The New Assembly Building
The Presiding Officer: I have selected amendment 1 in the name of Glyn Davies, amendments 2, 3 and 5 in the name of Cynog Dafis and amendments 4, 6 and 7 in the name of Peter Black.
The First Secretary: I propose that
the Assembly
1. notes the First Secretary's initiative to review the costs and options for the new Assembly building;
2. notes that the review might result in slippage in the previously agreed timetable;
3. urges that the review is carried out as quickly as is possible; and
4. requires that the findings of the review, and proposals for future action, will be brought back to the Assembly for decision, and that the key information which underpins them be made available.
Two weeks ago, I made a statement to the Assembly informing Members of my decision to put the new building project on hold for the time being. I, along with various colleagues on the project steering group was not in a position to approve the £1 million next stage expenditure. I shared that decision with Members on the same day as it was agreed with the Assembly building policy steering group and we held a wide-ranging discussion. You evinced a desire on the part of Members, Llywydd, to discuss the matter further and this debate is offered in the spirit of openness, accountability and prudence.
Crickhowell House was always intended to be a temporary home for the Assembly. There has been a commitment for two years to the provision of a new building to house the Assembly, or at least the debating chamber and allied public facilities. An open European competition based on a functional specification was run under the auspices of the Royal Institute of British Architects. Lord Callaghan chaired the design competition assessment panel, which appointed the Richard Rogers Partnership to design the new building. Subsequent work included consultation with a wide range of interest groups and this resulted in a detailed specification, which was approved by Members.
I remind you that the project costs approved by the Assembly in January were £22.8 million excluding a contingency of 15 per cent. Fifteen per cent is higher than the normal 5 per cent because of the unusual nature of the building. Until a few weeks ago, I had little more information on the project than any other Assembly Member, but my responsibilities have now changed. Two weeks ago there was a decision point in the project. Until that point, £1 million had been committed and I was being asked to commit to the next £1 million of scheme design, doubling the committed project expenditure. At that point, I had not had sufficient time to reflect on the figures and the implications. This is what I am still doing.
This is a complex project, and one which carries long-term consequences for Wales. I did not deliver the next £1 million because I wanted to be certain that the project could deliver on time, within the budget and as approved. The project has not been cancelled. I announced the delay for a specific reason. I was not in a position to approve that next £1 million, which in effect doubled the commitment to the process of producing the building. Other people have seen it in a different light. I read the comments or the parting shot of Sir Geoffrey Inkin as he was leaving his post as chairman of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. He has been under the misapprehension that the purpose of having a new building to house this Assembly was to build business confidence in Cardiff Bay. It was never about that. It was about the need for a permanent home for the Assembly and for a more functional and fit for purpose Chamber than the temporary Chamber that we occupy at the moment. It is not, therefore, about the developmental advantages of having the Chamber in one location or another. That does not count. It is about its necessity to democracy. It is not about flag waving or making a grand statement about the future of Wales and it is not about the vanity of self-important, vainglorious politicians who want to make a statement about themselves or about Wales. It is not about business confidence. If we need a building, we should have one. If we do not, we should not have one. It is as simple as that.
3:58 p.m.
Cynog Dafis: Do you accept that an Assembly building is not a building for the Members but a building for the nation and the people? Our presence as Members in any building is temporary but that building is permanent for the people and for the people’s representatives in the future.
The First Secretary: I do not disagree with anything that Cynog said. However, any group of politicians is responsible at that time for its decisions. If a project is carried out with public expenditure, it will last for 100 years.
In view of the complexity of this project, I wanted to be certain that the estimated costs proposed are reliable. To shake the tree on the costs that I saw, it is imperative that we proceed in a way that avoids any bottomless pit of expenditure and what is sometimes known as project creep. We all recognise that the further you go on a journey, the harder it is to turn back. Once we doubled the commitment from £1 million to £2 million, it is better to reflect if there is uncertainty in anybody’s mind. There was uncertainty in my mind as to whether I was ready to spend the next million moving from outline to scheme design. That would have been followed--as I made clear last time in August--with detailed design and the building contract in November. I did not feel ready two weeks ago to commit that next £1 million. Once committed, we are committed to a pattern or location of Government. It is in a way one of the curiosities of this scheme. One decision tends to commit the next decision.
In a way, the decision that has resulted in us being here today in Crickhowell House arises from a decision seven or eight years ago to build the Welsh Health Common Services Agency headquarters in the bay. That resulted in spare capacity in an office block which, in turn, resulted in the then Secretary of State for Wales, the Member for Caerphilly, having the option of moving into a half-empty office block two years ago. It then became our temporary home. A temporary home here meant that the site next door became the hot favourite for the permanent home. All that is because of a decision some nine years ago to have the Welsh Health Common Services Agency headquarters in this location. That resulted in us being here today rather than in any other location. One decision committing the next strongly applies to the history of why we are here today and not elsewhere. Once we commit to the new building in November with the placing of the building contract we are committing a pattern of Government in Wales for the next 100 years.
I do not think that it is unwise to delay for a few months to be certain that we have that pattern right. That pattern involves journeys back and forth between Cathays Park, where the civil service is located, and the bay, where the politicians are located. Members of the Cabinet have offices in Cathays Park but we would be committing ourselves to that permanent dumb-bell pattern serviced by a temporary bus service for the next 100 years. I would have felt committed to the new building project if I had signed on the dotted line for the next £1 million. I was not willing to do so until I was certain that we were all ready for this commitment for the next 100 years of having the civil service two miles away in Cathays Park and ourselves in Cardiff Bay. Is that what will definitely produce the most effective form of government for Wales over the next 100 years? That is why I did not think it was unreasonable for me to pause and have a good read through the figures until I was certain, and then come back to commit to the next stage.
Dafydd Wigley: I believe that everyone accepts that it is reasonable to revisit the figures, as long as that does not lead to delay. The First Secretary said that we are constructing a building that should last for 100 years. The costing that we have had is based on a period of 15 years. Are you totally happy that the building will last for 100 years and that the costs reflect that?
The First Secretary: I believe that this is a technical matter on how you make the calculations so that you can form an opinion today on costs. That is why we were advised that 15 years was the proper period to use for the present net cost. I am not sure what effect using another period would have on the figures. Does Dafydd disagree with what I am saying, namely that we are deciding on a pattern of governing Wales where the civil service is in one part of the city, in the civic centre, and ourselves in the bay in a second civic centre with two miles between us? We would be confirming and setting that pattern for the next 100 years. I do not see any chance of moving the civil service from Cathays Park to the bay nor, if we constructed the new building, of moving the building again to Cathays Park. We would set the pattern of two miles distance between the civil service and the democratic side of our system of governing Wales.
William Graham: We have talked much about cost. I refer you to a current publication, although it is obviously completely out of date, by the Richard Rogers Partnership that states clearly and emphatically that the cost of the building will be £8.25 million plus VAT. That is £9.69 million, costed at £2,750 per square metre. What confidence can you have in your advisers that we will get anything like value for money on the figures that we have already seen?
The First Secretary: I am not sure what a current publication that is out of date is. It seems to be an oxymoron to me. Perhaps William should send to me the publication that he describes in two simultaneously contradictory ways.
I am concerned with what factors we should take into account and with whether the functional inefficiency of the separation between the bay and Cathays Park and between the civil service and the democratic side of government in Wales was adequately considered in the original decision. Should we now make up for any inadequacy in the consideration of that decision? I would not place it higher than that at this stage. My approximate understanding is that, although the cost of the bus service which transports civil servants back and forth to Cardiff Bay was included, the functional inefficiency of having the civil service in one place and ourselves in another was not included in the original cost comparisons. I want to be certain about that before we set this decision in concrete. That is what we would effectively do, literally and metaphorically, for the next 100 years.
Alun Cairns: From what you imply, it seems that you personally prefer the choice of Cathays Park and City Hall as a location for the Assembly.
The First Secretary: You are getting well ahead of yourself, Alun. I am making no such comment. I am asking whether there are factors that we should now consider that do not appear to have been considered previously, as far as I can tell at this stage. I am not certain about that, but the initial advice that I was given was that only the cost of the bus service was considered and not the time wastage for civil servants as they travelled back and forth from here to Cathays Park. Many civil servants wait up to 30 minutes for a bus. If you add up the time wasted by each civil servant, it makes you wonder how much that costs in functional inefficiency in the way that we run Wales. Perhaps, even after taking that into account, we will still believe that the new Assembly building project is the right project. However, we must be conscious of the time wastage and build it into the figures because it does not appear to have been built into the figures initially, unlike the cost of the bus service.
4:08 p.m.
We are committed to sustainable development, which is why we discourage civil servants from using their cars to come here. However, is there an alternative that would fit in better with our sustainable development, overarching obligation as an Assembly? I am not sure of the answer at this stage, which is why I want to ensure that that is considered adequately before I return with a definite recommendation to be presented before the Assembly.
David Davies: I congratulate the First Secretary for making valid points on time management, but does he not share my surprise and concern that these figures were not taken into account and does he not wonder whether or not other issues have been taken into account, which could make the cost even higher than we had anticipated?
The First Secretary: David is well ahead of himself with that point. I am not absolutely certain that the issue of time wastage was not taken into account but I have received official advice that it was not. I will ensure that these things are fully nailed down by the time I return after Easter, when, perhaps, we can have a further discussion on this matter.
Ron Davies: I assure Members who are interested in these matters that the most careful consideration was given to all the operational difficulties that could arise from the decision to come to the bay. It would have been a foolish decision to make without accounting for the movement of civil servants between Cathays Park and the bay. Those matters were considered carefully although it is true that, when I made the initial decision, I did not requisition a financial analysis of the cost involved because that analysis depends entirely on the parameters that you set when you ask for that information. In order to ensure the fullest possible debate, as I am sure Rhodri wants, perhaps he could tell us what the parameters of those further figures that he has requested are and what assumptions have been made about the number of civil servants who travel, the frequency of travel and so on?
The First Secretary: I am glad that Ron has confirmed the version of events that I was given by officials. It is always difficult to refer to a matter relating to a previous administration. It is my understanding that the gross cost of the bus service was included but that no attempt was made to measure lost time. Ron Davies has now confirmed that. A measure that tries to quantify that could be attempted now that we have nine months’ experience of the two-mile separation.
That leads to a further interesting point relating to a phrase that I have used before: project creep. We have not had project creep with the cost of the new building, in spite of what William Graham said. The architects would maintain that apart from normal building cost inflation, the inclusion of VAT in the publicly given figures at a later stage and the addition of 15 per cent--as distinct from 5 per cent--contingency allowance, the building project has not suffered from project creep unlike other major building projects.
There has been a major change in the definition of the project’s requirements. Initially, we needed 72,000 square feet of space, which easily fitted into half of this building temporarily, which is 125,000 square feet net and 150,000 square feet gross. However, now Crickhowell House is not big enough because of project creep. The instability in the relationship between Cathays Park and Crickhowell House has meant that more and more civil servants have been brought to Crickhowell House. For example, the Correspondence Unit, which supports Cabinet Ministers in replying to letters from the public or AMs. Therefore, instead of a 72,000 square feet requirement, the project has been redefined to require around 150,000 square feet or more on a net basis. If we had approved and continued with the new building when it was only 72,000 square feet--which is as per the figures in the information that was circulated to Members earlier today--would we have finished up with a building that was wrong?
We now appear to need 150,000 square feet of net space, that is, we could say the whole of Crickhowell House instead of half of it. We need the new building because otherwise civil servants will have to be brought here to work permanently in larger numbers than before as well as making the two-mile journey from Cathays Park. We did not know that you cannot stabilise the number of staff in Cathays Park as we always need more civil servants in the bay than we had thought to support us because of the two-mile distance from Cathays Park. At what point can we be sure that we will have stable numbers? That has not been our experience in the first year.
Ron Davies: I am sure that you have inadvertently moved off the point that I raised. You indicated earlier that the review would be completed before Easter. In order to have a full public discussion on these matters and to ensure that there is no uncertainty about the figures, will you give an undertaking to publish the assumptions on which this further work is being carried out?
The First Secretary: You may be reading too much into the question of assumptions as though they will be bent to bias the conclusion--there is no such intention. I merely want to cover omissions and I think that you accept that no attempt was made to quantify these costs before. When figures become available, and unless they are commercially confidential, I will ensure that they are placed on the internet and intranet so that Members can see them. I have not indicated that this review will be completed by Easter, but I will study the figures over the Easter recess after which I would like to have a debate, the timing of which would be subject to the Llywydd, Members and the Business Committee. The outcome of that debate may lead to a conclusion. It is not fair to say that I will definitely reach a conclusion and approve the next stage of the new building project after that debate in early May, but I want a debate as soon as the figures are available and as soon as I have had an opportunity to digest them over the recess.
Jocelyn Davies: I use the bus service regularly when I travel to Cathays or the train station, as do Ieuan Wyn Jones, Cynog Dafis and other Members. If I were not using that bus, I would probably take a taxi. Do your calculations account for the use of the bus by Members because I assume that Cabinet members always use the bus if they want to travel to Cathays. The bus is efficient, always on time and nobody has to wait 30 minutes for it because it leaves every 20 minutes no matter what. I have seen staff members reading as they wait and during the journey. That is not wasted, dead time as you indicate; it is time when people work and I hope that your calculations take that into consideration.
The First Secretary: I am sure that it will all be taken into consideration. Jocelyn like any other politician should never say 'never’. I had a discussion around four months ago with a senior member of the civil service who had been waiting for the bus for 40 minutes and was ready to give up. He was going to call a taxi because he did not know where the bus was and why he had been waiting. He had not been working for the previous 40 minutes and was in despair. I do not know how often that happens but Jocelyn should never say 'never’ because no politician should do that. I agree that any adventitious use of the service to get to the station by Members is a bonus which must be taken into account in any attempt at quantifying the problem that arises because of the two mile distance.
4:18 p.m.
Jenny Randerson: In reconsidering the figures that you hope will be ready in the near future, have you contacted Cardiff City and County Council to ask what the price of City Hall is now? I fear that in the intervening two years, the price may have changed. Can we reconsider the figures without going back to Cardiff council to see how much it is asking for the building?
The First Secretary: If the Assembly wants me to do that, I will. I have not done that so far.
Ron Davies: I do not advise Rhodri to go down that road. I am not sure whether Russell Goodway would be minded at this moment to be generous to him in his negotiations. I ask the question for the third time: will you publish the assumptions on which this further work is being carried out?
The First Secretary: The answer is so obviously yes that I forgot to give it. You seem to think that I am trying to hide something. There is no motive or intention on my part to hide anything. I am not sure why you are so suspicious.
We have an overriding and overarching obligation to sustainable development, for which Cynog Dafis and Ron Davies were primarily responsible. Therefore, the issue of the distance between the two sites of the new Welsh democracy should undoubtedly be taken into account. If there is an alternative--I do not know whether there is--which is more in line with sustainable development, we would have to examine it. I am sure that Cynog and Ron would agree with that if it were in line with our overarching obligations.
Consider how the public views this situation. It sees Cardiff council’s two major public buildings in Cardiff Bay and in Cathays Park and the National Assembly for Wales’s two public buildings, also in Cardiff Bay and Cathays Park. If the pairing was different it might be possible to walk from one to the other. You cannot walk from the bay to Cathays Park or from Cathays Park to the bay. It would not matter whether we owned Cardiff County Hall and Crickhowell House or whether we owned the other pairing of the two buildings on either side of Cathays Park. Either pairing would involve fewer bus rides and more walking and be more in line with sustainable development. I am sure that Cynog will rise and tell me that he agrees with that proposition in principle.
Cynog Dafis: Electronic links is one of the keys to sustainable development. Video conferencing between the bay and Cathays Park will be routine in 10 years or even before then. I suggest that there are other aspects of this issue that should be discussed other than travelling between the bay and Cathays Park. If the Assembly moved to Cathays Park, would that not mean that we would have to travel regularly between the two places as there is no room for all of us in Cathays Park?
The First Secretary: As for the latest electronic links, it is always said that an answer is on its way or is already available to overcome the distance problem. I am not sure whether that is entirely practical but Cynog and other experts in this field always say that a machine is available or about to appear that will solve the distance problem. We have not yet reached that time. That is part of the consideration. Some think that new technology can destroy the concept of distance and that we could work just as well from home as we do when we are all together here and that video conferencing is just as good as being face to face. I am not sure whether that time has come yet. Perhaps it will come within a quarter or half a century. Perhaps Cynog believes that it will be upon us next year. It is a question for discussion.
Michael German: On the first floor of this building we have a video conferencing suite and on the first floor of the Welsh Office building in Cathays Park there is a video conferencing suite. It is simple to communicate. Audio conferencing is simple. There are many opportunities we could use.
Secondly, is it not the case that the problem with City Hall, from Cardiff council’s point of view, is that it contains many wide, large and open public rooms, which is why the council wanted to keep it? The council knew that it would benefit from having open space for the public, public rooms and public buildings. That facility is not available here and the council would not have that facility if there were an exchange of our cells with those of City Hall. Is City Hall appropriate without undertaking major reconstruction work, considering the size of its rooms at present?
The First Secretary: I am not arguing for a move to City Hall. I am saying that in any corporate body such as ours, which has an overarching obligation to sustainable development, it is a curiosity that both Cardiff council and ourselves have this pairing of buildings. Both institutions have one building in the Park and one in the bay instead of two buildings in the Park that belong to one body and another two in the bay that belong to the other body. There would be a reduction in transportation requirements if the pairing was the opposite way around, because both public bodies now have a two-mile journey between their two respective headquarters. That is my point. The public will want to know the answer to that. How was that argument disposed of in the assessment? How was it resolved relative to the overarching commitment to sustainable development? You are committing yourself to a system of government that sets in concrete this pattern of locations of the bay and the Park, and the two-mile gap between the civil service and the administration for the next 100 years. That is what I want to see in the assessment and I hope to assess that when I have seen all the figures over Easter. The matter will come back to the Assembly as soon as possible after May.
Nick Bourne: Regardless of which side of the argument we are on--and I think the whole project should be cancelled--the whole Assembly looks to you for a lead. I have listened with an increasing sense of unreality as we have debated matters that must have been known previously. All of these issues were previously known to the former First Secretary. Unless you have new information to show us, I do not understand why we are re-opening it at this stage, other than to lead to cancellation. You sound increasingly like an estate agent, showing us around City Hall and saying, would not this do nicely? The cost of City Hall is obviously beyond anything that is in the budget at the moment. Is it not more sensible, and you are being given credit for this, to cancel this project and concentrate on things that really matter, rather than returning to this issue yet again after Easter? What is the reason for this? Let us cancel it and get on with some real business in the Assembly.
The First Secretary: I have been accused of being many things in my time but never of being an estate agent. If you had listened to my explanation, you would know that I did not feel ready to commit myself to the next £1 million of expenditure on scheme design, which would have taken place between May and August, to be followed by detailed design in August. As First Secretary--and I took advice from other members of the Policy Steering Group--I had to authorise spending £1 million. I was not ready to authorise that expenditure. Nick Bourne and his colleagues want to make something more of that than it is and I understand their political motives for doing so. They do not want to see a permanent home for the Assembly because they are worried about the entrenchment of the Assembly. They know that this was only ever assumed to be a temporary home. He may say that things work here. However, he must recognise that this Chamber is inadequate. He and his party have their own views on that, which are not widely shared. They are viscerally against any expenditure that may be associated with the Assembly and might lead to the entrenchment of the Assembly. That is his point of view and I understand that. However, he must not try to recruit me because of my decision not to authorise a further £1 million on scheme design. I have an entirely different agenda to that of his party.
Janet Davies: You will be aware of the recent work that the National Audit Office has done on this. Are you taking that work into consideration today, or is that under consideration for May?
The First Secretary: The work of the NAO is important to this exercise. It was raised for a different reason by an MP from another part of Wales who was upset about the decision to locate the Assembly in Cardiff. Nevertheless, it is useful that the public sector accountants of the NAO are going through the decision-making procedure. It is a retrospective decision because auditors work retrospectively. On the other hand, we can piggy-back on the back of the facts that they are amassing and the figures that they are testing when Edwina and her team look at the issue from the point of view of relevance to our decision today. Auditors do not look forward; they look back. They are the people who go out on the battlefield and bayonet the wounded, with particular preference for wounded prisoners from their own side. That is what auditors are like. I do not know how they compare with estate agents in the public esteem. Janet will have the benefit as Chair of the Audit Committee of looking retrospectively at this. We will use all the figures that the NAO accumulate and adapt them to advise the Assembly and myself on whether the appropriate course of action is to proceed.
4:28 p.m.
Rhodri Glyn Thomas: During this introduction you consistently referred to the need to be careful with public money. We would all agree with that. However, this postponement is presented as being careful with public money. In a question last week I asked how much exactly this postponement will cost? If there is to be a three-month or a six-month postponement, what will the cost be? Donald Dewar has argued that any postponement would be expensive for the parliament building in Scotland. The impression given here is that the postponement is not costing the public purse anything. I would like an explanation on that.
The second question I asked last week--and I did not receive an answer to that question either--was that if a decision was made to cancel the contract to build the new Assembly building, would the Assembly not be breaking contracts that have already been signed? In addition, would there not be substantial costs associated with any decision to cancel? Is there any choice but to proceed with the new building?
The First Secretary: You cannot compare the stage that Scotland has reached and our stage in Wales. They have started building. There is a hole in the ground in Edinburgh already. Cancelling or scrapping the project would be expensive in Edinburgh. They have reached a different stage in the chapters that have to be gone through before obtaining a new building. We are in an entirely different situation. That is why I wanted to postpone now rather than after committing to the next £1 million of public money. I was asked to make that commitment a fortnight ago but I would not want to postpone after committing ourselves to the next £1 million for the scheme design, which would occur between March and August.
I will write carefully about the issue of any costs arising from the postponement. I cannot disclose what other parties could do against us in a court of law if they believed that there was a contract. There is no contract--as far as I understand--apart from buying the land for a pound. There is no contract with the Richard Rogers Partnership. They work on a week-to-week basis. There may be legal aspects that I do not understand. That is my understanding, but I will be careful to avoid saying more than that without advice from officials. I will write to Rhodri and to the party leaders if there are costs that are entirely different to those that I have mentioned.
I am only half way down the first page of my speech and I have taken about 47 interventions. However, I envisage that the discussions today are an extension of the question and answer session on the day of my original announcement. Perhaps it is appropriate that the debate has been conducted. It is an opportunity for everybody to make their own contributions by way of an intervention or a speech. All I want to say is that the place--wherever it is--that we eventually have as a permanent home must have the values of openness, democracy and access. It must be worthy of the Government of our land. It must be a place accepted by the people of Wales as one that belongs to them as well as to the politicians and officials who serve them. It is a palace, not a place of business. Sorry, that will teach me not to take off my glasses. It is not a palace but a place of business, a place where the democratic business of Wales can be carried out.
This is an opportunity for everyone to make a contribution, not just to ask me questions.
Glyn Davies: I propose amendment 1. Delete clauses 2, 3 and 4 and replace with:
2. requires that the First Secretary publish the figures which led to his decision to temporarily suspend the project.
3. resolves that the temporary suspension of the new Assembly building project be made permanent.
I have outlined the Welsh Conservative Party’s policy on this issue on several occasions. Over the last 12 months I have advocated consistently that the new Assembly building project should be abandoned. The Welsh Conservative group’s view is clear, consistent and unambiguous. The sum of £22.6 million, the latest estimate of what is needed to construct the building, would be better spent on services for the people of Wales. The suspension of this project should be made permanent and the new building scrapped.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that I put forward in January, although they still stand. Today, I will examine the decision to suspend the project that the First Secretary made two weeks ago. First Secretary, in commenting on my initial response after hearing your statement that the project was to be parked or suspended, you said with typical disarming humour that you were unsure as to whether I was welcoming your decision or not. You made a fair point. I was trying, with some difficulty, to construct a logical response to what seemed to me then, and now, to be a hopelessly illogical statement. I do not think that what you have said today has helped much.
Let us look in more depth at what you were trying to tell us. It seems that you had seen new figures that were so alarming that you immediately suspended a project that you had previously fully supported. Yet you have given no indication that the total estimated costs have risen beyond £22.6 million, the figure put before this Chamber in January when you voted so enthusiastically in favour of the project. Can it be that in January, when someone else was carrying the can, this figure was acceptable to you, but now, when you might be carrying the can, it is not? That would not be act of leadership but of weakness, the act of someone who finds it difficult to make a decision. If the estimated costs of £22.6 million have risen, that would be a different matter. I would be prepared to allow you to rise to confirm it if that is so.
A second aspect of these new figures that you are alleged to have seen also interests me: why have you not made them public? The information that was sent by e-mail to Assembly Members this morning did not include anything new. All Assembly Members already knew the total estimated costs and their breakdown into subheadings, including design fees. Your predecessor gave us those figures in January and made them public. As far as I know, they have not changed since. All Assembly Members must also have been aware of the design costs expenditure profile. It is usually about the same. In truth, it was less than I expected in January. What is new? What has led to your decision? Why are you reluctant to tell us? You are the man who talks so proudly about open government. Why are you so reluctant to make public the new figures that influenced you so much? I cannot help but wonder whether these new figures exist or whether this is just a smokescreen for indecision.
Perhaps the reason is the cost estimates for the other buildings in Cardiff--City Hall or Bute Square. Today’s e-mail suggests that there is nothing new there either. Have you seen new figures on these options? Are you telling us that the cost comparisons put before us by your predecessor do not stand up to examination? One of your predecessors was on his feet swiftly today whenever that was suggested. Or are you saying that you have done a deal with Mr Goodway? Or that you were prepared to back those figures without question while your predecessor took responsibility for them, but are not prepared to do so now that you are taking responsibility for them? Again, that is not an act of leadership. There are so many questions and so few answers.
4:38 p.m.
Let me return to my ambivalence, to which you referred, in my response to you last week. I welcomed your statement, with reservations, because it implied a willingness to accept my oft-repeated argument that the project should be abandoned. You repeated that abandonment was an option, although unlikely, when sitting no more than four feet away from me in the BBC studio upstairs soon after making your statement.
Before your statement, Assembly Members had virtually accepted that the debate was over. Your decision to reopen this issue suggested that you had decided to scrap the project. That is what many people outside told me, and it produced popularity for you. The Conservative group welcomed that decision.
You said that the project is temporarily suspended and that you might return to it, with additional costs arising from the delay. One Member has referred to that. We do not welcome that. We would not welcome moving to a hugely more expensive site somewhere else in Cardiff either. The Conservative group favoured City Hall when the decision was first being made, because of the status that that would give to the Assembly. However, it is probably too late and the costs are probably too high by now. We have spent almost £10 million on this building.
First Secretary, this debate is as much about your leadership credibility as it is about a new building project. Are you a lion or a mouse with a sense of humour? Are you a leader who has the necessaries to take tough decisions, which the people of Wales want you to take, or someone who dithers and capitulates when the going gets tough? Do you use a quick wit and funny one-liners to hide weakness and indecision? You are in a pickle. There is only one way that you can walk out of this mess, which is of your own making, with a shred of credibility. You must publish all the figures and abandon the project.
Cynog Dafis: I propose amendment 2. In clause 2 delete 'might
’ and replace with 'is likely to
’.
I propose amendment 3. In clause 3 delete 'as quickly as possible
’ and replace with 'urgently
’.
I propose amendment 5. In clause 4 after the word 'decision
’ add 'on Tuesday 8 May 2000
’.
I am glad of the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Plaid Cymru group in this unexpected debate. However, I am not pleased that it is occurring, because it is unnecessary.
When the First Secretary announced that he was postponing this project three weeks ago, it was a shock and a disappointment to many people, including Members of the Assembly Labour group and the majority of other Members. Only the Tories rejoiced. Today they are crowing. However, I am sure that even some of them are feeling quite disheartened, but they dare not show that. Rhodri Morgan has not justified his decision to postpone the project. All we have heard are concerns about the distance between this building and Cathays Park. That is not a serious consideration.
However, it is important to look forward today. Maybe we can use the postponement for a purpose, to justify the First Secretary’s decision. The starting point of the debate is that Wales must have a building for its National Assembly of which it can be proud. Rhodri Morgan debased that aspect by insisting that the Assembly building is not a symbol of the new Wales, but something functional. I do not accept that argument in relation to a parliament house. What kind of nation--
Alun Cairns: Do you accept that it is the deliberations of the Assembly that are important, rather than a grand palace in Cardiff Bay or Cathays Park, and that we should be judged on what we do, not on where we sit.
Cynog Dafis: We will be judged by our actions, of course. Listen to my next words, Alun, to see what you think of them.
What nation or region worth its salt would satisfy itself with such an unsightly building as Crickhowell House as its national parliament? I think of some of the parliamentary buildings that I have seen. I have been in the Folketing in Copenhagen and outside the Dáil in Dublin. Recently, I was outside the Generalitat in Barcelona, the capital of Catalonia. Slovenia’s parliament in Ljubljana is worth seeing, as is the Assemblée Nationale in Paris--a building that has the same name as our National Assembly. These are all dignified buildings that are symbols of the nation’s aspirations and of democracy. What deserves a powerful symbol more than democracy? These buildings are a focus to the nation’s aspirations and are a source of pride to the citizens. Consider the Palace of Westminster in London. That is one of the least charming and most ornate parliament buildings, as befits an imperial headquarters. I did not hear any one of the Tory Party suggest that expenditure on maintaining that amazing place should be cut.
It is fitting for us to be responsible with public expenditure. However, seriously, would we consider that £26 million, the sum that was last mentioned, would be too much for a national parliament building? The last time that I spoke on this subject in the Assembly, I listed some of the incredible expenditure on the Palace of Westminster. I will not follow the same line today. However, I could invite you to compare the cost of building the new Assembly with the cost of building the national stadium, £120 million and more, or the Millennium Centre, £80 million. Both are dependent to a large extent on substantial public expenditure in the form of Lottery funding--
David Melding: The problem with Cynog’s speech is that the architects are probably listening and multiplying their costs at this moment.
Cynog Dafis: I will come to that before the end of my speech. It is possible to speak enthusiastically about a national parliament building without inviting that kind of sylw sbengllyd
, or sneering remark, to use the language of Ceredigion.
There could hardly be a doubt that the investment in a fitting building would pay dividends. That is language that the Conservative Party will understand. A building of this kind will pay handsome dividends in the form of tourism, attracting business to Wales and so on. Think of foreign visitors, potential inward investors, who want to see Wales’s parliament building. Can you imagine bringing them to see Crickhowell House? Imagine, on the other hand, bringing them to see the kind of building that Richard Rogers has in mind. I was much in favour of City Hall at one time, and I have every respect for those who still favour that option. When it became evident that that option was not a runner for a credible price, I even supported Swansea. I am not one of the great supporters of the kind of development that has been happening in the bay. There are many questions to be asked about the pattern of development here. However, having come here, who could deny the excitement here? The case for having a building by a world-renowned architect that is an example of sustainable architecture is so strong that it is overwhelming. There are facts that you can consider when looking at the building. The intention, for example, is to produce a building that uses less than 50 per cent of the normal energy use of similar buildings. That is a consideration of sustainable development. The new building’s carbon dioxide emissions will be nil, net. It is intended to use renewable energy sources throughout and to make substantial use of Welsh materials.
Peter Rogers: When you discuss the efficiency of running the building, you cannot escape one point that has been made strongly today. Running this building and Cathays Park, and a debating chamber across the road from here, will double staffing and double all other costs. When we deserve and have earned a new building and have justified the Assembly’s existence, the building should house the whole Assembly on one site.
4:48 p.m.
Cynog Dafis: I do not deny the possibility that this building could be developed to house the whole Assembly. The question of civil servants travelling back and forth from Cathays Park to Cardiff Bay is not at issue. However, in London, Government staff travel from their departments to Westminster. It is not a two-mile journey but it is a good half a mile for some. It happens all of the time and the situation is accepted.
It is said that there is no public support for this project. I have two things to say about that. I do not know of any opinion poll on public feeling on this matter, but in the case of a new development, objectors’ voices are heard louder than voices in support. That is par for the course and the press considers disagreement to be more interesting than agreement. Therefore, we hear that there is no support for this project.
Secondly, we must emphasise that this building will be one for the public, for the ordinary people of Wales, not the Members. We must present and sell the building in that context. I am willing to make a prophecy that the new building will be the subject of pride and a popular attraction within a short time of its completion. The Conservatives will then regret the standpoint that they have taken. I have the honour of chairing a Subject Committee that has responsibility for culture and the arts. One of the Committee’s ideas raised during the review is the need for the Assembly to have a policy on culture and the arts as part of its own activities. There is potential to use the new Assembly building to exhibit the nation’s creative talents, as singers, actors and artists. Performers of all kinds, professional and amateur, school children, pensioners choirs and international stars could all use the Assembly as a stage for their creativity. Look at Richard Rogers’s design and imagine the use that could be made of it for that kind of purpose.
This period of postponement, which is to last until the beginning of May and no longer as I understand, should be used to do three things. It should be ensured that the cost of the project does not rise continuously, as has happened with too many public buildings. That is a danger, and seems to be happening in Scotland at the moment. Secondly, it should be ensured that Richard Rogers’s imaginative design in addition to looking beautiful works practically. I am sure that that can be done. Thirdly, it should be ensured that the needs of the disabled in terms of convenience and propriety are fully met. I know that Disability Wales have some questions about this matter and I am sure that they can be answered. Plaid Cymru does not consider that this needs to be a lengthy process. We believe that this review can be completed by the time we return after the Easter recess. As an Assembly, we will then be ready to forge ahead with this exciting scheme.
On the amendments, we must oppose Glyn Davies’s sad, negative and opportunistic amendment 1. I am saddened to hear what he said in speaking on the amendments. However, his critique of the First Secretary today was powerful and incisive. No beautiful building or work of art that would entail spending public money would be achieved if we were to accept the values that we have heard today. Public services and all kinds of other things will always need money. Following such a principle would mean that a public building worth looking at would never be built. We support amendments 4, 6 and 7 in the name of Peter Black, on the understanding that the words 'within three months’, do not mean three months. This review could be completed within a month and Plaid Cymru believes that it should be so.
Peter Black: I propose amendment 4. Delete clause 3 and replace with new clause 3
'resolves that the review be completed within three months
’.
I propose amendment 6. In clause 4 insert 'publicly
’ between 'made
’ and 'available
’.
I propose amendment 7. At end of motion add clause 5
'resolves that the review process itself be carried out with the maximum possible openness and transparency
’.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this matter. When Ron Davies, as Secretary of State for Wales, chose the site for the Assembly, he did so on the assumption that we would have a new building that reflected a new self-confident Wales. Costs are a concern and we must be aware that a delay could add to those costs.
Although I support the new First Secretary’s right to review his predecessor’s decisions, we must be realistic about the options involved. We must avoid shelving the problem by default. The Assembly must decide the way forward positively after a full debate. It is not good enough to embark on an open-ended review in which the issue is allowed to drift. That may suit some people, but in the long term it leads the Assembly nowhere and leaves its position unresolved, ensuring that a future solution costs more.
What are the options? We are told that the new building will now cost us £26.5 million. As regards running costs, that may save us money on an alternative option in terms of energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources and Welsh materials, which is important in a flagship building of this kind. With construction inflation at 5 per cent, a delay of six months, which is what Rhodri Morgan announced in his statement, could add up to £500,000 to the cost. That is unacceptable and we cannot go down that road.
The second option is to stay here with all the limitations and constraints of this building. That may work in the short term, but Crickhowell House was only going to be a short-term option. It is unsustainable over a long time. That is why it was linked to a new building. The third option is City Hall, which will cost more than a new build. In addition, according to a report e-mailed to us earlier today, even after this expenditure, City Hall would have difficulty accommodating the originally forecast 280 Members and staff in the available space. There are 517 Members and staff in this building and the report anticipates that this could increase to 746. There is also a local difficulty in negotiating a fair price with Cardiff council and having to persuade Russell Goodway, in the midst of other controversy, that he should be charitable towards the Assembly. That is possibly a non-starter.
There are also other options that we should not rule out. If we are serious about achieving value for money, we must re-evaluate the other options--
David Davies: Do you agree that we should consider the option of staying in Crickhowell House and spending the money on a children’s hospital for Wales--something that Wales is crying out for? Do you also agree that the majority of people in Wales would fully support that option and would see it as a positive contribution from the Assembly?
Peter Black: If David had listened to what I said, he would know that I mentioned the Crickhowell House option. That option must be examined along with the others. Crickhowell House is limited and we would soon find ourselves bursting at the seams, which would result in us proposing an alternative option in the future. I wonder what David’s view is on Peter Rogers’ option, which seemed to envisage putting forward Crickhowell House, Cathays Park and the new building as one new building, which would cost at least three times the cost of the proposed option for the building described before us? We all have many figures before us and this review is welcome and needs to be done. However, it must be done quickly and we must ensure that we get value for money. I assume that Crickhowell House is part of that review, as are the other options. We will have to see what comes out of it. I will not and I am not trying to pre-judge that review, now or in my amendments 4 and 6. The review must be open and transparent and done quickly, so that it does not cost us any more money if we decide to go ahead with the new building.
4:58 p.m.
We must ensure that we are getting value for money when we make our decision, and above all that the process is open and transparent. Whatever decision is taken must be fair, based on sound analysis and give value for money. We must explain ourselves thoroughly and publish the figures and reasoning behind that decision. We need to set clear objectives for this review and a time-span in which it must be conducted. That is why I tabled amendment 4 saying that this review must be completed within three months. That should give us time to consider the report of the Auditor General for Wales on the new building and to examine it in the Audit Committee. All the information needed will be available and the decision can be taken in an informed and considered way. In response to Cynog’s comments, three months should be the maximum time for this review and I hope that it can be concluded well before the end of that period.
I also tabled amendments 6 and 7 underlining the need for this information to be publicly available and for maximum openness and transparency. We are creating a new democracy in Wales, which opens up the dark recesses of Government to public scrutiny. What better way to demonstrate that than by the way in which we deal with our new building? The Liberal Democrats cannot, of course, support the Conservatives’ amendment 1, as it pre-empts the review on which the First Secretary has embarked. I hope that all the other party leaders will be part of that review, including the Conservatives. Then we might achieve consensus on the outcome. Transparency, accountability, openness and clarity of purpose are all principles on which we have sought to ground this Assembly. Those principles must also apply to whichever place we finally call home.
Lorraine Barrett: First of all, it is a mistake to talk about the new building. We should talk about the new chamber or extension, because when Ron Davies first decided to locate the Assembly in Cardiff Bay, it was on the understanding that we would use Crickhowell House for office staff accommodation and construct a temporary chamber. A permanent new chamber would then be built as an extension to this building, with associated committee rooms and public areas. I have said before--and I will not cover too much old ground--that I was disappointed with Rhodri’s decision to put this project on hold. We have had debates and presentations on this issue and we have voted on it in this Chamber. We thought we were moving forward. I cannot understand why we are now at this impasse.
When the First Secretary responds, I hope that he can assure us that he is not considering City Hall. Other Members have mentioned this, so I will not go into too much detail, but the paper on the internet today, which sets out the background to the choice of building for the Assembly, clearly shows that City Hall is a more expensive option. More accommodation would need to be built for offices and we would be working from two or three sites. In addition, staff would have to share accommodation. Three Members would have to share a room and I hate to think who would be prepared to do that. I hope that City Hall is firmly out of the equation.
Let us consider this building without a new chamber. Cynog mentioned visitors from abroad. Yesterday, 70 students visited the Assembly. They came from Portugal, Spain, Italy, France and Penarth. It took them half an hour to get through the scanner. The foyer was a no-go area and possibly a safety risk. The reception and security staff were good-natured and helped me to get them through at a rate of knots, but it still took half an hour. I moved them through the Assembly hall and they looked at the paintings on the wall--I could not show them much else--and they sat at the back of the public gallery. If they had been in the gallery this afternoon they would have had the pleasure of looking at the back of our heads as the public here today could testify. That is not the way to conduct our new democracy.
We have all acknowledged the failings of this Chamber, such as the pillars and the acoustics. However, nothing would be wasted in this building if we had a new chamber. There is already a shortage of accommodation. We have all had the experience of not being able to find anywhere to hold meetings with outside groups. As time goes on, there will be more interest from visitors and other organisations. This will be particularly true when redevelopment’s in the bay are complete. The piledriving has started and the hoardings are going up for the new millennium centre. We have the beautiful Pierhead building, which--Rhodri assures me--will open later in the year as a visitor and educational centre. If we were to move to City Hall or anywhere else in Cathays Park, we would still have the Pierhead building, which complicates matters.
The Mermaid Quay development is underway, but only half of the units are in use. I was told today that many potential investors who are at an advanced, delicate stage of negotiations have suspended their plans to locate here until a firm decision is made. Rhodri said earlier that the new Chamber is not intended to encourage businesses to invest in the bay. However, once the decision was made, many companies saw it as a good investment. They wanted to come here to be near the new Government of Wales.
Rhodri mentioned staff travelling between the bay and Cathays Park and brought County Hall into the equation. I fear the goal posts are moving and I cannot keep up. The delay is sending negative messages to investors and others and there is doubt and confusion. I urge Rhodri to move as quickly as possible.
I acknowledge, as we all do, that there are people who question whether we need a new Chamber or an extension. We could all find other things on which to spend the money. I am sure that the Conservative group could come up with wonderful things on which to spend the £300 million that their UK couterparts previously committed from the UK Government’s budget on accommodation for MPs. However, I have not heard their suggestions.
Alun Cairns: Will you give way?
Lorraine Barrett: I told myself that I would deny Alun Cairns--out of the entire Conservative group--the opportunity to speak. I will carry on, but maybe you can speak at the end.
The money could be spent on other things and we must ensure that the costs do not escalate out of control. If we are serious about our new Government of Wales and we have confidence in ourselves and our country and have aspirations for Wales’s future, we must ensure that our Government is housed in a building that shows that confidence, makes that statement and puts Wales on the map. If we do not, we will be seen as a second rate organisation consigned to a basic office block. If other countries and other seats of Government in the UK can have landmark buildings, why should we not?
Please do not dither and delay, Rhodri. It means extra costs and I am not convinced that anything has changed since Alun Michael, as First Secretary, and Edwina Hart, as Finance Secretary, went through the figures, since the National Audit Office examined the books twice, nor since the Assembly voted to go ahead with the scheme.
Alun Cairns: It is a pleasure to be able to contribute to this debate once again. I thought I was having a déjà vu earlier. The First Secretary made his statement a couple of weeks ago and I thought we had gone over this ground once. However, I welcome that the First Secretary is moving at least half way around a u-turn and I look forward to him moving the rest of the way round when he faces up to the right and only decision to abandon the new Assembly building. Nonetheless, we accept that because of the position he has taken, he must take smaller steps to come around to the same way of thinking as the Welsh Conservative Party.
It is a u-turn, because on 26 January the First Secretary approved the motion, which said that the Assembly noted the revised estimated cost of the scheme and agreed that the development should now proceed on the revised basis with the objective of having a fully functional building in place by August 2002. If it was right then, why is it wrong now? That must be answered and that is why we are half way around the u-turn to abandon the Cardiff Bay project.
5:08 p.m.
I was surprised by the First Secretary’s argument earlier today. I was expecting him to put forward an argument on reconsidering the figures to ensure that they would not rise beyond the £26 million, or almost £36 million, that we have reached for the new building. It seems clear, however, that the First Secretary intends to move the Assembly building to Cathays Park from Cardiff Bay. He said that he wanted to reflect on the figures and have a good read through them. Is he saying that there was not adequate consideration when he voted on the motion on 26 January, which I highlighted earlier, to approve the new Assembly building in the car park on the land that has been purchased for £1 and that is not quite big enough for the new Assembly building?
No one would deny that our facilities here are excellent. Civil servants, officials and former Secretaries of State for Wales have worked hard to ensure that we have these excellent facilities. We are reputed to have the most advanced parliament or assembly building in the world in terms of information and communications technology. We are welcome to use those facilities and to do so to the maximum benefit of what we do or what we seek to achieve.
That is what it comes down to. I intervened during Cynog Dafis’s speech because it is the actions of the Assembly that are important, not the palace, the building, the prestige and not the self-importance that we impose on ourselves or on each other. It is not the importance that we feel in the building in which we stand or in the seats in which we sit but what we seek to achieve. Since we have had a change of First Secretary, we have moved little forward on Objective 1, and little forward--in his mind, and in the Labour Party’s and all the other parties’ minds--on the new Assembly building. All we have done is move backward in their argument but forward in our argument, and I welcome the u-turn.
The cancellation costs were mentioned in an intervention to the First Secretary. He responded and highlighted that in his mind there was no contract. I would be surprised if the architect and the group that were tasked to design the new building would feel the same way. They have put a lot of money and effort into the new building. I am sure that there would be challenges from the architects because of the shenanigans between either the former Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies or the former First Secretary or the existing First Secretary and Russell Goodway. If there are no contractual obligations, there might well be moral obligations from their point of view in the design of the new building.
David Davies: Is it not the case that when those architects--Tony Blair’s chum, Lord Rogers was asked to draw up the design for this new building--went around the car park with a tape-measure, they did not get the measurements quite right and the overall design was too big for the space in which it was meant to go? Does Alun Cairns agree that it will be difficult for us to have confidence in these architects and in the proposed building if they cannot even get the measurements right in the first place?
Alun Cairns: You are absolutely right. It seems logical to anyone who seeks to build a house, in the most simple example, or to build a new assembly building, in a more complicated example, that the first thing to do would be to measure the available land and to design and propose a building that is fitting of that land and that can squeeze into it. Costs have been highlighted. There is only one thing that we can be sure of in terms of cost--as has been highlighted in so many public buildings--they will only go one way, and they are guaranteed to go up. The figure of £10 million was mentioned earlier by William Graham as the cost of the building that was proposed at the time of the referendum. That £10 million has now jumped to £26 million or in excess of £26 million and I would be surprised if there was any change from £30 million, or even £50 million.
Reference has been made to the spending by some of our Westminster colleagues on accommodation. However, is devolution not the right to decide how we spend the block grant that is given to Wales in a way that best serves the people of Wales and our constituents? The spending of any other government is their responsibility, not ours, and we do not want to be held responsible for spending in any other place.
Finally, I cannot believe the argument put forward by some Members in debates leading up to today’s debate that these are spoiling tactics by the Welsh Conservative Party. We propose a practical, straightforward way of gaining the respect of the Welsh people. There is a feeling in many people’s eyes--certainly not in the Welsh Conservative Party’s eyes--that the Assembly has not lived up to its expectations. Would abandoning the new building not give us £30 million to invest in education and in the health service so that we could then seek to gain the respect of the Welsh people?
Owen John Thomas: One might ask who will inform this debate, and eventually the decisions, concerning the location and cost of the Assembly building. I ask because it seems to me that there are those for whom any decision would be unsatisfactory and, undoubtedly, the focus of future criticism. Many of these whingers were busy long before the First Secretary declared this hiatus in the already fractured and contentious proceedings.
There are mixed views too on the planned new chamber, described by one wit as
'a glasshouse with balls that will be dwarfed by Ty Crycywel and the Millennium Arts Centre and made to look ordinary alongside the Pierhead building’.
The more optimistic view, however, is that it will enhance the built environment and project a modernistic and vibrant image of Wales, forming part of an exciting development stretching along the capital’s waterfront. Whichever view Members prefer, it seems that the addition of a new chamber would certainly be an improvement on Ty Crycywel standing alone.
The real choice for the Assembly seems to be between the planned Cardiff Bay project and the City Hall. We will not know all the pros and cons of these options until a thorough investigation of the costs and other implications of both locations has been completed and published. As a Cardiffian, I am aware of the strong public support that has been expressed in favour of Cardiff City Hall. However, I am also aware of the emergence over the last 12 months of the growth of support for the counter attraction of the proposed waterfront chamber.
I am also aware of bay business people’s concern for the effect that moving the Assembly could have upon the huge investment on the waterfront. When the bay plans were first laid the Assembly was not a part of them. In fact, many of those linked with Cardiff Bay Development Corporation were hostile even to the idea of devolution. Nevertheless, attitudes change with new circumstances, and many within the business sector in the capital now appreciate the added status created by the presence here of the Assembly.
There has been much secrecy and uncertainty about the details of both locations. A short delay to enlighten the Assembly and the general public on a matter of such lasting importance would not be amiss. However, even a short delay could have been avoided had Dafydd Wigley’s request been accepted for full and proper consideration to be given, at the Assembly’s inception, to the permanent location of the Assembly, together with details of costs and other implications. Unfortunately, Plaid Cymru’s request was not taken up, but I congratulate the First Secretary on taking this brave step in deciding to uncover the full costs and implications of the options before proceeding further. However, I urge him to demand that the information is gathered quickly so that a report-back will be made to the Assembly on our return from the Easter recess.
5:18 p.m.
Advantage should be taken of the opportunity to introduce a new culture. It is time to replace old bureaucratic practices of verbosity, confusion and repetition with clarity and--dare I say it--transparency in the form of a coherent and concise presentation of the facts. I wish to see a solution that will provide people with an Assembly building of which we can be proud and one that in the future will be sufficiently imposing also to serve as our national parliament. Our built environment should reflect not only our past history but also our future aspirations.
The First Secretary: I am grateful to Owen John Thomas for those words of commendation for the decision--that I took some weeks ago--to park the project for a number of weeks to investigate and re-examine the figures and the comparisons. I assure him that it will be for the shortest possible period. I will hopefully return with a full set of figures shortly after the Easter recess.
I will try to address some of the points made during the debate. Glyn Davies says that the figures that were supplied this morning are not new. However, I am advised that they are new. If he wants to write to me to point out when he first received them--if it was before today--I shall be interested to find out. I am assured that they were new material and nobody else has made that same point. Lorraine Barrett appeared to confirm that they were new. She takes as much interest in this project as anybody.
Cynog mentioned the distance of two miles. He thought that I was making too much fuss about the distance of two miles between this building and Cathays Park, the permanent site of the civil service, and the distance considered normal in London between Parliament, the Palace of Westminster and buildings such as the Treasury. There is an important principle about the difference between half a mile and two miles, which is the difference between walking distance or waco--
as they say in his native county--and the distance that you could not walk.
Cynog Dafis: Cerdded
is the word we use for walking. Waco
means something else. We go for a wac
, a leisurely jaunt in a car.
The First Secretary: I apologise. I am not an expert on Cardiganshire dialect. I think Cynog accepts the principle that there is a difference between the distance that is considered to be a natural walking distance, and two miles, which is considered too far to walk. Nobody would walk between Crickhowell House and Cathays Park. I have misunderstood what Cynog said at the end of his speech. I thought that he was talking about the possibility of the whole of the civil service moving to the bay. However, what is important about this debate is what we are going to do about this distance and the inefficiency that the civil service is two miles away from the bay where democracy has its headquarters.
Brian Hancock: We talk about two miles. It is okay for schoolchildren to walk two miles when they are eight.
The First Secretary: I do not deny that. However, the issue is how much time is lost when civil servants move that sort of distance if anybody is seriously imagining civil servants are going to walk back and forth between here and Cathays Park. I take his point about schoolchildren. However, it is a point in relation to schoolchildren rather than civil servants. It does not alter the issue of the problem of distance, which we would be setting in stone as soon as we commit to the new building. Nobody is seriously suggesting that we should move the civil service to the bay. The civil service will always remain in Cathays Park
We must ask ourselves how this project has pre-occurred in asking for a new building. At the time the parameters were set for 280 people and 72,000 square feet. That has now increased to 517 people, with the prospect of 746 people working in this building. Therefore, a pair of buildings of 160,000 square feet is required instead of the 72,000 square feet that was originally set. The answer is simple as far as I am aware. It is due to the demand set by the two-mile distance. More and more civil servants are being transferred to work in Crickhowell House to support the Assembly’s activities. I ask myself at what stage we will know that we have reached stability so that we know how big a building is required. This would not be due to an increase in Assembly Members or support staff, but because we can never say that we have reached the stage at which we stop switching civil servants from Cathays Park to the bay. They are moved to the bay to be next to where the democratic part of our system of Government is located. We keep reassessing that figure and as yet we have not achieved stability, which is why the figure for occupation of the building has increased from 280 to 746. I want to examine that more closely over the next few weeks.
William Graham: I do not want to accuse you of straying from the point, but the Richard Rogers Partnership website to which I referred earlier, refers to an area of the new building that is 3,000 square metres.
The First Secretary: Sorry?
William Graham: You seem to be telling us so much about the size of these buildings and what has already been spent. We accept that. We ask you not to commit more money on the new building.
The First Secretary: The figures add up perfectly. These are precisely the figures to which I referred. When the decision was made to locate temporarily in this building and then permanently on site 1C with use of this building as a back-up, it was on the basis that the total space used--as I understand it--would be 72,000 square feet, of which 30,000 square feet--which is 3,000 square metres--would be in the new building. That has increased to the use of the whole of Crickhowell House, which is 125,000 square feet, plus 30,000 square feet in the new building. That is a total of 155,000 square feet, which is over double the original specification. It behoves us to consider how the specification has doubled and how the deemed numbers of support staff, plus ourselves, has increased from 280 to 517 to 746. Is that the end of it? Can we bring to an end this instability between the numbers of civil servants deemed to need to be in Cathays Park and those deemed to need to be next to where our democratic activities take place here in the bay?
Disability Wales, I understand from Edwina, is consulting to give us a firm and final view on aspects relating to access for those with disabilities in the new building. Alun Cairns has given us his usual expertise on the subject of self-importance this afternoon. He has completely missed the point. I am not certain what he is trying to say. I think he is trying to say that since I have gone half way around his supposed u-turn, I must automatically go the rest of the way around it. That is the problem with the Conservatives’ attitude towards this issue. I said that I am not willing to spend or authorise a further £1 million on progress. I want to examine some of the figures regarding the estimated cost and the aspects of inefficiency that have not been costed, between Cathays Park hosting the civil service and ourselves in the bay doing so. I mentioned the aspects of project creep in terms of numbers, of which I was not aware until a fortnight ago. You made plain that you were aware of them, but I was not. Those are the aspects that I need to re-examine during the Easter recess. In the light of all that, we recommend opposing Glyn Davies’s amendment 1, because it is completely outside the spirit of my announcement a fortnight ago. We will support the other amendments. I believe that Cynog accepts that his amendment is defective, but we will try to live with the spirit of returning to consider the full figures after the Easter recess. I hope that we can vote along those lines.
5:28 p.m.
Amendment 1: For 7, Abstain 2, Against 39.
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members voted against: |
|---|---|
| Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, PeterThe following members abstained: Davies, Jocelyn Thomas, Rhodri Glyn |
Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Janet Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Essex, Sue German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Rhodri Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Amendment rejected.Amendment 2: For 42, Abstain 7, Against 0.
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members abstained: |
|---|---|
| Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Essex, Sue German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Rhodri Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter |
Amendment adopted.Amendment 3: For 39, Abstain 7, Against 0
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members abstained: |
|---|---|
| Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter |
Amendment adopted.
Amendment 4: For 42, Abstain 7, Against 0.
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members abstained: |
|---|---|
| Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Essex, Sue German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Rhodri Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter |
Amendment adopted.Amendment 5 withdrawn.
Amendment 6: For 42, Abstain 7, Against 0.
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members abstained: |
|---|---|
| Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Essex, Sue German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Rhodri Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter |
Amendment adopted.Amendment 7: For 42, Abstain 6, Against 0
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members abstained: |
|---|---|
| Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Essex, Sue German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Rhodri Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Bourne, Nick Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter |
Amendment adopted.Amended motion:
that the Assembly
1. notes the First Secretary's initiative to review the costs and options for the new Assembly building;
2. notes that the review is likely to result in slippage in the previously agreed timetable;
3. resolves that the review be completed within three months;
4. requires that the findings of the review, and proposals for future action, will be brought back to the Assembly for decision, and that the key information which underpins them be made publicly available; and
5. resolves that the review process itself be carried out with the maximum possible openness and transparency.
Amended motion: For 40, Abstain 0, Against 7.
| The following Members voted for: | The following Members voted against: |
|---|---|
| Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Essex, Sue German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Rhodri Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil |
Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter |
Amended motion adopted.The Presiding Officer: I thank Members for their forebearance during the deliberations. That brings today’s proceedings to a close.
The session ended at 5.31 p.m.
