Procedural Motion to Debate the New Assembly Building

The Presiding Officer: The Business Secretary will propose a procedural motion under Standing Orders Nos. 6.15 and 6.16. Under the Standing Orders, I can permit one person to speak for it and one to speak against before a vote is held. If the Assembly agrees, there will be a debate on the substantive motion.

Andrew Davies: I propose

that the motion to debate the new Assembly building, reference M71V, is moved today under Standing Order No. 6.16.

I would like to explain why we need this procedural motion. The substantive motion was tabled without any day being named, so we had to table this procedural motion to deal with the matter today.

Nick Bourne: My main complaint is that these things are always sprung on us at the last moment. To individual Assembly Members, it seems as if the Executive is trammelling their rights, pushing things through at the last minute without proper notice. We are not getting notification of business on the internet or the intranet. This view is also held outside. I accept that it is not a conspiracy, but Members are only discovering things at the last minute. We must do proper research to enable us to speak in these debates. We do not know what business is being brought forward from day to day, and we have not heard the details of tomorrow’s agenda. There is a general malaise. This is not working as it should. I would welcome a statement from the Business Secretary about how we can get this right as all Members are suffering from the way business is being conducted.

The Presiding Officer: I do not encourage the Business Secretary to make such a statement now. We shall vote on the procedural motion.

A vote was held by a show of hands:
Motion Adopted.

New Assembly Building

The First Secretary: I propose that

the Assembly agrees that the Richard Rogers Partnership, whose concept design was selected by the Design Competition Assessment Panel, should be instructed to continue with the development of the New Assembly Building Project within the cost parameters that have been established and that the First Secretary as Chair of the Policy Steering Group, which will comprise the Presiding Officer, the Permanent Secretary and party Leaders, reports back regularly to the Assembly on the project’s progress.

I was pleased that so many Assembly Members took the opportunity to listen to the Richard Rogers Partnership presentation last week about the new Assembly building. Party leaders heard the presentation earlier that day. Lord Rogers is a world-renowned architect and has taken a personal interest in this scheme. I was glad he was able to be here on Tuesday, though his talk to Members was delayed by the university degree ceremony in the afternoon, on which I am sure we all congratulate him.

It is time for the Assembly to decide whether to proceed with the construction of a new, modern and forward-looking Assembly building adjacent to this building. For the benefit of those who were unable to attend the presentation and members of the public who visit the Assembly, the model of the proposed design is in the Neuadd.

We must consider three buildings together for the Assembly to function effectively. This building is one of them and will continue to be an important part of the Assembly, though the meeting place for Plenary sessions will relocate to the new building. The others are the new Assembly building with the facilities we discussed last week, and the Pierhead building. I do not understand why there is doubt about the previous intention--widely welcomed on all sides--that the Pierhead building should be used for meetings, small conferences and exhibitions for visitors to the Assembly, particularly school groups.

Those of us who have served at Westminster will know that there is a major gap in provision for school groups’ visits. If they are fortunate enough, they can go into a Committee room or into the Chamber when debates are taking place, but there is nowhere for them to learn more about Parliament or feel fully engaged. This goes back to the earlier debate about the importance of engaging young people and giving them an opportunity. It was always intended that the Pierhead building would fulfil that function, since I decided that it would be wrong for the Executive to use the Pierhead building. The Executive should be in this building so that we and our offices, as an Assembly family, are in the same building.

It is widely accepted that from day one, we have been provided with good quality accommodation here at Crickhowell House. It has enabled us to proceed with business immediately. The facilities in this Chamber were never intended to be anything other than temporary. It will not meet the Assembly’s long-term needs. After a few weeks, Assembly Members recognised the worth of this building and this Chamber as a temporary measure. It has its disadvantages, for example the pillars are an obstruction, there is no scope for expansion and the number of members of the public able to attend Plenary sessions is limited.

Dafydd Wigley: We are all aware of the difficult working environment in which our staff have been working. I know that there are plans to improve this, and to bring in some sort of acceptable air conditioning system. Can Alun give an assurance that this will be in place before next summer, so that we and especially our staff do not have to suffer as we have done until now?

The First Secretary: That is a fair point. I have asked the Permanent Secretary to consider the situation and the work to put better facilities in place in the building. I have also asked for the timetable to ensure that we reach the target that Dafydd is asking for. I will write to Dafydd to confirm this information and I will place a copy in the Library. I hope that we will be able to meet that deadline.

David Davies: The First Secretary mentioned that there was a problem with the number of people who could sit in the public gallery. Is he stating that if the new building goes ahead, the public gallery there will be larger than the one we currently have? That is not the impression I had.

The First Secretary: Yes, it will be larger. The number of people who can sit in the public gallery at the moment is about 50 and the original intention, looking at the design, was around 100, double the number. It was one of the topics discussed in the helpful session last week, where Members across the parties generally felt that that would be insufficient. This is being considered by the architects. There is sufficient flexibility for them to be able to aim at a higher number, which I believe is what everyone wants to see.

As I have indicated, there are drawbacks in the present temporary Chamber. We now have the opportunity to develop and deliver a prestigious Chamber with public facilities befitting the twenty-first century, which meets the aspirations of the people of Wales. It will be a Chamber of which we can be proud and one that is recognisable around the world. I think everybody recognises that identity, of a capital city and a country, is important. This is an opportunity for us to make sure that we develop that identity. In particular we need a Chamber the design of which lends itself to proper democratic debate, has more open space and unrestricted views and has flexibility for the future. I am keen to ensure that we provide better public facilities, which Members generally aspire to see. I am also committed to the building being delivered for the estimated cost of £12.5 million, which I believe is reasonable and represents value for money. If we decide today to proceed with the construction of this landmark building, and I hope we will, it is my intention to establish and chair a new Assembly building steering group with the three other party leaders, the Presiding Officer and the Permanent Secretary as members.

Helen Mary Jones: I think your inability to see me while I was trying to intervene reinforces the points you made about the nature of the Chamber. Due to the timing of the presentation about public facilities I was unable, as were some other Members, to be present. Can you tell us what proposals there are to make it possible for members of the public to bring their children with them and leave them somewhere in the Assembly? What proposals are there for possible facilities for Members’ children and, more importantly, will there be facilities for staff members’ children?

The First Secretary: It is a knock-on issue. In this building we have facilities that are fully occupied. The new building will be a small and efficient building. We need to look at the facilities across the three buildings. In these, or in facilities shared with other users in this area, we need to provide the sort of facilities that Helen Mary is talking about and which are outside our scope at present. Today I am concentrating on the provision in the new Assembly building. That has a knock-on effect in releasing facilities here. Facilities like a crèche, which Members want to see, could be provided one way or another in that combined area.

Helen Mary Jones: Could I ask for a timescale on when those might be debated? I am being pressed hard, as some other Members are, by women’s voluntary organisations in Wales concerned about the present situation. I am sure they are not alone. It would be helpful for me to be able to tell people when we will have some idea of what the proposals are and how they will be consulted upon.

The First Secretary: We have to debate and develop the plans for the new building itself and then look at the areas released as a result and debate the use of those spaces. That is the process of design development that needs to go on during the rest of this year. We are talking about roughly a two year period for the provision of the buildings. Therefore the actual provision is that much further down the line. As you will be aware, the plans we have here are ones that I inherited. I understand why they are as they are because officials have done their best to make the best, most immediate use of facilities available in this building.

Your point indicates that you cannot do everything in the facilities we have at the moment. In pursuing the design of the new building, we should arrange regular briefings so that all Assembly Members are well informed and able to contribute and comment. Questions and suggestions like yours can become part of an iterative process of developing the new building and refining the use of this building and the opportunities that arise as a result of that development. The discussion proved very helpful. One or two Members made the point during last week’s discussion about providing full facilities for the Assembly, its Members and the general public. That is certainly an issue that we all accept has to be dealt with as we develop plans for this integrated new building plus two older buildings.

Rod Richards: What options are being considered by the Government for the disposal of Crickhowell House? If the Government had opted to take City Hall and not build a new building at all, how was Crickhowell House to be disposed of?

The First Secretary: Looking back to the point where Crickhowell House became surplus to previous use, I might look to Rod to delve into his previous ministerial files to answer that. The decision to come to Crickhowell House was taken before I became Secretary of State so I do not know the answer and I am not sure whether it is very relevant to today’s debate. The central point I was making is that, if we decide to proceed with the construction of this landmark building, and I hope we will, the intention is to have the new Assembly building steering group with the three other party leaders, the Presiding Officer and the Permanent Secretary as members. Also we would have a new Assembly Building--[Interruption.]

Owen John Thomas: Will you confirm that in assessing your costs of City Hall, a figure of over £13 million was included for new radiators, pipes, heating, generators and pumps? How on earth was this figure computed and will he agree that if a figure of only £10 million would be more suitable for this, would it be a lot cheaper than the Bay option?

The First Secretary: That is a misapprehension as that figure included roof costs and windows. It is an issue that has been raised with me by another Member. I am happy to clarify any of those historic pieces of information, which predate my occupation of either the office of Secretary of State or of First Secretary. The comparison of costs, and it is really delving into history, shows that the Cardiff Bay option is not as expensive as the City Hall option. I understand that some Members want to crawl over those figures, and it is right that they should be able to do so. I would be happy to answer specific questions but I am not happy to pretend that I am a qualified architect or quantity surveyor and give instant answers to the details about specific lines. I indicated the arrangements we would put in place to keep the steering group fully informed about proposals for the details of the development of the building. I underlined a few moments ago the arrangements that would be made for detailed briefing of all Members. As was obvious last week, it is of value to involve all Members because all Members will use those facilities and it is sensible to have an iterative process of discussion about the design.

Peter Black: I welcome the commitment to including as many Members as possible in the building’s design. In the spirit of inclusiveness, can I see addresses when we come to look at the design and the access to this building for people with disabilities? I am sure that you will come to that in due course. As the present proposals stand, there is in effect a 70-foot ramp to the entrance on the first floor of this building. It would be more acceptable if the entrance were on the ground floor because whereas a wheelchair may be able to negotiate the ramp, someone using a stick or other walking aids would find it very difficult indeed.

3:09 p.m.

The First Secretary: I have a deep suspicion that Peter has a mirror over my shoulder so that he knows what my next sentence is. If I had continued instead of allowing him to intervene, I would have answered his question before he asked it.

There is a need to discuss issues about the building with a number of interested groups. I have made it clear--as I did with several building projects in the past--that the interests of disabled people must be considered from the beginning and not as an afterthought. That applies to the interests of people with visual impairment and other disabilities. I take Peter’s point about the different interests of people who use wheelchairs or are infirm and need to depend on sticks and other aids. That has to be considered early in the project.

When one normally goes through a building process, one gets a completed design, which the public sees in its completed form. The result of a competition of this sort is a building design process that happens in the open. It is similar to a goldfish bowl. After a few weeks, we all know what that feels like.

I assure Members that the architects have spent time looking at the way in which access to the building can be achieved, in order to discuss issues with Disability Wales and other groups before the design is finalised. The architects got a clear message from last week’s meeting that this is not merely my priority but one that is shared by the entire Assembly.

Jenny Randerson: The issue is about disability and design. As Members may know, I am partially deaf and have a great deal of trouble with this Chamber’s design because Members sit across from each other. I am probably not alone in that. I manage to understand the First Secretary as he always speaks from the front and I can read his lips; the same is true of the Presiding Officer. However, because she is behind a pillar, I have trouble with Helen Mary.

Dafydd Wigley: Don’t we all.

Jenny Randerson: It is politically desirable to have a circular or almost circular Chamber. It seemed to me that that was planned in the presentation last week. I would not like us to lose sight of the arrangement that makes life easier for people with hearing disabilities.

The First Secretary: It is not appropriate for me to put Dafydd Wigley’s comment on the record because both of us will be in trouble with Helen Mary.

After a short period, I am glad that we turned the sêt fawr--the elders’ pew--around from facing inwards, as it would have been confrontational. This is not a comfortable Chamber to be in. It does the job but it is not perfect. The atmosphere of a debate is important, not only for someone who has a hearing disability but in terms of eye contact. We are people who debate with other people. The eye contact in the House of Commons unfortunately is confrontational but it is possible to design a Chamber that has different characteristics.

I find the indicative design of the new building to be positive. One of the architects said to me that he would like to lay out a mock-up of the detailed design so that Assembly Members can sit in it and discuss whether it is what they want in terms of space and distance. It would make a difference. Those of us who have seen debating Chambers around the world have seen the House of Commons Chamber replicated within something covering six times the area, which loses advantages and gains disadvantages.

It is right to have a circular Chamber as a starting point but it will need care. That is something that Members will want to engage with. There were other issues raised last week such as the public gallery, energy efficiency and the efficiency of the entire building. The period of being involved in the design of the new building will be interesting as long as we do not spend all of our time on it.

Val Feld: I want to ask a question in relation to the way the building will be constructed. Will you give an assurance that the architects will use materials developed in Wales? It would ensure that the building would be a showcase, not just for traditional Welsh architecture and using slate and stone, but for Wales’ modern, creative designers. Swansea Institute of Higher Education is a world authority on stained glass and the development of new glass. We could ask them to look at ways to use resources. This would demonstrate what could be produced to our own people and the visitors who will come here in the future.

The First Secretary: The institute referred to does not happen to be in your constituency by any chance? The architects have tried to look at materials that are indigenous and project an image of Wales. Several Members raised the point that the crafts people and the artists of Wales should be able to make a contribution. That is a positive approach. In some cases, it does not add to the cost if you think about it well in advance. The architects have taken that on board.

 If the Assembly agrees to the proposal, we will arrange for the design to be explained in public meetings around Wales. I want the model to remain on display and for the architects to explain their proposals at agreed venues so that they can be fully understood. I seek the Assembly’s wholehearted support for the motion and the agreement that the Richard Rogers Partnership should continue to work on the development of the design of the new building. Business leaders and those who want to promote the economy and image of Wales will be stunned if we fail to do so today.

As far as the amendment is concerned, it may seem clever to propose a children’s hospital as an alternative to a proposal you want to defeat but it is not. Work is being done on proposals for a children’s hospital. Jane Hutt and I discussed the matter with the University Hospital of Wales and Llandough NHS trusts last week. The NHS directorate is assessing their proposals. A measure of their seriousness is the fact that the planning application for phase one is under consideration. To say no to a modern, world-class, cost-effective, landmark Assembly building here in Cardiff Bay would be to break faith with those who want to see the Assembly and Wales succeed.

The Presiding Officer: I have made inquiries about the availability of the Business Statement on the Chamberweb. It was on the intranet at 1 p.m. The Chamberweb suffered a brief glitch and then corrected itself. We will make further enquiries to ensure that our system works as effectively as possible.

I have selected the amendment standing in the name of David Davies.

Nick Bourne: I propose the following amendment

Between the words 'instructed’ and 'to’ insert the word 'not’;

after the word 'project’ delete the remainder of the paragraph and insert:

'and that instead the Government of Wales divert the money set aside for building a new Assembly Chamber towards the construction of a new children’s hospital’.

This debate is about the language of priorities. Unless the First Secretary is prepared to give a copper-bottomed guarantee over his pledge that plans for the children’s hospital are to start immediately, the amendment will stand. This is truly important. It is not a principled opposition to a new Assembly building, but there are things that we should rather be doing when finance is scarce. Our first substantive decision was on cost and allowances and it would be sad if our second was on a new Assembly building. That would again reflect our self-interest and personal motivation.

3:19 p.m.

The wording of the motion refers to cost parameters. Each time this is debated we talk of different figures--£12.5 million was mentioned today. If that is the figure, why was it not placed in the motion? The First Secretary and the Finance Secretary have been frequently questioned about a capped figure and I raise that question again. Should this motion be passed, we would like to know when a contract would be signed because we will then take part in any discussion about a new Assembly building.

However, we would like to discuss how it would be better for the people of Wales if this money was spent on a children’s hospital. Would not it be a more appropriate monument for the millennium?

Janet Davies: How many children’s hospitals were built in Wales between 1979 and 1997?

Nick Bourne: I am coming on to the NHS stocktake, which perhaps you are thinking about. Anyone who has read that would see that it speaks highly of the NHS over the last few years and says that we are facing a serious position--a £25 million recurrent deficit--regardless of a children’s hospital. We are faced with the prospect of hospital closures unless we garner our resources sensibly. I welcome your intervention because it illustrates my point about the language of priorities and that is the case whichever Government is in office.

Alun Pugh: Why the sudden Conservative concern about children’s hospitals? Your party was in power for almost two decades and it sent nearly £100 million of Welsh money back to the Treasury as a virility gesture. If you were seriously concerned about building children’s hospitals rather than making political gestures, we would have John Redwood Memorial Hospitals the length and breadth of Wales.

Nick Bourne: I welcome the intervention but Edwina Hart’s reaction just now demonstrates that that money was not sent back to the Treasury. I am not sure whether Alun Pugh is speaking for or against a children’s hospital. If he is for it, I welcome his support; if he is not, clearly he will vote against the amendment. That is a matter for him.

David Melding: Is my friend aware that in the 1980s, the average expenditure on new hospitals under the Conservative Government was £100 million in Wales? Now that the Labour party has drastically reduced capital expenditure on hospitals in Wales, it is set to fall from £18 million to £5 million--£5 million compared with the Conservative Government’s £100 million.

Nick Bourne: Thank you for refreshing my memory. We both attended the Health and Social Services Committee where you made that point. Jane Hutt was somewhat surprised and the civil servants were unable to explain why spending has been cut on the capital programme in the budget. This again illustrates the point that if people recognise our lack of resources, it does not make sense to be spending them on a new Assembly building.

Jenny Randerson: Are you aware that about 10 years ago, firm plans for a children’s hospital in Cardiff were deleted from the programme under your Government?

Nick Bourne: If you are speaking in favour of a children’s hospital and are trying to hold me to account for what happened under the last Government, I will accept my share of responsibilities even though I was not an MP. If you are saying that it is now important to flag up a children’s hospital, I welcome your support. This issue is not just about whether a children’s hospital should have been built previously but whether it should be built now. We should focus our attention on the issue. The First Secretary seems anxious to intervene but if I could develop these points he will have plenty of opportunity.

The First Secretary: You are doing very well on your own.

Nick Bourne: Thank you. I take it, therefore, that you do not want to intervene. There are some substantive issues about the new Assembly building. Along with many people here, I went to the meeting about it and I am open minded to a fault about its merits. However, there are some issues that give me pause.

The First Secretary said that the auditorium would have capacity for 100 people. We have all been told that our current building is singularly deficient in that respect. I understand that point to a degree because this auditorium, which holds 60 people, is always crowded. The auditorium of the new building is to hold 50 members of the public and 50 members of the press--fewer people than the current Chamber. This issue was raised by all the parties in the meeting and those present can confirm those figures.

The First Secretary: I am sure that you simply want to provide information rather than mislead the Assembly. The figures include the numbers for the press and public galleries but because the public gallery number is clearly lower than that which Members require I spoke to the architect to ensure a degree of flexibility for greater capacity in that gallery should it be the Assembly’s desire. I gave that assurance in my contribution this afternoon.

Nick Bourne: I was not privy to those private discussions but I think the First Secretary would accept that I gave the figures that were in the statement. There was also talk of more people at a higher level without seating and this is an issue that can be addressed.

The First Secretary: The higher level is where it will be possible for people to see into the Chamber. Even though on the outside it would be possible for them to use headphones to have an aural glimpse of Chamber proceedings. However, we are talking about the public gallery in the Chamber itself. During the course of questions and answers, the architect made it clear that it was a first fix on the numbers and that Members’ aspirations for a larger public seating area could be met in the design parameters.

Nick Bourne: The First Secretary will understand the concern about the original figure of 50 for the auditorium. There was much talk of a democratic roof but not of space in the Assembly auditorium for people to hear the debate.

Other aspects that need to be addressed include the ramp and steps that do not lend themselves to disabled access and the fact that previous Richard Rogers’s buildings have been known to leak in the physical and not the Committee sense. These objections to the design do not begin to address the problem of priorities. I do not know their political affiliation but Stephen Day and Geoff Hole have collected the signatures of over 16,000 people in Cardiff who believe that it would be better to spend the money on a children’s hospital rather than a new Assembly building. I suspect that they speak on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people throughout Wales and we would be contributing to the cynicism in our country if our first two substantive decisions related to our own allowances and salaries and a new Assembly building rather than to the proper language of priorities.

Huw Lewis: You talked of cynicism but is it not true that Stephen Day and Geoff Hole have combined this campaign with advertising their own business?

Nick Bourne: I do not believe that this is the case. One of them was motivated by the fact that his child could not be treated in Wales but had to be treated in Bristol for a life-threatening disease. The campaign was not motivated in any way by business or party politics but by a genuine desire to do something for Wales, and I accept it on that basis.

Nick Bourne: I do not believe that this is the case. One of them was motivated by the fact that his child could not be treated in Wales but had to be treated in Bristol for a life-threatening disease. The campaign was not motivated in any way by business or party politics but by a genuine desire to do something for Wales, and I accept it on that basis.

3:29 p.m.

Ieuan Wyn Jones: Plaid Cymru supports the motion and objects to the Conservative Party’s amendment. We also object to the cynical manner in which the Conservative Party has used this debate.

I wish to answer a question that Nick Bourne was asked twice: did the Tory Party build a children’s hospital during 18 years of government? The answer is no. It had no plan to do so. The Tory Party has been in power for 35 years of the past 50 years and there has been no plan to build a children’s hospital in Wales. This is a totally cynical campaign by the Tory Party.

Rod Richards: I wish to draw Ieuan Wyn Jones’s attention to the fact that the Conservative Party built a substantial number of children’s units throughout Wales, including a unit in Cardiff.

Ieuan Wyn Jones: I would like to draw Rod’s attention to the amendment that is before the Assembly, that is to build a children’s hospital, not a unit. If the Tories were serious, the scheme should have appeared in their programme during one of the 35 years that they have been in power since 1945.

We heard this sort of argument during the referendum and the election campaign. In Wales, we should be proud of the adventure of which we are a part. What kind of a nation would Wales be if it did not take advantage of the opportunity to have a dignified building to house its National Assembly? What kind of a nation would we be if we accepted the marginal arguments that we hear all the time from the Tory Party?

Consider our tradition as regards dignified buildings. Who would argue today against the kind of building in Aberystwyth that houses our National Library? We, as a nation, can take pride in that building. Our National Museum in Cardiff is a building in which any nation in the world could take pride.

We are moving into an era when this nation takes pride in its new democracy. We see a new pattern of doing things. A decision such as this is a declaration of national pride--a declaration that we, as a nation, are confident enough to have a building of which we can be proud.

Apart from the arguments of national pride, there are practical reasons for a new building. Dafydd Wigley has given examples of the unfortunate situation this summer where members of our staff have had to work under difficult circumstances. Also, it is difficult for a great number of people to enter this building--there is not enough space for the public and the Chamber is unsuitable for a national institution.

I say to the people of Wales: listen to the people who believe that the Welsh nation deserves a dignified building in Cardiff. Do not listen to a party that has pushed its own expenditure priorities for 18 years and has the audacity to tell us what we should do with our money.

Michael German: This Assembly would be nothing without a flagship standing as proud testament to the way in which it speaks for Wales. If we are to speak for Wales, we must do so in a different manner. The design is imaginative to some, different to others and it may not please everybody. But it would not have any impact without a commitment from the Assembly. Our new building will make a statement that we are trying to look outwards and raise our people’s confidence.

If we remain in a building that looks like an office, we might be comfortable but we would not set the standard for the future. The fact that the Tories oppose a flagship project for Wales is as predictable as snowflakes melting in your hand or, more relevantly, frogs croaking in the dusk. They always oppose, they never propose. We heard the hypocrisy of the Tories calling for a children’s hospital in Cardiff Bay when they have already cancelled such a plan. Thankfully, planning permission is underway for a children’s hospital in Cardiff based upon the University of Wales Hospital.

Alun Cairns: Is not it hypocritical that the Liberal Democrats are prepared to increase taxes for the sake of education but are happier to build a new palace in Cardiff Bay than to use similar resources for education or a children’s hospital?

Michael German: It is important that we make a statement for the people of Wales, which will increase Wales’s prosperity. I give Barcelona as an example. Barcelona is the capital city of Catalonia, which is twinned with Wales. Catalonia has made statements through proud projects. That has turned the economy of that country around. It now has the fastest growing regional economy in Europe. That has happened through raising the confidence of the people and making them look outwards.

We are making a statement of confidence. If we followed the Conservative route and did not make a statement, Conservative Members would bring up something else instead of a children’s hospital--perhaps a railway station or something else that we desperately need or that they felt that we needed. It does not matter what, the list would go on endlessly. Conservative Members would continually oppose, not propose.

The difficulty that they face is that virtually everything that they could propose would be something that they had a hand in cutting in their period of office. When they had a chance to do it, they did not do it. It is hypocrisy of the worst kind to say, 'We did not do it when we were in charge but now that somebody else is in charge, we want them to remember that it should have been done.’ I am sure that we all remember what they did in respect of health and education, books for schools, class sizes, local government finance, street cleaning, poll tax. It is easy to oppose for the sake of opposing. I ask them to consider, and I am sure that Rod would agree with me, the role model of Mrs Thatcher.

3:39 p.m.

David Davies: Does the Member accept that under the last Conservative Government there were fewer homeless people, class sizes were smaller, hospital waiting lists were shorter and there were more police officers on the beat?

Michael German: I will take the general election as my example and, considering where you started and finished at the general election, the answer to your question is no. If you are asking me if the Labour Party has managed to deal with waiting lists and waiting times, of course it has not. But at the general election, the people of Britain and the people of Wales measured the Conservative Party by their achievements, and said that they were not satisfied with the public services provided

I will continue with my little story. I would have thought that Mrs Thatcher was a role model for some in the Conservative Group, but not for all of them. The new European Parliament building soon to be opened has the support of Mrs Thatcher because she feels that it is a proud representation of the European Community, on which her party has turned its back substantially.

We face the problem of raising our national standing. We must recognise that confidence in looking outwards and standing tall as a nation is something that we will achieve by the way we behave. For people who want to be confident in their country, there is a difference between a renovated office building that is not a proud statement of our country and the alternative, which is a flagship project that says something about the people we represent. That difference is what the building is all about.

However, I share many of the concerns. Disabled access is one that is universally shared in this Chamber, and one which we would expect the architects to deal with swiftly along with the size and nature of the public gallery and the use of the public and private areas. We should be proud that this project will provide more public access than any legislature that I know of in western Europe. There are also concerns about keeping cool in what might be a glass-walled chamber and about a link to existing buildings. These are concerns that we as an Assembly can take hold of and develop.

If we want to be a proud country, making this gesture will show that we represent the people of Wales and that we want to approve something that raises the standards and confidence of our country. Income and an injection of capital will follow that gesture, of which others will think us worthy. People who now find it difficult to accept such a building will change their attitude once it is built. Take for example, the new millennium rugby stadium. Before Wales beat South Africa voices were raised all over the country about the value of such a project. Now that Wales has beaten the world champions it stands as Wales stands--a champion ready to beat the world.

Carwyn Jones: The debate this afternoon causes me to wonder whether the words of John Major in 1997 have been heeded. He said that the Conservative Party would learn the lessons of the 1997 election defeat. Conservative Members have given an excellent imitation of collective amnesia this afternoon. How many times have you heard them defend what happened between 1979 and 1997?

This debate is about a building. The building represents Wales’s future and all that will be good. There will obviously be people who are against a building such as this. There were people against the Sydney Opera House and Mike has already made the point that there were people against the millennium stadium. The new building will provide a spacious comfortable area for those people at the back of this Chamber, who have come to listen to us for a couple of hours and who are today cramping on hard seats.

David Melding: It is not very fair to refer to the people at the back in such a way because they seem to be comfortable. The point is whether there are enough of them. We have already heard that the new building was not initially conceived as having more seats than here. Sixteen thousand people in Cardiff do not think that this building ought to be built at all. Why not listen to them?

Carwyn Jones: I suspect that there are more people at the back than there will be at the next Welsh Conservative conference. The people at the back do not have a voice, but they have come to hear us voice their concerns. The point, made many times, is that the number of people who will be accommodated in the building can be altered. There is no problem with accommodating 100 members of the public. We are talking about ensuring that the building reaches the design stage and about our own input. This was alien to past Governments, but it will be a first to have input from the people of Wales as to how many people should be in the Assembly building, how many spaces should be for members of the public and what facilities should be available to them. It is also incredible that this argument is presented as a straight fight for resources between an Assembly building and a children’s hospital. I would have thought that anyone proposing a motion to build a children’s hospital would have at least researched the cost of such a hospital. We have not even been told that. Let us see if we are now told.

David Davies: The figure has been put at around £21 million. I was working on a previous figure of £17 million for the new Assembly building but this seems to be changing virtually every time we look at it and it is now at about £20 million. I would like to make clear that there are a number of private backers in the Cardiff area who are more than happy to come up with any difference in funding between the cost of the proposed Assembly building and a new children’s hospital.

Carwyn Jones: I am surprised that the figure was not put to us at the beginning of the debate. It is something that has been plucked from the air and we will have to see what happens with it. However, we have already been told that there will be a children’s hospital in Cardiff. I cannot understand why this amendment refers to only one children’s hospital. Why one, why in Cardiff and where will it be? There is no problem or difficulty in looking at children’s facilities throughout Wales in future. Those facilities can be provided from the Assembly’s block budget funds or from funds that may be available elsewhere. This is not a straight choice between the Assembly building and a children’s hospital. Far be it for me to raise what happened between 1979 and 1997, but £280 million was spent on new offices in the Palace of Westminster. I cannot remember much in the way of protest at that sum of almost 20 times as much.

Cynog Dafis: It may be worth mentioning that a total of £6 million was spent on the revamping of the Palace of Westminster cafeteria. I do not remember the Conservative Party complaining about that expenditure.

Carwyn Jones: I am very grateful for that intervention, illustrating one waste of money.

David Davies: Is it not the case that the MP for Ogmore, Ray Powell, was some way in charge of the Committee, in fact Chairman of the Committee that proposed those new office blocks?

3:49 p.m.

Carwyn Jones: Was he in charge or some way in charge? Which is it--one way or another? [Conservative Members: 'In charge, in charge.’] I hear some chanting on my right-hand side.

I had not realised that Sir Ray Powell, MP for Ogmore, was the person who controlled this expenditure and made the decision in Parliament. The point is that it was supported by the Conservative Members in Parliament.

Ieuan Wyn Jones: To set the record straight, the chair of that building project is the Conservative Sir Sydney Chapman.

Carwyn Jones: Billions of pounds were lost because Railtrack was undersold. If local council had done that, they would have been surcharged. We are talking about a figure of £12.5 million, which will be spent on a building that will bring people into the Bay and enable people to see democracy at work, which is not possible at Westminster to any great extent. It will enable money to come into this area. People will come and see the area and the building. Money will be spent in revitalising the local community. We can use those funds to look at other projects in the future. This building is not £12.5 million down the drain. It is an investment. It represents the vision of Wales for the future. I am afraid that those who oppose it have no vision.

Alison Halford: I am saddened that this debate has been rehearsed over and over again. I know it is important, but we only have so much time for Plenary sessions. It is costly for us to sit here. Many of us travel from north Wales and that eats into our hours. The Tories have had enough of this debate and the time has come to move on. We have listened long and their dog in the manger attitude to talking about the children’s hospital has to be put to bed. There are other important issues to discuss.

Richard Edwards: It is unfortunate that the Chamber is this building’s worst feature. It has been likened to an underground car park. Vision is poor, space is cramped, public accessibility is minimal and Helen Mary is hidden by pillars, but not from me Helen. I can see you very well.

The Chamber is the public image of the Assembly and it is important that we get it right. Of course the Tories do not care about that. I say to the Tories, you lost the general election and the referendum, eight seats out of nine are due to a proportional representation system you do not believe in. You are drawing salaries and expenses that you do not believe you should have. For God’s sake, grow up. Treat the people you represent with respect, and start engaging constructively with the devolution process.

Rod Richards: The motion asks for the development of the building project to remain within the cost parameters that are to be established. I ask the First Secretary what those cost parameters are, and if one of the cost parameters is the actual cost of the new building, will he guarantee that it will not go over the £12.5 million that he mentioned earlier? I refer him to a paper from his own management services divison dated June 1999. It says:

'Whilst the competition submission designs can still be completed for the £12 million, the overall impact of the proposed changes, the external works and the areas overlooked would increase the costs to almost £16 million. This higher figure would take the overall capital cost of establishing the Assembly beyond £20 million.’

I am also concerned that the motion suggests that a new policy steering group should be set up to take this project forward so that we can have this inclusiveness, this all-party agreement, this common ownership of Government policy, which I do not much care for. I am concerned that this is delegating powers from the Assembly to this policy steering group so that it can go beyond the cost parameter of £12.5 million to £20 million.

I should like the First Secretary to comment on a paper that the Permanent Secretary kindly managed to get to me this morning. The paper makes a net present value comparison between City Hall and the development of the Bay. Having spent some time as a Minister, one is always suspicious of civil servants and their timescales. I was intrigued that the comparisons that the Permanent Secretary made in his paper were over a period of 17 years. That includes two years before the completion of the proposed new building. Would you explain why 17 years was chosen for a net present value comparison and not perhaps a longer period, which some might have thought would be more appropriate?

I am intrigued that the costs of the Pierhead Building were itemised under the development of City Hall in the comparison the Permanent Secretary made, yet I distinctly heard the First Secretary say that the Pierhead Building will be used in the Bay development. There seems to be an item under the costings for City Hall in the wrong place.

Also on the costings issue, why is it that the current and disposal costs of Cathays Park 1 are not included in any of the calculations? After all, the building is still there and the First Secretary has an office there. His office is approximately twice as big as the office Michael Heseltine had when he was Deputy Prime Minister. I understand that the other eight Cabinet Secretaries have offices there as well. Is this building needed or could it be disposed of?

There will be a HTV programme on Thursday called 'Wales This Week’, which looks carefully at some of the figures that the Government has published thus far. The programme asks whether the Government is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth or has it in fact kept many of these cost details hidden not only from the Assembly but, more importantly, from the taxpayer? It is clear that the decision to go for a new building in Cardiff Bay is linked to the problem of the disposal of Crickhowell House. It was a political decision taken for political reasons, not for the reasons that the First Secretary gave.

The First Secretary: It has been an interesting and revealing debate. I started off being impressed by Nick Bourne’s willingness to accept an intellectual challenge and try to explain away nearly two decades of Tory damage to the NHS in Wales, as well as general neglect of our children through that period by his party. During this debate, the Conservatives have tried to introduce an element of confusion over the figures. It has struck me again that Rod Richards is better at asking questions than he was at answering them when he was a Minister.

The simple response to his question about the possibility of rising costs is that if you add more facilities and requirements and expense, then it will cost more. If you do not and if we keep the cost within limits, and I believe we have to exercise discipline over the cost of the scheme, then you keep the cost within limit. The figures are simple: £19.7 million was the figure mentioned at the time of the legislation. That is divided between the £7.2 million for Crickhowell House and the adaptations for the Chamber that we are in now and the £12.5 million, which is the figure that I have mentioned and will continue to mention as the figure for the new building. Rod asked about a number of other matters to do with the finances, including a rather obscure question about Crickhowell House. Crickhowell House was constructed during the last administration and taken on by the Welsh Office. It is part of our inheritance and that must have been part of the decision to make use of it. The disposal or use of the building are balancing factors in any figures.

3:59 p.m.

Rod Richards: I want to go back to the net present value comparison and the period of 17 years. Will he comment on the cost of keeping Crickhowell House with that of the new building and on the figures the Permanent Secretary gave me, which related to comparisons over 17 years?

The First Secretary: It would be interesting for Rod to reflect on the wriggling that went on when Ministers were asked questions about Crickhowell House when he was in Government.

Rod Richards: I am asking you now.

The First Secretary: I know you are. That is what I am saying: you are better at asking questions than you ever were at answering them because we never got to the bottom of what was going on at that time. There would be many people interested in hearing your answers about that period.

As far as the net present value is concerned, you have the economic appraisal in the paper that was given to you. The net present cost is not the cost per year. It is the cost of the full period for the appraisal, which is 17 years in this case, representing 15 years of operation once the new building is completed. It is on that basis that a like-for-like comparison is being made. This attempt to introduce confusion over figures is part of the Conservatives failure to answer the question, 'What are they up to’? The answer to what they are up to is simple; they do not want the Assembly to work and succeed. I frequently disagree with Ieuan and Mike, but today we are choosing to vote for hope and a positive vision of the future for Wales.

I am proud of our capital city. In 1973 I became a member of a city council and authority responsible for a run-down and demoralised city, clogged with traffic, with a fine Victorian civic centre but a decayed city centre and a dying docklands. After years of hard work and partnership, we have a thriving city centre, St David’s Hall and a world wide reputation. Our docklands have been regenerated, not least by the local authority building that not only generated confidence in the private sector but saved money for ratepayers. It has been a combination of public initiative and private enterprise, a partnership that is at the heart of the Assembly. It has driven the city to the position that it is in now.

Rod Richards: The First Secretary has clearly been avoiding my questions, so I will put it to him very simply. Has this Labour Government extended the lease of Crickhowell House, yes or no?

The First Secretary: Not as far as I am aware. Rod asks interesting questions and I will make enquiries. I am not aware of an extension of the lease, but Rod specialises in interesting questions which are meant to divert us from the real question of whether we want to continue to build a new building which is worthy of the people of Wales. The city has become a success on the partnership between public initiative and private enterprise. As a youngster, I used to come to Cardiff from north Wales--usually for rugby--and I found it a disappointment. I want people who come to Cardiff to see democracy in Wales working and to be proud of our capital and our Assembly.

It is about creating confidence throughout Wales, and we see that in towns and cities such as Swansea and Wrexham. We also are pushing redevelopment of the economy in the rural areas of mid and west Wales. These are not alternatives but objectives that must be achieved by a confident Assembly, democratically working together to build a new Wales. That involves building a new Assembly Chamber in which our debates can continue with the maturity and the quality that Wales wants and deserves. I commend the motion to the House.

The Presiding Officer: We will now vote on the amendment.

A vote was held by show of hands.

I think that the amendment is rejected.

David Davies: Could I have a recorded vote on this?

The Presiding Officer: AsI indicated with great patience last Wednesday, there is no such thing under Standing Orders as a recorded vote. There is provision to challenge when the result is doubtful. I understand the announcement is being challenged, although it did not appear to me to be doubtful.

David Davies: I therefore ask for a confirmatory vote.

The Presiding Officer: There has been a request for a confirmatory vote.

4:09 p.m.

Ron Davies: Point of order. If you allow a vote on the amendment, there is a possibility of another vote wasting more time on the substantive motion.

The Presiding Officer: I am grateful. You raised a similar point last Wednesday for which I was equally grateful. I am assured that there will not be a further challenge.

Gareth Jones: Point of Order. Will David Davies enlighten us as to how he saw that vote as doubtful?

The Presiding Officer: We can discuss that at some other time.

The Assembly divided: For 9, Abstain 1, Against 43

Amendment rejected.

The Presiding Officer: We shall now vote on the motion.

A vote was held by show of hands.
Motion adopted.