cultural dimension and the development of the city centre changed Cardiff from a rundown older city into one that has been fittingly described as the youngest capital in Europe.

We know there that are firms waiting in the wings to see whether the barrage proposal goes through and, if so, to bring jobs and economic development to the city. That development will bring about a growing capital city in the heart of a resurgent economy in south Wales. It will bring my constituents positive developments in the environment by replacing the old and derelict heart of the city with new, living communities. It will bring housing to areas where it is desperately needed. It will bring jobs back to the deprived communities in the south of Cardiff. Having worked in those communities before election to the House, I have seen a good deal of the misery of unemployment which far too often has been concentrated in those areas of the city.

7.30 am

Before this and earlier debates, I circulated hon. Members with information on a number of occasions. Many right hon. and hon. Members are fed up hearing about the Cardiff bay development and are tempted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself, "A plague on both your houses."

I do not seek division with colleagues within the city and certainly not with members of the same party, but I cannot stand back and see massive public investment for my constituency and my city being put at risk. I state again, lest any of my hon. Friends is in doubt, that if that public investment, which would bring after it private investment in the heart of the capital city of Wales, does not go ahead, that money will not go to other Welsh constituents but will go back to the Treasury and will be lost to Wales.

I tell my hon. Friends that I will not take the same approach to developments in their constituencies when the opportunity arises. I will seek to bring investment to my constituency, but I will also seek to do what I can to bring investment to the valleys of south Wales, to the rural areas of Gwent and Gwynedd, and to the communities in every part of Wales that need investment. I do not believe that stopping development in another constituency can possibly be for the benefit of my constituency. I invite my hon. Friends who have sought to take so much time on the Bill today to reflect on that and to consider whether they really want to stop such vital development for the city of Cardiff.

My constituents will ask why the investment and their future may be put at risk by the procedures of the House.

Column 366

I think that on one thing at least we can all agree : that the procedures of the House in relation to private Bills need a drastic overhaul and need to be dragged into the 19th century, if not into the 20th century. That is no criticism of yourself, Mr. Speaker, or of the occupants of the Chair who have had to preside over the sitting. They have had to operate within the system, as I, as the sponsor of the Bill, and other hon. Members have had to operate within the system that currently applies. I plead with the House not to be slow in bringing about changes and more logical ways of dealing with these matters.

However, we have to deal with the procedures of the House as they stand. The promoters of the Bill had to go through the private Bill procedure in order to make the progress that we all wanted. The opponents came prepared to debate through the night and the following day. Their dedication to opposing the Bill, which I am sure is sincere, was strong enough for them to do that. I came prepared to debate through last night and today, and tomorrow night and the following day, if necessary, to complete consideration of the the Bill. I am sad that it appears that we will not now have that opportunity on this occasion, but there will be a future occasion. I make a plea to all hon. Members to remember that this little Bill, which has been a great irritant to so many hon. Members, carries with it the key to the future for my constituency, my city and--as I say to other hon. Members--our city. I make that plea not just to those who represent Cardiff constituencies but to all who represent Welsh constituencies and, indeed, to English and Scottish Members who also have shown an interest in and support for the development. It is a sad point to reach but I hope that what we have now is a temporary setback that may give people the opportunity to reflect on their opposition to the Bill and the barrage. I hope that the Bill will go ahead, and do so with the united support of the House. I am certain that it is the right measure for the city and the future, so I leave the House with that plea for support.

Mr. Gwilym Jones : I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate immediately after my respected colleague and neighbour, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). This is the first time that I have spoken on a dilatory motion of this sort. I am not familiar with such a motion. I was surprised when the motion came ; I thought that it had been moved by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), but Madam Deputy Chairman, who was in the Chair before you, Mr. Speaker, corrected me on that point and explained that it had been moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I was surprised at that because, earlier this morning, I had been looking through "Erskine May" and found, on page 333, that :

"Furthermore, the Speaker has power under Standing Order No. 34, if he believes that any dilatory motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, to decline to propose the question on it to the House". It struck me as odd that the occupant of the Chair could put forward such a dilatory motion while seemingly having the power to exercise a veto over that motion. I could not immediately see how a separation of the functions could be achieved between the Chairman of Ways and Means proposing the motion, although not from the Chair but from the Treasury Bench--

Column 367

Mr. Speaker : Perhaps I may help. The Chairman of Ways and Means is in charge of private business and it is his decision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising that decision.

Mr. Jones : Far be it from me, Sir. I would not want to criticise that and I hope that you will draw me to order immediately, if necessary. I only plead my lack of familiarity with this motion, which I have never debated before. I would have appreciated it if it had been in order-- perhaps it would not have been--if the Chairman of Ways and Means could have explained why he brought the motion before the House. Perhaps he is allowed to say only as much as he did. Whenever I try to debate a motion, I am always concerned about why we should adjourn. I feel a great frustration now, which I think is shared by other hon. Members, not least those from the capital city of Wales. There will be frustration in that city, and throughout south Wales, if it is thought that we are unnecessarily frustrating the progress of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. I should like to know why it is felt that we should adjourn.

I have sat here patiently for almost the entire time since 7 pm last night, and have been wanting to speak on the Bill. However, I felt frustrated that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) so eloquently put it, we have been subjected to a filibuster since 7 pm last night. That filibuster has prevented me from speaking on the Bill, because I knew that, if I spoke needlessly, I would only contribute to that filibuster. I so wanted the Bill to progress that I resisted, almost entirely, the temptation and confined myself to one or two pertinent interventions to try to bring the debate to a much more appropriate stage.

This most regrettable and inappropriate filibuster should never have happened. We have been debating the Bill since 7 o'clock last night--about twelve and half hours. I seem to remember that the last debate on the second group of new clauses began at 9.53 pm. There were two closure motions during that debate, moved by different sides of the House. There was a will to make progress.

Unfortunately, the House has rules that are not always readily understood outside it. We believe that all our rules are good and try to observe them, but many people will think that there was something wrong when the first closure motion was carried by 97 votes to approximately 20, but we still could not make progress because we were a mere three votes short of the minimum required for a closure.

Mr. Rowlands : I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. He is referring to the length of speeches. May I remind him that there are a number of interesting precedents? One was the four-hour speech made by the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), the present Secretary of State for Wales, in a debate on the Mersey Passenger Transport Bill, a private Bill. It is a precedent that many hon. Members have followed.

Mr. Jones : My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has reminded me that, as this is a private Bill, there is no set rule that speeches have to be only 10 or 15 minutes. On occasion, something longer than 15 minutes can well be justified.

Column 368

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford) : The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) spoke in the debate on a private Member's Bill, and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill is a private Bill. The circumstances are different, and I thought it would be appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to set the record straight.

Mr. Jones : I am grateful for that intervention, which sets the record straight. We can only reflect on the almost complete lack of progress that we have made, although all those hon. Members stayed up throughout the night for a twelve and a half hour debate. What have we succeeded in doing? We have disposed of one out of 25 groups of new clauses and amendments. We were only on the second group, although the debate began at seven minutes to 10 o'clock, and we still have not concluded them even though there were two closure motions.

We have already commented on one closure motion, when there was a slight technical hitch because it was three votes short of the minimum required to achieve a closure. There was an even more remarkable closure motion in the early hours of this morning, which, if I remember rightly, was moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who must have changed his mind more than once about wanting to make progress on this Bill, because he moved that motion and could get even fewer of his hon. Friends into the Lobby.

Mr. Ron Davies : As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me directly, I think that it is appropriate that I explain to him precisely why I moved that motion in the early hours. It was our belief that the Secretary of State had failed to gather the support that he was seeking from the Government. We know that the Secretary of State wrote to every member of the Cabinet urging every Minister, junior Minister and Parliamentary Private Secretary to stay present through the night. We were aware that the Secretary of State had failed in that endeavour.

We knew from the previous vote on the closure that the supporters of the Bill did not have 100 Members present to achieve the closure. We believed that, during the later part of the night, there were not 40 members present to achieve a quorum in the event of a Division. Therefore, I moved the motion. My hon. Friends deliberately stayed out of the Lobby to ensure that we could identify precisely those members of the Government and the few Opposition Members who were supporting the measure, and test whether the House was quorate. There were just over 40 hon. Members, not quite 50, so we were nearly successful in our endeavour.

Mr. Jones : I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman is a candid Member of this House, and at least he has frankly explained that the closure motion was nothing more than another procedural device to try to sabotage the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill--if he could not filibuster it out, he would try to wreck it by finding out whether we were without a quorum. Again, that was not a positive contribution to the debate, despite some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues trying to claim that they were being positive.

Mr. Colin Shepherd : Is it not also true that that Division took up another 15 minutes and that although only 52 hon. Members took part in it, of whom my hon.

Column 369

Friend and myself were numbers 51 and 52, that 15-minute Division was another method of stalling for time? It was purely a procedural play to spin out time.

7.45 am

Mr. Jones : My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

In response to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly said about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I advise the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend was not whipping the Bill. It is not his job to do so. [ Hon. Members :-- "What about his letter?"] Anyone can write to anyone. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) wrote to me and to many other hon. Members to encourage me to stay in the House throughout the evening to support the Bill. I know full well that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also wrote to hon. Members, as did the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) who wrote a round robin to Cabinet members. Perhaps that was the original, because the hon. Gentleman wrote that letter in February, so my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be guilty of copying him when trying to put the record straight.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : May I assure my hon. Friend that I have been here all night, largely because--[ Hon. Members :-- "Where?"] The Palace of Westminster is multi-roomed, and I have been here all night because of my hon. Friend's request for support for a Bill which I believe to be of great importance. That has nothing to do with other letters. It is simply due to the admirable work of my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) to ensure that the Bill, which is so important to Cardiff, has a chance of going through.

Mr. Jones : I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I should like to make another point about the intervention of the hon. Member for Caerphilly. I am sorry that he is no longer in his place-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff, West will doubtless pass on what I am saying to his hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman added confusion to confusion because, having voted against a closure motion at about 1 am, he then proposed a closure motion between 3 and 4 am, and proceeded to vote against it. How many times can he stand on his head amid all the procedural devices that he tries to implement?

Dr. Marek : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, and I shall not now seek to make a speech in my own right. However, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales is now behind Mr. Speaker's Chair. He has not entered the Chamber during our debates on the Bill, but he is alive and well and able to issue a press release to the Press Association, criticising Labour Members and telling it exactly what has been happening here. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber.

Will the hon. Gentleman please go to see his right hon. Friend and the Ministers? We would have made a lot more progress if, just for once, Ministers could answer some of our questions, such as what is happening to the £900 million, and of about the environmental considerations. If they had answered a single question, we could have made some progress, and I say that in all sincerity. Can the hon. Gentleman please use his influence?

Column 370

Mr. Jones : I do not need to go to see either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friends the Ministers in the interest of making progress on this Bill. Instead, I direct the charge back to the hon. Member for Wrexham, who made a not-short contribution during the past twelve and a half or 13 hours on the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman had been much more succinct and to the point with his words, we could certainly have made progress. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) had a 20-minute slot immediately after the first closure motion that did not succeed, just after 1 am.

The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and certainly for Cardiff, West went on at some length. Naturally I would not wish to leave out the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who also spoke. Compared to some of his hon. Friends, he was a model of brevity. At one point, he confined one of his speeches to a mere one minute. If more of his hon. Friends had emulated the hon. Member for Rhondda, we could have made progress. I am glad that he has come back into the Chamber.

I also include in the catalogue the hon. Member for Caerphilly, who felt it necessary to speak at some length, as did several of his hon. Friends. In all fairness, I should not do as the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) suggests and see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friends the Ministers in the Welsh Office. Instead, I should address my remarks to Opposition Members and the hon. Gentlemen who filibustered, spoke for far longer than necessary, repeated themselves time after time and dealt with the irrelevant and extraneous and all sorts of material, as well as material that floated down the river.

I must also include the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), whom I see standing behind me. He made a lengthy contribution to the debate last night. All those hon. Gentlemen will find that what they have done is a great disappointment in south Wales, not only in the capital city but much further afield in their constituencies. I am sure that their constituents will ask why they frustrated--or tried to frustrate--such a positive development and the best prospect for the whole of south Wales.

There certainly was a filibuster. On many occasions, the Chair had to try to bring Opposition Members to order and ask them to relate their remarks much more closely to the matters under debate. The last remonstrance was by Madam Deputy Speaker with the hon. Member for Bridgend towards the conclusion of his speech. She sought to bring him back to order. The Hansard record will show that, so wide of the mark were some of the speeches made, that, even with the gentle patience that the Chair traditionally displays, Madam Deputy Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers were moved to seek to bring Opposition Members to order.

I have looked at the timings involved. The hon. Member for Pontypridd might like to know that he contributed one hour 26 minutes to our proceedings. The hon. Member for Caerphilly took one hour and four minutes. The hon. Member for Wrexham took one hour and 49 minutes, but the record holder was the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I wondered in the early hours of this morning whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to exceed the record held by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the longest speech, which he made in the last Parliament in the

Column 371

fluoride debate. That was another all-night debate through which I sat on these Benches. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West tailed off after a total contribution of two hours and 48 minutes. He has spent 168 minutes out of the past 13 hours frustrating, filibustering and stopping the progress of this excellent and important Bill. In the vote on the closure motion moved by the hon. Member for Caerphilly, only eight hon. Members voted against. That was the weight of the opposition. Eight hon. Members have kept the House up all night long. We have been at it for almost 13 hours. We had 25 groups of amendments to debate on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and we have reached only the second group. We have been stuck on the second group since 9.53 pm yesterday.

Mr. Colin Shepherd : Having gone through the catechism of the time spent on the Bill over the night, does not my hon. Friend agree that, after investing so much time it might be as well to continue the job, let the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) put his questions, listen to the answers and try again to make progress on the Bill?

Mr. Jones : I am trying to explore my thoughts on that. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend because I, too, have a sense of frustration about not making progress tonight. As we have made the effort to sit all the way through the night debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and as I have not had the opportunity to hear why the Chairman of Ways and Means moved this dilatory motion--he may have good reasons which I do not readily understand having not debated such motions before--my inclination is to press on and reach Third Reading. That is what the capital city of Wales and the people of south Wales deserve.

Already, as I think Opposition Members have said, the Bill has spent too long going through the House. Granted, we must give it the best proper examination. We should not be guilty of leaving stones unturned and we should examine the Bill as well as possible. But there comes a practical reasonable limit, and we have exceeded that. My desire to see progress is shared by others. Unless I am persuaded otherwise, I am inclined to believe that we should carry on debating this morning, this afternoon and this evening, and throughout the night if necessary, so important do I think the Bill for my constituency. It is not directly within the development corporation's area, but the Bill will be very much to my constituency's advantage, as it is to the rest of the capital city of Wales and to all the other constituencies of south Wales. Instead, we are at this point now because eight hon. Members have chosen to hold us up and use every delaying tactic in the book.

I am glad to see the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth back in his place. He obviously had important business outside to attend to. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has handled the Bill. He has worked fantastically hard in mastering the Bill. He has a complete mastery of it and he fully understands it. If only some of his hon. Friends had listened to him closely they would have understood that he was able to reassure them fully on all their points, so deeply has he studied the matter.

Column 372

I know that that is typical of the hard work that the hon. Gentleman does, not just since he has been in this place since 1987, but all those years previously when he served on Cardiff city council. He is a dedicated Labour politician from his fingertips to his boots. He cares more passionately and more sincerely about his party than most other Opposition Members. But at the same time he has the broadest common feeling for anything that need not be treated in a party political fashion. He has been the first to extend a hand in the interests of making progress for our capital city. He is very much a credit to his party and I am sure that all his hon. Friends wish to emulate him in that.

In conclusion, if it is not too late, I appeal to the eight Labour Members and a few others who have spent far too long delaying our proceedings by indulging in a filibuster since 7 o'clock last night, to raise their sights higher and to eschew the petty, the jealousies and the mean-minded things that can surely be the only reason for their attempt to frustrate this important Bill for the redevelopment of south Cardiff, the benefits of which will spread so far beyond. We have a tremendous opportunity in the House. Perhaps we could achieve that before the day is out. We clearly should achieve it. I appeal to Labour Members to put aside those petty things and let us join hands and go forward together.

Mr. Rogers : I join Conservative Members in praising my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his diligence in pursuing the Bill. He has done remarkably well. I would not impute any motive to my hon. Friend other than his desire to achieve the best for his constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has also been motivated by his constituents' interests. It would be mean and petty-minded for any hon. Member for impute unworthy motives to my hon. Friend. He does not have a large majority so he cannot relax and do things without remembering his constituents' interests. He has served those interests well in the manner in which he has approached the Bill.

Things have gone wrong since we began discussing the motion to adjourn because of a polarisation of attitudes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) for saying that I spoke briefly during the night. I did not make a set speech during our 12 hours of deliberation. It is important for the hon. Gentleman to know that the motives of those of us who represent the valleys are just as sincere as those who represent Cardiff. We are not saying that we want the money spent not in Cardiff but in the valleys--

Mr. John M. Taylor (Vice-Chamberlain to Her Majesty's Household) : Oh, yes you are.

8 am

Mr. Rogers : That is not true and the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it. The hon. Gentleman is worthy of other things than such casual remarks. If he had listened to the debate he would have heard things to the contrary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows that I would support the total expenditure of the money allocated in the Bill on the redevelopment of the docks. In common with the valleys, those docks have been desperately deprived of industrial development in the past. They are in desperate need of regeneration. We do not dispute that, but the fact is that £150 million of public

Column 373

money will be spent on a barrage that will not add one single square foot of land available for industrial development, housing or leisure activities in the Cardiff bay area.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) made a mean speech and said that the barrage represented a multiplying factor in terms of the land development of Cardiff bay. I accept that that factor exists, but it will not benefit the local people, including the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The Cardiff Bay development corporation has already admitted in its report, however, that the projected land values in the area will multiply--that is the multiplying factor to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

There will be no return on the public investment in the area. Any profit accruing from that public investment will go to private companies. The corporation has already said that, once the barrage is built, projected land values will go up from £200 million to £1.5 billion. I do not believe that those enhanced land values will benefit the people of Cardiff, or the people of south Wales. If the promoters came up with an amended scheme, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central could have his Swansea waterfront development. There were proposals for a mini-barrage and the development of a water landscape on the east side of the estuary. That would enhance any development, but, for some peculiar reason, some people say that the only waterfront that can be developed is that by the lagoon behind the barrage. Many of us do not accept that. We accept the sincere motives of others on the Bill and I wish that they would accept that we have similarly sincere motives.

The valleys communities have put a lot into development in the Cardiff area. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the airport. I remember the history of the airport perhaps as well as the hon. Gentleman does. The reason why the airport took off-- [Laughter] -- was that it was situated in the old Glamorgan county council area. The main proponent of the airport was not Cardiff city council but Glamorgan county council. It cannot be claimed that the airport belongs to Cardiff alone.

Mr. Michael rose --

Mr. Rogers : The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has had his turn. He referred to developments in the area and he was right. I do not understand why such praise is not carried through into pride in the activities of the city council and South Glamorgan county council, which have done, and will continue to do, a good job in the interests of the area.

We do not oppose the Bill in a nihilistic way. If the promoters came up with an amended Bill that did not require a full barrage across the estuaries of the Ely and the Taff rivers at the point at which they enter the Bristol channel, I would give it my wholehearted support. The only item in the Bill that I oppose--all my hon. Friends seem to oppose it, too--is the full-scale barrage. We are certainly not against the development of the Cardiff docklands area and anyone who suggests that we are is being less than just. We have participated in the debate from a point of view just as sincere as that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.

Column 374

Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West for the way in which he participated in the debate on his constituents' behalf.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) : I too have been here all night. I attended tonight's debates because I had listened carefully to previous debates about this imaginative proposal. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) the details of the proposals which are expected to bring about the rejuvenation of Cardiff and bring more jobs, housing and businesses and an improved environment in the city.

We eventually reached only the second group of new clauses out of a long list and did not even finish that. What this whole sorry episode has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that windbags are not confined to Islwyn. What has happened tonight is disgraceful. We have been treated to schoolboy tactics--to a debating society approach to these important matters. We have been treated to dead horses floating about and to blue-green algae. It has even been suggested that water treatment is about nothing more than gargling. Such discourses went on for hours of the debate--if "debate" is the right word. I wonder whether Wales will be proud of what has happened tonight. It is clear that the Labour party does not have a clue what it wants for Wales. Were it not for a few Labour Members--notably the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)--the Opposition would attract nothing but shame for what they have done in the face of the imaginative proposal that has been before the House.

Mr. Morgan : I am glad to have this opportunity to speak at the conclusion of our proceedings. I wanted to be offered the chance simply to say on my constituents' behalf that there will be many smiling faces in Cardiff, West this morning. There will also be an overwhelming sense of relief. The message that hon. Members--all of us with five o'clock shadows- -should take from our proceedingstonight is that Bills such as this should try to achieve their development objectives without damaging other objectives.

I say this primarily to the other Cardiff Members who are here today. If we have derelict areas--which we do in Cardiff--we must find ways of developing them that do not damage the housing areas in my constituency and the others that lie on the plains near the Taff and the Ely. I hope that the barrage obsession that the development corporation inherited from the Secretary of State of 1979-87 will go out of the window, and another form of docklands development will be adopted that does not damage the houses in my constituency-- Mr. Grist 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 accordingly agreed to .

Debate adjourned .

8.10 am

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain now how the Government intend

Column 375

to react to the failure of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill to make progress during the night, after prolonged earlier consideration. In view of the time spent on debating the first two new clauses, the large number of groups of amendments still to be debated and the limited remaining opportunities at this stage in the Session for the Bill to be considered as opposed private business, I wish to announce now that the Government will be introducing their own Bill to permit the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be consulting on its contents as soon as possible.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : The Leader of the House has not raised a point of order ; he has made a statement.

Mr. Morgan : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to such appalling sleight of hand on the part of the Leader of the House. The truth is now out : this was always a Government Bill, masquerading under a false prospectus. The Serious Fraud Office would have intervened had it been a commercial matter.

The Leader of the House has revealed the truth behind the Bill. It has been rigged by the private Bill procedure. An honest version would have involved the Government's using the proper public Bill procedure from the beginning, and would have avoided the waste of time over four parliamentary Sessions in two Houses. That disgraceful waste of time can now be laid firmly at the door of this incompetent and dilatory Government.

Mr. MacGregor : As you have described what I said as a statement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I can respond.

Next Section

Home Page