House of Commons Hansard Debates for 20 Oct 1992

Column 341

As I have said, the Government intend to go further on the question of flora and fauna. The development corporation is already obliged to have regard to the desirability of conserving flora and fauna when it carries out any of the works authorised by clause 1, whether they are main or ancillary works. The corporation is also required to consult the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the measures which should be taken to meet that obligation. It is an entirely appropriate provision which we do not seek to change. At the same time, we believe there to be a parallel need to ensure that any works carried out to that end are appropriate.

Amendment No. 4, therefore, extends the consultation requirements specifically for that purpose. That will ensure that the development corporation has access to the best advice at an early stage so that nature conservation considerations are given the appropriate emphasis in the planning and execution of the works authorised by the Bill. The amendments are concerned with powers related to the works. The Government have taken the view that there should be some provision for nature conservation within the bay once the barrage is built. New clause 1, therefore, will require the corporation to have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna when managing the inland bay. It will also be obliged to consult the Countryside Council for Wales about the ways in which that could be achieved. If the corporation is obliged to carry out works in the inland bay to facilitate boating, water sports and open air recreational activities, it seems equally right that similar provisions should apply to the development or conservation of flora and fauna.

Such provisions are consistent with the duties placed on the development corporation in respect of the operation of the barrage by clause 9(2)(c) and clause 9(3). I very much hope that hon. Members will welcome the new provisions as a positive step towards creating new and varied wildlife habitats within the bay.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) : The Bill has been an immensely controversial proposal, even among Cardiff Members. It is extraordinary that, despite the amount of debate on the Bill and despite the time spent on it, the Government have still failed to address any of the critical issues contained in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading almost 12 months ago.

The Bill started as a private Bill. As some hon. Members may know, I have an especial interest in private Bill procedure given that, during the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, we managed to obtain a review of private Bill procedure. Although it has taken a long time, it is soon to be implemented.

The Bill is now a hybrid Bill, so I maintain that proper consideration should be given to the Opposition's views. In Committee, the Government made only one concession on flora and fauna, and even that amendment was not tabled by Opposition Members.

4.45 pm

Let me stress from the start that at every stage our criticism of the Bill has not been to deny the need for economic regeneration. There can be no doubt about the need for urban regeneration in the docklands of Cardiff. There must be more jobs and an end to dereliction in south Cardiff.

Column 342

There were three components to the Opposition's reasoned amendment, none of which was accepted in Committee. We called for public consultation on ground water and for adequate compensation for householders affected by rising ground water levels, and we drew attention--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. It would be for the benefit of the House if we reminded ourselves that the new clause and amendments are fairly specific. This is neither a Second Reading nor a Third Reading debate. We have clear grounds of debate here and I should be grateful if all hon. Members would now restrict themselves to the specific new clause and amendments associated with it.

Mrs. Clwyd : We refer in one of our amendments to the plan to monitor the quality of the inland water to be created by the construction of the barrage. On water quality arbitration, which is very relevant and vital in deciding whether the development will create a popular amenity or a lake of sludge, the Secretary of State for Wales has reserved for himself the final decision on matters between the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the National Rivers Authority.

On all the criteria relating to ground water--safety, technical and economic--the development corporation has put forward two methods of solving the problem, but the public has had no chance to consider either method. The question that we must put to the Government tonight is : why should the Secretary of State have the last word when there should be public debate on those matters?

In Committee, the Government did not accept any of our amendments. We have tabled our amendments today because our criticisms of the Bill have not been met. The Government have given practically nothing away, although they did a deal with their own quangos, agreeing to provide an alternative feeding ground for waders such as redshanks and dunlin which, during the winter, use Cardiff bay.

We cannot be sure that the deal will stand up to legal scrutiny and that is the matter on which we want assurances tonight. When the President of the Board of Trade was, in his happier days, the Secretary of State for the Environment, he sent the issue of the intertidal mud flats of the Severn estuary to Brussels for registration as a special protection area under the 1975 EC wild birds directive. However, on 1 November 1991, the Welsh Office announced that Cardiff bay was to be excluded from the SPA proposal, although it was designated a site of special scientific interest in 1980. We should like assurances from the Government that the deal will stand up to legal scrutiny.

It is acknowledged by the Cardiff Bay development corporation that the barrage would destroy the entire SSSI, probably only the second time that such an action has occurred. That is why the Opposition have called and continue to call for an independent assessment of the environmental impact of the barrage development.

We should also like to stress the need for local democracy. The environmental officers of the city of Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan will have to decide which water sports are permitted or refused, but every attempt is being made to marginalise the democratically elected councillors and yet again to concentrate decision

Column 343

making on the quangos. In the end, however, the environmental officers of those councils will have to make the decisions. We are also concerned about the reduction of access for small sailing boats and in respect of sports and activities undertaken by those of modest means. All the artists' impressions of Cardiff bay give the idea that it will be possible to sail small dinghies there but, under the present proposals, many owners of small boats will probably be disqualified as the water quality of the lake is unlikely to be of a sufficiently high standard to allow water sports with high water contact. The classification of dinghy sailing is at present uncertain. I remind the Government that not everyone who enjoys sailing owns a yacht.

Those are some of the reasons why we have tabled the amendments, and it is up to the Secretary of State and the Government to attempt to persuade us of the virtue of their case.

The Bill may well set a precedent, as it is estimated that 48 of 130 estuaries in the United Kingdom are subject to some sort of development proposals, including proposals for marinas. There are several barrage proposals among them--some for amenity purposes, others for power generation--and the outcome of the Cardiff bay barrage proposal could influence the consideration of future barrage schemes. That is why we consider this matter to be crucial. Finally, I fail to understand why important documents such as the updated economic appraisal of the Cardiff bay barrage proposals arrived on our desks so late--in some cases, yesterday ; in many cases, only today. Similarly, the large bundle of papers from the Welsh Office dated 24 June 1992 came to some of my hon. Friends in the post last night, to some of them in the post today, and to me, not at all. What explanation do the Government have for that? I consider it a slight on the House that the Welsh Office should have treated us in such a cavalier fashion, depriving hon. Members of an opportunity to give the Bill the close examination that such a hotly contested issue deserves.

Mr. Ron Davies (Caerphilly) : First, let me agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the late arrival of the documents. I am sure that the Minister will understand that, in the interests of informed debate, it is important that all hon. Members should have early and prior sight of such documents. The late arrival of the documents is typical of the way in which the Welsh Office-- although not the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which, on this count, is excused blame--has handled the matter. The Welsh Office has never taken adequate steps to ensure that we can have a properly informed debate--nor has it allowed us adequate time, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, to discuss these issues. It is quite in keeping with what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley described as the cavalier approach adopted by the Welsh Office that we should have been deprived of access--

Mr. Alun Michael (Cardiff, South and Penarth) : We have had plenty of time.

Mr. Davies : We shall certainly have plenty of time to discuss the matter today, and I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes to intervene at this point.

Column 344

Mr. Michael : My only comment is that we have not done too badly over the months as regards time for debate.

Mr. Davies : I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we shall have plenty of time to debate these matters today. My point is that, if we had had prior sight of the documents, we should have been able to have a more informed debate--although as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pointed out, we are on Report and our comments must be very specific.

I refer in particular to new clause 1. It is as well to remind ourselves that the Minister who introduced the new clause, professing concern about conserving flora and fauna and apparently recognising the importance of the bay, is the self-same Minister who, in 1986, used the anonymity of the Back Benches at 2.30 pm to kill the Bill that preceded this one--the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill. Exactly the same arguments were advanced against that Bill as have been advanced against this one. In considering the political machinations of the Welsh Office, it is instructive to recall that, back in 1986 and from the anonymity of the Back Benches, the Minister saw fit to defend the interests of conservation, whereas now that he has responsibility for the matter and could put his concerns into practice, he has become party to a Bill, which--I believe for the first time ever, although my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will correct me if I am wrong--will completely destroy a site of special scientific interest.

The Minister is offering us new clause 1 in an attempt to offset some of the worst effects of the development. It states : "When managing the inland bay the Development Corporation shall have regard to the desirability of developing and conserving flora and fauna."

It says nothing about placing a responsibility on the development corporation and nowhere states clearly what its duties will be. Instead, a vague form of words has been used :

"developing and conserving flora and fauna."

The Minister, in his brief introduction, referred several times to wildlife habitats. But "conserving flora and fauna" is a far cry from maintaining, developing or providing wildlife habitats : the two are completely different. "Flora" could refer to the flowers around the lakeside--the roses planted round the bay. "Fauna" could refer to the ducks--

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Rats.

Mr. Davies : We shall come to rats when we deal with water pollution.

"Fauna" could refer to seagulls or to swans or to the tame ducks feeding on bread thrown by occasional visitors. Wildlife habitats are something quite different, and the Minister has failed to understand the importance of the site of special scientific interest to national and international wildlife habitats. He certainly cannot appease us by saying that he will place on the development corporation a responsibiity to

"develop and conserve flora and fauna."

The new clause continues :

"The Development Corporation shall consult the Countryside Council for Wales".

It is a bit late for the development corporation to consult the Countryside Council for Wales. When it consulted the Nature Conservancy Council, the NCC told it not to proceed with the development. When, in an attempt to

Column 345

exert political pressure and do away with the independent scientific advice coming from the NCC, the Welsh Office and the development corporation consulted the Countryside Council for Wales, they were told in no uncertain terms--even by the Government's own appointee as chairman--not to proceed. Yet the new clause states that the development corporation will have the responsibility to consult the Countryside Council for Wales. What comfort can we derive from a new clause placing responsibility on the development corporation to consult when we know that the Welsh Office and the development corporation will not consider the views of the Countryside Council for Wales for one moment? The new clause refers to the corporation's responsibility to seek that body's views--hardly an onerous responsibility--

"as to ways in which the inland bay may be managed so as to develop and conserve flora and fauna."

It is absolutely meaningless.

I would have had more regard for the Minister if he had come to the Dispatch Box tonight and said, "I am terribly sorry but the site of special scientific interest will be sacrificed because we want to proceed with this development," rather than proposed this mealy-mouthed new clause which attempts to reassure us that he concerns himself with the need to conserve flora and fauna. He is a different individual from the one who was prepared in 1986 to say that the destruction of this site of special scientific interest should not be accepted.

5 pm

Those were my introductory remarks. I want to come to the substance of my comments on new clause 1. I have already described how new clause 1 and the amendments unsatisfactorily address the need to take into account the wildlife responsibilities of the Welsh Office. In 1980 the site which will be destroyed by the Bill and for which no protection is offered by new clause 1 was designated a site of special scientific interest. It was so designated because it provided a particular habitat, not for the swans and ducks that will, one hopes, be attracted by the new development, or the rats or chaffinches which will be around the site, or even the greenfly on the roses, but for a range of wildfowl and wild birds which depend for their very existence on the unique habitat of the Cardiff bay area. That is why in 1980 it was designated a site of special scientific interest.

South Glamorgan county council recognised the designation and incorporated it in its structure plan for those purposes. The Welsh Office was certainly happy with that designation.

Mr. Michael : I want to make one thing clear. Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the designation is accepted by South Glamorgan county council and others, the original designation was highly questionable and followed processes which would not be followed now? Indeed, it is highly questionable whether an SSSI designation would have succeeded if it had been subjected to the more careful scrutiny which must be applied now.

Mr. Davies : My hon. Friend makes two points. The first is that the procedure was questionable. As I understand it, there were no objections in 1980. No one said that the procedure was questionable. Certainly, all that has happened subsequently, such as the qualification of the site under the Ramsar convention and the

Column 346

recognition that it qualified for protection under the EC birds directive, suggests that the 1980 designation was appropriate.

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

Mr. Davies : Let me answer the points. Then I shall willingly give way to my hon. Friend. His second point was that it was doubtful whether the site would be designated today. I am perfectly prepared to accept that. We know how little concern the Government have for nature conservation. We know that they have presided over the wholesale destruction of sites which have been designated. We have seen them wriggle dishonestly and illegally out of their international obligations under the EC directive. So I fully accept my hon. Friend's second point.

Mr. Michael rose--

Mr. Davies : My hon. Friend is eager to undermine the SSSI status of the bay. I am happy to give way to him to allow him to make his point. It is relevant to new clause 1, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Michael : I do not intend to argue with the criticisms that my hon. Friend makes of the Government's position on SSSIs. My point is simply that it is doubtful whether the bay would have been designated an SSSI under objective criteria. There were no objections to the original designation because no one was told that it was to happen. The designation was discovered after the event by many of those who were integrally involved in the environment and future of Cardiff. As one who was involved at that time, I assure my hon. Friend that the original designation had the shortcomings that I mentioned.

Mr. Davies : I am not sure whether I understand my hon. Friend's argument. It is a matter of fact that South Glamorgan county council recognised the site and incorporated it in its structure plan. It is a matter of fact that there were no objections. So I do not know how my hon. Friend can speculate that the site would not qualify for designation now.

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies : I wish to address the other point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made. I shall then happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that if objective criteria were applied the site would not be designated. He has no basis for saying that. The objective criteria apply. If they were followed, the site would have to be designated a site of special scientific interest. The site meets the requirements under the Ramsar convention and the requirements to be a candidate area for protection under the EC birds directive. The only circumstances which could lead to the site not being accepted would be if the Government applied their own interpretation. They did that when they considered developing the entire Severn estuary as a special protection area. They took it upon themselves to apply in a strange way the principle of subsidiarity. They said that they would take it upon themselves to exercise discretion and exclude Cardiff bay from the designation of the Severn estuary as an SPA.

Column 347

Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies : I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We must make it clear that the designation was valid. All that has happened subsequently supports that assertion.

Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Davies : I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Morley : Does my hon. Friend agree that the original designation was made because the intertidal zone of Cardiff bay had nationally important populations of calidris waders and shelducks? Those numbers have since been confirmed by independent assessments and by other conservation bodies. The Government have never quibbled with those figures. So it is not necessarily true that the designation was wrong in the first place. The same criteria as those used then are currently used for new designations of SSSIs in line with both red data book guidelines and the Government's guidelines. It is not that there was anything wrong with the original designation.

Mr. Davies : My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe is an elected member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. He is a well-known and respected ornithologist in his own right. We must accept his objective comment on the matter.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies : I know that my hon. Friend is desperately anxious to develop the debate and I have assured him that I shall give way to him. However, I wish to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. He brings expertise as both a politician and an objective observer. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth maintains that he cannot accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe, he must accept the advice of the Government's scientific advisers. Even if he will not accept our word for it, and even if he thinks that the RSPB is tainted as an organisation, he must accept the view of the Countryside Council for Wales. It was its unequivocal view that the site should be protected and that the barrage development should not proceed. That is the official view of the Government's wildlife advisers.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies : I am more than happy to give way but I must tell my hon. Friend that he is in a queue. We have a stacking arrangement and he has booked his place in the queue. I shall come to him in due course.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth does not accept our view or that of the RSPB, he must accept the view of the Government's scientific advisers. That is the objective, authoritative view on the matter.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones : One of the ironies about the designation is that there is an unusual density of wading birds in the bay because the mudflats are unusually nutrient-rich. Therefore, the small invertebrates which populate the mud feed the wading birds.

Column 348

However, it is nutrient-rich because the River Ely and, to a lesser extent these days, the Taff are extremely well- nourished by sewerage. Were an ecologically friendly Government--if we had such a thing--to propose to clean up those two rivers, which they will have to do as a result of building the barrage, the nutrient level of the water, the amount of nutrient absorbed into the mud and thus the number of invertebrates will decline, as will the density of wading birds. If the designation--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a fascinating speech and may wish to catch my eye later, but that was a very long intervention and it was quite outside normal procedure.

Mr. Davies : I was wondering whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central had quite finished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I called the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). If he does not wish to continue, a number of other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Davies : I have barely started, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I most certainly want to continue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central was in an unusual position--he was semi-crouching. I intended no discourtesy to you, as I know that you have the respect of the whole House and that you make judgments with great authority and we shall respect them. I was tempted by my hon. Friend's semi-crouching position. He looked rather like a redshank searching for an early supper in the basin.

The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central is interesting. He suggested that if the water quality in the Taff and Ely rivers were improved, the value of the bay as a habitat would diminish. That has particular relevance to the amendment. I think that my hon. Friend was suggesting that I would oppose the cleaning up of those rivers because it would diminish the value of the bay for wildlife. That is entirely speculative, and we are dealing not with that but with new clause 1. If I were to stray from new clause 1, I know that you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I have no intention of being led down the tempting and fascinating path suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central. Before I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), I must tell the Minister that I do not think that he has any discretion. We know that the site qualifies under the Ramsar convention, which is an international treaty to which we are signatories. We also have a responsibility under the EC directive, as article 2 on wild birds states that when there is "irreconcilable conflict", priority must be given to "ecological needs". I should have thought that that was a crystal clear explanation of our responsibilities. If a proposed development would destroy an SSSI, it clearly conflicts irreconcilably with the wish to retain it. One cannot have half a barrage, or build a barrage and retain the environment that would thus be destroyed.

The Government's responsibility is to give priority to ecological needs. The directive does not give any discretion to the Government but tells them that they must give priority to such needs. We know that the Government's scientific advisers have also said that that is what they should do. That is important. In the Minister's brief introduction to new clause 1, he gave no sign that he

Column 349

understood the responsibility placed on him. I shall now happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham.

Dr. Marek : I am sorry that I have to interrupt my hon. Friend's train of thought, but he is relying a little too much on the Government taking cognisance of the views of the Countryside Commission or acting legally and obeying the Ramsar treaty. The Government have no mandate in Wales--they are a minority Government. They ride roughshod over everything that people in Wales want if, for political reasons, they want something else. If some form of compulsion exists elsewhere whereby we could bring the Government to account, I suspect that the best way to proceed would be by using it. Perhaps we should go to Europe, to one of the European courts, and find out whether anything could be done there. As my hon. Friend knows more about such matters than I, perhaps he could give the House his advice as to the best procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Before the hon. Member for Caerphilly is tempted down that route, could we get back to new clause 1?

Mr. Davies : My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham is a tricky customer. I saw the trap that he was laying and I am grateful that you have made sure that I stick to new clause 1, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, his argument can be used in the context of new clause 1, because the Government have a responsibility. They think that they are discharging it by talking about developing and conserving flora and fauna. They think that by so doing they will avoid their international responsibilities. I understand that the RSPB are to consider taking the case to the European Court.

5.15 pm

In framing new clause 1, the Government took into account the findings of the European Court in the Leybucht judgment, which they grievously misinterpreted when they decided to exclude Cardiff bay from the proposed designation of the Severn estuary as an area deserving and requiring protection under the birds directive. Even though that is a path that I cannot follow--much as I would like to do so--my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham may rest assured that the responsibility for exploring the need to safeguard the environment will be taken, even if it means having recourse to the European Court.

We must ask ourselves why the Minister could scupper the predecessor of the Bill, from the anonymity of the Back Benches, by shouting out, "Object", and then come along with this wholly unsatisfactory new clause in an attempt to discharge his responsibilities.

I view the changing attitudes of Ministers with fascination. We know that the Bill originated from a flight of whimsy on the part of Nicholas Edwards --now Lord Crickhowell--who was in Baltimore, saw the bay and thought, "That's a good idea. Let's have one in Cardiff." Every one of his successors in the Welsh Office has been seduced. It is almost as if there were some sort of disease there which rots their brains, or prevents them from exercising any objective consideration of the issues. However, if I go down that track I know that you will say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not referring to new clause 1 and the amendments grouped with it.

Column 350

I must pursue the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central who mentioned the importance of mudflats. How on earth can the development corporation have regard to the desirability

"of developing and conserving flora and fauna"--

the very words of new clause 1--if we interpret those to mean wildlife? How on earth can it have that responsibility when the construction of a barrage will create a virtual desert for wildlife in the bay? That is the question that I want the Minister to answer. If he argues that flora and fauna are not the same as wildlife, I understand why the new clause fits the purpose, but if he believes that they are the same, can he explain how the development corporation can develop and conserve wildlife? It cannot do so, because a barrage will destroy the very wildlife that is of value. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central briefly mentioned the value of mudflats.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones : I shall be brief this time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall listen with great interest to any later arguments about how eutrophic the barrage will make the lake. Eutrophic lakes are quite the opposite of deserts--they are filled with wildlife.

Mr. Davies : They are filled with life, but I am sure that you would rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the debate about water quality properly comes under the third group of amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I do not need any guidance from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Davies : I was not seeking to guide you ; I was merely speculating about your ruling.

I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central has said, but we are entitled to ask about the quality of life in such eutrophic conditions, which would be far different from existing conditions in the bay. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the mudflats, which are rich in nitrates and provide a home for rich and varied invertebrate life, as a feeding ground for migratory birds.

Apart from the fact that the mudflats are enriched by the downflow from the Taff and Ely, they are also intertidal. The interface between the sea and the land makes the mudflats of particular value. They are regularly flooded, so they are washed.

The mudflats are also ice-free, which is particularly important to the birds from Iceland, Greenland or Eurasia which use them in the winter. They come to the Atlantic seaboard to seek the ice-free coasts for shelter and for winter feeding. If we destroy those mudflats, we will deprive the over- wintering birds of the opportunity to enjoy that special habitat.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central has speculated that if the barrage went ahead and the bay was lost, it would not really matter. That view is not shared by the Government's advisers or by any wildlife organisation. In my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout south Wales, an endless number of organisations are opposed to the development on the ground that the bay is an integral part of the Severn estuary. That is an inescapable fact. If the bay is destroyed, the entire Severn estuary would be damaged. The Government have had that argument put to them by the Countryside Council for Wales, but they have failed to discharge their international responsibilities to

Column 351

designate the estuary as a special protection area--an SPA. It is important to consider the damage that will be inflicted on the estuary if the bay is lost.

The Government talk about the glories of biodiversity. They lecture the third world on its responsibilities, they properly try to pressurise the Norwegians to accept their own and they lecture their European partners on their responsibilities and the need to conserve song birds in Italy and France. I applaud those laudable efforts. However, a commitment to conservation is not a hat that can be put on and taken off to suit one's convenience. If one is committed to the cause of conservation, one must accept that commitment even when it is inconvenient. The cause of conservation in the case of Cardiff bay is not convenient to the Government --that is the essence of the criticism of the Government's case. They have disregarded their responsibilities to conservation. It is worth stressing that when we consider the Cardiff bay development, which is highly speculative to say the least.

Mr. Flynn : My hon. Friend may have received a copy of a letter sent to me from the Bristol section of Friends of the Earth about biodiversity and the Severn estuary. It stated that unique forms of flora and fauna in the estuary were liable to be destroyed by developments in the bay. I have written twice to the author of the letter for a list of those unique flora and fauna, but I have yet to receive a reply. Perhaps my hon. Friend can list them.

Mr. Davies : It would be foolish of me to be tempted to comment on correspondence that I have not seen.

Mr. Flynn : It is about biodiversity.

Next Section

Home Page