House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Oct 1992

Column 923

proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair ;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill) ;

(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill ;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded ;

and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders 5.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving 6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

Recommittal 7.--(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Column 924

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [20 October] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Clause 1

Construction of barrage etc. and other works

Which amendment was : in page 1, line 7, at the beginning to insert the words--

Subject to subsection (8) below'. (Mrs. Ann Clwyd.)

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

7.16 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) :I resume the debate on this group of important amendments in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is in Hong Kong. He was in mid-flight when he was so cruelly cut off by the Government's failure to keep their troops here at 10 o'clock a week ago. That may have been the beginning of the degeneration of the Government's authority over their Back Benchers, of which we have seen so much more evidence in the past seven days--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained about the lack of time to debate the amendments. Can we please get on to debating them?

Mr. Morgan : I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about Cardiff, not Maastricht. Were we discussing Maastricht, there would be no guillotine motion because the Government would be unable to impose it. That is the only point that I was trying to make. Maastricht is the Cardiff of Holland--the capital of an area that used to contain coal mines, which have now all closed down. That is what we have been trying to prevent in the past week.

The amendments to which we should pay further attention tonight concern whether the updated version of the cost-benefit analysis provided to us by KPMG Management Consulting is adequate for us to proceed with, or whether it is a doctored analysis done specifically to assist the client to get permission to spend taxpayers' money on a vast scale but not something that a consultancy firm would feel proud of or want to enter for consultancy study of the year competitions next Christmas. It is probably fair to say that it falls into that category and that the House must therefore provide the element that consultancy studies do not reach--namely, a realistic and objective look at the costs and benefits that need to be applied to the barrage proposal, given its size, implications, side effects and importance in the Welsh public expenditure budget.

We want to ensure that the House considers whether the cost-benefit analysis that has been done so far meets the terms that it properly should.

The trouble with cost-benefit analyses of this sort is that they tend to be done to please the client so that the company concerned obtains follow-on business. That is not to say that they are full of porkies, but they tend to be attuned to the client's wishes ; sometimes they are even rewritten when the client is not too happy with the first shot. Tonight, we need to discuss whether the cost-benefit analysis has taken full account of the change in the economic climate since the earlier analyses were done.

Column 925

They were done without examination of the demand for land and property development of the London docklands type.

When the scheme was initiated, it was thought that office-led developments were a good thing--they appeared to bring prosperity, and it was thought that they could replicate in Cardiff the sort of prosperity that was being created by the £15 billion-worth of private sector investment in London docklands in 1987 and 1988.

All this has now gone into reverse. What concerns me is whether the cost- benefit analysis, although officially updated, has really been updated, or whether the consultants still believe that replicating Canary wharf in Cardiff on a smaller scale is still a valid idea. Have they been able to leave behind the mind set of 1987-88 and adopt a mind set suitable for 1992's economic conditions?

Last week, the blue book issued by KPMG was given us for reading and debate. The problem is that people have assumed that, if the supply is provided, the demand will inevitably follow. We must ask ourselves whether any equation that does not include the demand side is valid at all. My hon. Friends and I are all convinced that the demand side should have been studied much more closely by KPMG for the updated report. That is why amendment No. 91 still calls for an effective cost-benefit analysis. None has yet been done, and it is not possible for the consultants to do one usefully unless they can shake off the feeling that what Cardiff needs is another Canary wharf. Cardiff needs that like a hole in the head.

We must learn the lessons of what has happened in the east end of London. If we do not, we will build the wrong infrastructure, make the same mistakes and create another white elephant of the same type. I do not believe that KPMG has been able to take a step back and think again about the new conditions of 1992. It has not examined demand in south Cardiff in the light of what has happened in the past five years. The consultants' appraisal still looks far too much at the supply side of land and property at the expense of demand. There are 20 million sq ft of surplus office space in central London, not to mention in docklands. The price of this space has collapsed, with the resulting tortuous negotiations in which the Government are engaged to try to save Canary Wharf by working a deal with the Jubilee line and shipping out 2,000 civil servants--who might otherwise have considered moving to Cardiff. We should think about the potential loss of jobs in Cardiff under the Government's office relocation schemes. Their top priority will be to organise relocation from central London and Whitehall to the Canary wharf area, and they will probably spend the next 10 years trying to fill that great white elephant.

The 2,000 civil servants from the Department of the Environment in Marsham street--the Government are toying with the idea of moving them to Canary wharf--might have been candidates for Cardiff, but they will not come for the next few years while the huge surplus of space remains in London. The KPMG report gives the flavour of none of this. It refers to the changed climate, but it does not really scrutinise the problems of supply. There is also the problem of price. The price of office space in London docklands has collapsed from £30 a square foot four years

Column 926

ago to £10 today--or even as low as £5 if the office in question is not new. Canary wharf is available at £14 or £15 a square foot. Welsh Office Ministers sought to deny us certain information last week, but the news is nevertheless astonishing. It concerns the rental being paid by the Welsh Office-sponsored quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the first pre-let tenant of the Grosvenor Waterside development. The information comes to us in an updated press release from Grosvenor Waterside ; it was initially issued only to the technical press. At any rate, the rental to be paid by the authority for its new 150,000 sq ft of office space, a relocation from central Cardiff to Cardiff docklands inner-harbour area, will be £14.50 a square foot--50 per cent. higher than the rentals on offer in London docklands.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Does my hon. Friend recall how we were told in Committee by the Minister that this information, now apparently in a press release, was commercially confidential? Has the Welsh Office withheld information on this as on many other issues?

Mr. Morgan : I apologise ; I said that the Minister refused us the information last week--it was actually in Committee that he did so. As my hon. Friend said, he refused it on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

The Grosvenor Waterside press release described the lease for the first five years as at £14.50 per square foot. That is to be compared with the rent offered by Canary wharf's receivers for the relocation from Marsham street. The circumstances are similar, although the distances are greater in London, but the distance from Marsham street to Canary wharf is comparable with that between Newport road, where the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is, and Cardiff docklands.

The rationale in London is the considerable savings to be made from leaving central London, but the move to Cardiff docklands was a one-off letting organised under heavy pressure just before the election in an attempt by the Government to help Associated British Ports to move to Grosvenor Waterside inner harbour development. And the rental for that bears little resemblance to the collapsing rents of central London.

It is amazing what can be organised in a pre-election splurge of public expenditure to get some development going, with taxpayers' money, around the inner harbour. That needs close examination ; it may get it from the Public Accounts Committee at some stage. In any case, such a move would not appeal to the private sector. We cannot rely entirely on public sector jobs moving at public sector-organised rentals which may have been arranged at a higher rate at least in part to stop the Government getting egg on their face.

If the private sector is to move to Cardiff bay, it will want rents well below those prevailing in London docklands. No one will move from London to Cardiff when there are cheaper rents to be had in London.

Mr. Rowlands : I apologise for interrupting again, but the full impact of the information now available is creating growing resentment. I begged the Minister three times to give us an illustration of the rents for the services authority. I was told repeatedly in Committee that they were commercially confidential. Unless the Minister interrupts my hon. Friend to say that the press release

Column 927

from a private property company is wrong, surely we can conclude that the Minister should have readily provided us with the information when we pressed him in Committee.

Mr. Morgan : I am obviously grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention--

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones) rose --

Mr. Morgan : I am glad to see that the Minister wishes to intervene. I give way to him.

Mr. Jones : I am grateful. I hope that it will be helpful if I try to respond to both the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). They are right to say that, when they raised the matter in Committee, I told them that the details were commercially confidential. The terms of the lease prevented the details being released without the prior consent of both parties. However, the figures have been released by the developer, and I can confirm that the average rent for the first five years will be £14.50 per sq ft. That is consistent with the range of £14 to £15 that is used in calculating initial land values for the barrage scheme in the latest economic appraisal.

7.30 pm

Mr. Morgan : I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has provided. We face a difficulty, because there is no date on the press release of Grosvenor Waterside. We may be able to obtain the date from the technical press, to which the press release was sent. That may help to clarify the situation at the time when the Minister was saying that the information was still commercially confidential. That is what he told us in Committee. Was the relevant information being given to the technical press at the time but he was not willing to disclose it to the Committee to avoid embarrassment, or whatever the reason may have been? We shall not know what the situation was without the date of the press release.

Mr. Rowlands : The Minister's intervention was even more pathetic than the contributions that we have come to expect from him. I understand that the press release appeared in October 1991. That was long before we discussed these matters in Committee.

Mr. Morgan : If that is the position, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister will wish to intervene again. If the press release appeared a year ago, that is a material fact to set against the Minister's refusal to disclose details in Committee. I am trying to recall the month when we discussed these matters in Committee.

Mr. Gwilym Jones : I cannot help, because I do not have the precise date. I have set out the advice which I was given. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, having been in my position at the Welsh Office, may understand that the terms of the lease kept the details confidential, subject to disclosure by both parties. As I have said, they were made clear in a press release that was put out by the developer. On becoming aware of that, I intended to confirm the information that was put out. I am happy, however, to take the opportunity now.

Column 928

Mr. Morgan : We look forward to a further explanation when the Minister replies to the debate.

The critical issue is how we are to measure demand in Cardiff over the next 20-odd years. We are talking primarily of office relocations, on which the viability of the barrage proposals depend in terms of betterment value, which will not exist if the present manufacturing and docks domination continues. It will be possible to pay for the barrage only if there are enormous increases in land values. Land values will have to be increased to much higher capital-based land values, by the construction of offices, five -star hotels, an opera house, high-class residential properties and some retail developments, for example. That will be a move away from the traditional manufacturing and docks domination in the area.

If it is not possible to move into a Canary Wharf-type development, it will be extremely difficult to meet the civil engineering cost of the barrage and its running costs and maintain water quality in the man-made lake, for example, into the future.

It is necessary to consider whether the recession is a temporary blip or whether we are seeing a fundamental change within our economy. It has been going on for rather longer than something that could be described as a temporary blip, so we must consider whether it is a sea change that will have an effect on demand within the economy for offices on the one hand and for leisure, housing and manufacturing developments on the other. It is a difficult area but it must be considered in the context of the KPMG cost- benefit analysis, which is sadly lacking in any realistic assessment. Having read the KPMG attempt at producing an updated cost-benefit analysis, we take the view that it is inadequate. It considers the supply of land and assumes that there will be demand for whatever use is contemplated. The critical factor is whether there is demand. That is why so many Opposition Members think that the barrage proposal, with its dependence on trying to get firms to move from London to Cardiff when prices are so low in London that it is likely that they will remain there for the next 10 or 20 years until the surplus office space is soaked up, is ill-founded. It seems that the Government are trying to impose a Welsh Canary Wharf on Cardiff. They are bringing forward what I think it is fair to describe as 1987 answers to the problems of 1992.

Mr. Rod Richards (Clwyd, North-West) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morgan : I have finished my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : I did not hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Is he giving way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North- West (Mr. Richards)?

Mr. Morgan : No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have finished.

Mr. Alan W. Williams (Carmarthen) : First, I apologise to the House for missing the debates which took place last week. The reason for my absence was tonsillitis. This afternoon I read the Hansard reports and noted especially the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).

Amendments Nos. 80 and 88 turn on the public spending involved. They are designed to impose a cap on that spending, which has increased in the form of estimates over the years. Amendment No. 91 is, in effect, a request for an updated cost-benefit analysis of the scale of public

Column 929

investment proposed. Like everything else, costs increase over the years. The latest figure that I have is contained in a letter that the Minister wrote on 30 June to those of us who served on the Standing Committee.

The public sector contribution is assessed at £405 million. It is estimated that the total cost of construction and the associated infrastructure will be £662 million. Expenditure of £405 million of public money on the one project is on a scale far greater than that for any other projects in Wales. I wonder whether that money would not be much better spent on a series of other projects to improve our infrastructure. It is proposed to spend £405 million of public money on one project at a time when we are talking of public spending cuts or constraints. It seems extravagant to invest such a sum in one major project.

There will be a multiplier effect, and it is one that is calculated to attract private sector investment. We in the Labour party are interventionists : if we can use public money to prime private sector investment, that is fine. I question, however, how much private sector money will be attracted to the project, especially at a time of recession. In the documents issued over the past couple of years, it has been estimated that the multiplier will be a factor of seven. In other words, every £1 of public money will attract £7 from the private sector. That will amount to about £2 billion and the creation of 23,000 to 25,000 jobs. That is the scale of the estimates made by the Government and the development corporation.

In an article which appeared in the Western Mail last Saturday, the Minister is quoted as saying that the private sector investment that will be attracted will be more than £1 billion, or slightly more than £1 billion. I do not know whether that is the result of the recession or whether an error has been made. The Minister still believes that the scheme will create 23,000 jobs. In that same article, he described those who oppose the barrage as Luddites. That is incredible, coming from a Government who have brought the loss of 2 million or 3 million manufacturing jobs. Only last week we saw the debacle over pit closures, which affected Taff Merthyr and the Betws pit in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the inappropriateness of his comments.

We have witnessed the serious problems encountered at Canary wharf over the past year. An economic boom may be the moment to realise prestige projects, but at a time of recession--when schools, roads, housing, and hospitals are underfunded--it is incredible that the Government should be pursuing this Bill.

There is an overwhelming need to reinvest in Britain's manufacturing base. The Library research notes suggest that the barrage scheme will create jobs --other than those in construction--in respect of shopping centres, commercial offices, schools and hospitals, industrial and high technology estates, tourism, cultural attractions, leisure amenities and 5,000 housing units. The emphasis is on service industries, which are suffering particularly badly in the recession. The project does not address the economic problems of the past two or three years.

Having attended every debate on the barrage in the past five years, I have reached the conclusion that the £400 million public money involved would be better spent in other ways. It is Welsh Office money and should be

Column 930

distributed throughout Wales. I accept that jobs are desperately needed in the Cardiff area, because three out of the four Cardiff constituencies figure in the top five suffering the worst unemployment. Cardiff is seen as a wealthy capital city, but in truth it suffers high unemployment. However, my own constituency, which is 60 miles from Cardiff, will not benefit to any extent--and that is true of the whole of north and west Wales.

The trickle-down theory has it that investing a lot of money in Cardiff will benefit the valleys and the rest of Wales, but it will not. It would be wiser to invest the money across the whole principality.

Public expenditure on the barrage should be capped, and a detailed cost benefit analysis made this year and next year to see whether jobs really will be created and whether there are not far better ways of using that public money.

7.45 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones) : I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has been suffering from tonsillitis and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from bronchitis--which occasions his much-changed appearance before us this evening. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will soon fully recover.

Most of last Tuesday's debate took the form of a sermon by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). That was appropriate at the time, because two days previously the hon. Gentleman and I had an opportunity to be in a state of grace--having attended a St. Luke's day service at St. David's church, Merthyr Tydfil, at which our mutual friend Canon Bill Morgan officiated. Last Tuesday, I found myself listening to a self-confessed deja-vu-ist, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a sweeping condemnation of the economic appraisal. He does not like it, but he fails to produce any grounds for the claims that he makes. He casts the most unfair aspersions against reputable and professional firms. It was not KPMG alone who produced the appraisal but Chesterton, Conran Roche Planning, and Cooke and Arkwright. The good name and reputation of such firms is their most precious asset, and they would not lightly put their names to any appraisal--

Mr. Rowlands : In the valleys communities, Cooke and Arkwright is known as the hardest ground landlord of all. The Minister does not improve his case by reminding us that Cooke and Arkwright is involved in the concoction.

Mr. Jones : All four of the professional firms involved worked long and hard to produce the economical appraisal. If they were to attach their good names to a false appraisal, they would risk the reputations which are their best hope of future business. The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Carmarthen referred to barrage-related costs of £662 million. That figure is correctly described as the total cost of a development strategy including a barrage. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pointed out, those costs are not strictly barrage-related. None the less, I confirm that the figure of £497 million in the updated economic appraisal is equivalent to the £662 million given in my letter of 30 June.

Column 931

If Opposition Members compare the table on page 12 of the appraisal with the equivalent table in the January 1990 appraisal, they will see where the differences lie. As to the reduced costs of the peripheral distributor road, it is standard procedure in any economic appraisal to exclude money already spent when calculating net present value. The sums spent were excluded from both the with and without barrage scenarios, so both were treated equally. The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Neath (Mr. Hain) asked about the public sector contribution. Table A8 of the appraisal shows the public sector investment to be £349 million, which is equivalent to the £405 million given in my letter of 30 June.

Mr. Rowlands : Is the ratio of public to private expenditure higher or lower in the revised figures than it was in the original?

Mr. Jones : I shall come to that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked whether there had been any further change in the estimated cost of barrage construction since the revision of the figures. There has been no further change since the figures that I gave him in Committee. Echoing the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the job estimate had been based purely on estimates of office space. The answer is no--the estimate of office space is based on detailed estimates of the commercial demand for such space. That is reinforced by, for example, the success of developments around the existing water edge in the Tarmac development.

The hon. Gentleman misquoted Chesterton as saying that nothing had changed in the property world. Chesterton has made modest adjustments to the growth rate, but significant cuts in the base values from which it started.

Mr. Morgan : The Minister is being terribly unrealistic if he is asking us to accept that there is anything in common between the Tarmac development at the top edge of Atlantic wharf--which is really the southern tip of the present commercial centre of Cardiff--and any developments near the pier head. Many of us know Tarmac's Atlantic 2000 development well, because members of our families are working on it. It is within easy walking distance of the city centre : that is one of its attractions. Other areas are very different, and cannot be considered extensions of the city centre.

Mr. Jones : The hon. Gentleman is not being consistent. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot make that point while claiming, as he did in an earlier debate, that the dockside area alongside the Tarmac development is in need of management. Similarly, he related all his claims about the inland bay to that dockside area.

The hon. Member for Neath asked which utilities were covered by the reference on page 12 of the appraisal. The description is the same as in earlier appraisals, and covers gas, electricity and water. The £34 million figure represents the total cost of enhanced infrastructure, the bulk of which will be met by service companies. The development corporation will contribute, but its contribution will be refundable as the demand for services builds up.

The hon. Member for Neath also asked whether the cost figure assumed constant price inflation. The £152 million figure represents the cost at current prices. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)

Column 932

asked how the leverage ratio had been calculated. That is set out on page 19 of the appraisal. The calculation was made on the same basis as that in the January 1990 economic appraisal.

The hon. Gentleman claimed that Tarmac had said that the barrage was not important to it. Tarmac actually said that, while its South crescent development was not dependent on the barrage, it firmly believed that the development of the whole of south Cardiff, including the waterfront, could not be successfully undertaken without the barrage. Tarmac also welcomes the Government's decision to introduce the barrage Bill as a catalyst for quality investment. Opposition Members have not dwelt on the figures in the economic appraisal, and it may be helpful if I mention them. The same answer keeps coming back. According to the appraisal, there will be 23,200 permanent jobs with the barrage and 13,000 without it. There will be 8,800 construction man year without the barrage ; with the barrage, there will be 7,700 more. The net present value without the barrage is minus £153 million, while constructing the barrage will provide an advantage of £272 million.

As for leverage, £3.9 per £1 of taxpayers' money would be achieved without the barrage. With the barrage, that is virtually doubled, to £7.50 of private sector investment for every £1 from the taxpayer. However we look at the question, on the best analysis--and the appraisal certainly provides the best analysis--we repeatedly see the gain to be achieved by building the barrage.

Mr. Alan W. Williams : The Minister said earlier that the 7.5 multiplier came from a document produced in January 1990. We had then been in recession for only one quarter. Now that we have had three years of recession, and many believe that we are moving rapidly towards a slump, should not the cost-benefit multiplier be recalculated?

Mr. Jones : I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Exactly that happened with the KPMG report, which was published this month and to which the other three consultants also contributed. Page 3 states : "The leverage ratio of the barrage scenario is estimated to be 7.5, Whilst the leverage ratio of the without barrage scenario is 3.9. Therefore, the barrage scenario has an advantage of 3.6 over the without barrage scenario in terms of its leverage ratio." I invite the hon. Gentleman to study the latest economic appraisal, which confirms the repeated claim in the earlier appraisals that we commissioned--that the barrage scenario is robust, and that not building the barrage would be the worst possible way to proceed. The barrage is not just for Cardiff, as the hon. Member for Neath suggested. He was answered very solidly by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones), who pointed out that in attempting to gain new inward investment Cardiff is repeatedly shown to have the edge over other cities because of the redevelopment and the barrage proposal, which are generating enthusiasm.

What the appraisal does not include is any attempt to calculate the level of job creation outside Cardiff bay, let alone in the rest of Cardiff and south Wales as a whole. With such a massive investment in the south Wales economy, further benefits will clearly result--beyond what has been estimated so well in the economic appraisal. I hope that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs.

Column 933

Clwyd) will agree with me. I recall that she said at the outset that she wanted growth and expansion in south Wales, and this is the way to achieve it.

What emerges most clearly from the debate is that Opposition Members revel in gloom and doom. If they want to bring that about, they should indeed oppose the building of the barrage.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) : The Minister has again failed to address some fundamental questions on the subject of cost. The Government's argument in support of the Bill is that the development would involve a huge injection of capital and public-sector investment, which ought to be greeted with uncritical enthusiasm. The Minister made that point again tonight. He has still to persuade us that concentrating investment on a particular area will not be at the expense of investment elsewhere.

The Government are on record as reaffirming that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the Cardifff Bay development corporation to complete its task--whatever the final price, I assume. That causes us several difficulties. We all know that the Government are now making crucial decisions on public expenditure priorities. The Minister must tell us whether he can justify the public expenditure costs involved in the barrage itself, and in other barrage-related projects, against the needs of Wales as a whole. I find it difficult to take seriously what the Minister says about jobs. The Secretary of State seemed to experience some difficulty in listing the jobs that he claims to have created in Wales. Last week, he told us that 10,000 jobs had been created following the establishment of the Deeside industrial park. The true figure is nearer 5,000. There is a considerable difference between the two. On the same day, the Minister also asserted that there had been 8,000 job losses at Shotton steelworks. In fact, 10,000 jobs have been lost. Far from creating 20 per cent. more jobs than were lost, the Government have created 50 per cent. fewer. Whenever the Minister makes job promises, he falls well below the standards of statistical accuracy that we expect from the Welsh Office.

The Minister also seeks to persuade us that there will be new jobs for the valleys. Past promises of new jobs for the valleys have not materialised. The main economic aim of the valleys initiative, created in 1988, was to bring between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs to the valleys. When the programme was created in 1988, male unemployment in the valleys was 18.9 per cent. In April of this year--we are waiting for the new figures--it was 18.7 per cent. The new figures for which we are waiting will undoubtedly show a further rise in unemployment. Therefore, the valleys initiative failed in its major aim.

8 pm

My hon. Friends know that the jobless figures are increasing all the time. With the closure of the pits, more job losses are on the way. The question addressed by the amendments, which is a major concern for us, arises from the blank cheque that seems to be available for the Cardiff bay development and from the no cheque at all for the urgent needs of other parts of Wales, particularly the valleys.

The rest of Wales cannot fail to feel anxious. In particular, the valleys cannot fail to feel anxious. They so

Column 934

desperately need investment to compensate for the acute deprivation in those areas. There can be few regions in Europe that have had to accept as much economic restructuring since the war as the valleys of south Wales. Social and economic deprivation of the kind found in the valleys is not easily eradicated. It is dishonest of the Government to suggest otherwise.

Bearing in mind the Government's stranglehold on local authorities in Wales in both revenue and capital spending, I am certain that none of them would be allowed to spend anything like the amount that is to be spent by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The Government's intention to scrap the Barnett formula for public expenditure makes the amendments even more critical.

Next Section

Home Page