Statement on the New Assembly Building

The First Secretary: Following a meeting of the new Assembly building policy steering group this morning, I will make a statement, with your permission, Llywydd, to share with the Assembly my decision to put the new building project on hold for the time being. The policy group was due to be presented with the outline design for the new building at this morning’s meeting and a further item was on the agenda to agree that work on the next phase, that is the scheme design, should proceed immediately. This would involve a commitment to spend the next £1 million of the total estimated cost of £22.8 million, which is the figure without the 15 per cent contingency.

I have been in post as First Secretary for just over one month and I have only just obtained the figures that I asked for in my first week as First Secretary regarding the new building project. I was keen this morning to avoid any commitment that could conceivably have turned into abortive expenditure later. This would have been a major decision, which would have irrevocably committed the Assembly to spending £1 million. After discussion with my fellow members of the policy group, I considered that it was prudent to pause for a period to give me further time to gain a better understanding of the costs and other implications.

Members may be aware that the National Audit Office is currently undertaking a study into the Assembly’s accommodation arrangements, including an assessment of the economic appraisals that have been undertaken for the main options. The details of its terms of reference will be included on the internet. Its report is due to be considered by the Assembly Audit Committee on 15 June this year and I believe that it would be prudent to await the outcome of those considerations before committing further expenditure. Edwina and her staff will also be carrying out work on the same cost comparisons that the National Audit Office is considering.

I realise that this delay will disappoint many Assembly Members who wish to see us move into a larger permanent Chamber as soon as possible. I have not reached this decision to put the project on hold lightly. We are all aware of the inadequacies of this Chamber and, in some respects, of this building as a whole. I am aware of the inadequacies myself, as I could barely hear Cynog Dafis’s question earlier today. I am also aware of the problems of one or two Members who sit behind pillars, which is not acceptable. It is clearly an issue of great public interest and importance and it is vital that we get it right. However, today’s announcement does not affect in any way the proposal to set up the education and visitors centre at the Pierhead building.

Alun Michael: I welcome Rhodri’s words about public access to the old Pierhead building, because turning that into a building which brings young people into contact with the Assembly and gives them an understanding of the Assembly and the wider aspects of democracy is an important step forward. I also appreciate the need to assess a major policy area of this sort. Indeed, that was one of the first things that I had to do when I took office as Secretary of State, before confirming the go-ahead for the new building, as had originally been set out by Ron Davies following the design competition. I urge Rhodri to make the earliest possible decision in view of the new building’s importance as a flagship project that sets out an image for Wales for the twenty-first century. That is how it has been perceived in and outside Wales and in terms of the economic confidence of Cardiff and Wales. Rhodri will be aware that people try to undermine that confidence and I have been at pains to confirm the way you and I have sought to promote the economic development of south Cardiff. A delay in this project could be misinterpreted as the first step towards stopping it, undermining confidence in the Assembly’s approach to the future and the economic redevelopment of this area, which is so important to the economic redevelopment and success of the whole of Wales.

3:20 p.m.

The First Secretary: A new building must be accepted by the public as a matter of necessity rather than of confidence. We cannot get the public to accept that the building should proceed because it will add to confidence either in the redevelopment of south Cardiff, Cardiff or of Wales as a whole. It must be accepted on the basis that it is absolutely necessary for us to be able to conduct our democratic affairs properly. People accept the need for a new building if, for example, individuals are hidden behind pillars as are Helen Mary and Huw Lewis frequently, if the acoustics are defective and if facilities for access by people with disabilities are inadequate. It is much more difficult to engage the public with the idea of the new building as a flagship.

I appreciate Alun Michael’s other points and I accept that there are pros and cons to what I have said today, and I also appreciate that there will be many disappointed people. It is not an abandonment or cancellation of the project or the first step towards abandonment. I am putting the project on hold until I have had a further chance to study the figures that I received at the weekend having asked for them in my first week as First Secretary.

Ron Davies: I will reinforce some of Alun Michael’s comments. I hope that Rhodri will reassure us that there will be no retreat at all from the principle that we must have a building that is suitable for its purpose and that meets the needs of the public and the people that work in the Assembly. We should stand by that important principle. I understand his need to satisfy himself as to the cost-effectiveness of the present proposals, but I am disappointed with his decision to effect that need by means of a moratorium. I am concerned that there will be a delay of several months and that we will end up with a project that will probably cost more than it would have previously, and that he will conclude that the present proposals are the best available in the best possible site. We will have lost several months and, in so doing, we will have re-ignited what is capable of being a damaging political controversy. That is a matter of concern.

On the substance of the statement, Rhodri said that he was merely reconsidering the cost-effectiveness of the present proposals, but on the one o’clock news--and I regret that those of us who listened to the news heard of these proposals through the Assembly’s press office and not in his statement this afternoon--the statement that was put out suggested that the options that were considered previously and then rejected would now be reconsidered. Will Rhodri clarify whether he is re-examining the cost-effectiveness of the chosen proposal or reconsidering those schemes that were evaluated in the past and were deemed to be defective or whether he will look for new sites? Are we discussing an examination of the existing proposal or will the game be reopened?

The First Secretary: One follows the other. Ron Davies will be aware that the terms of reference of the National Audit Office’s report are to look into cost comparisons of this proposal and others in the Cardiff area. Those are the terms of reference of the National Audit Office report. They will be the terms of reference for the further work that will be done by Edwina and her officials. The most likely course of action is to recommence this project but I cannot commit to that or any other action today. It is unfortunate that the timing of the policy steering group was such that I was asked this morning, having received the figures that I asked for shortly after becoming First Secretary, to commit to a further £1 million. I did not feel that I was in a position to commit to a further £1 million. If I had done so and if any figures that I received over the weekend had proven that the cost comparisons required a re-evaluation of the new building project, the nugatory expenditure would have doubled from £1 million to £2 million because I had not made the announcement I have made now.

Dafydd Wigley: I realise and accept that a First Secretary who comes to his job for the first time needs to look carefully at a project like this. I understand why Rhodri needs to reconsider this matter. I urge him to ensure that will not be a saga that drags on and on for months, repeating what we saw with the opera house a year or two ago. That would be unacceptable. I suggest that what is required is a quick look to compare the costs of the practical options that are on the table, and no more than that. I suggest that he has a word with Sir John Bourn to see whether his team can do this quickly so as to discover which scheme offers the best value for money, while accepting that this hall as it stands is not acceptable. There is a need to ensure in any study of this sort that staff needs are considered as well as the needs of the Members and the public.

The First Secretary: I accept all that Dafydd has said. I accept that staff facilities are as important as our facilities as Cabinet Secretaries or Assembly Members. The important thing is that we take advantage of the space that we have while we wait for the study by Sir John Bourn’s office. I am happy to ask Edwina and her officials to contact Sir John Bourn’s officials at the National Audit Office to ask whether they can speed up their work, while Edwina and her staff speed up their work in the finance department of the Assembly. If an opportunity arises to say more before long, I will do so in order to share the latest developments with the Assembly.

Nick Bourne: I welcome this decision as far as it goes. I will ask the First Secretary a series of questions. The first relates to whose decision this is because it is apparent that Rhodri has not consulted with Cabinet colleagues, members of his own group or Assembly Members. We welcome the decision but it is important to know who we must influence to take this decision a stage further. We are told in the policy statement that the decision was made in order to give the First Secretary more time to gain a better understanding of all the costs and implications. Does that mean that he will take this decision when he has that understanding? To echo what Ron Davies said, I deplore the fact that this news reached the press before it reached Assembly Members. It was presumably a leak from the policy steering group, on which no Welsh Conservative sits. I welcome his commitment to freedom of information but that should extend to telling Members of this Chamber such information first.

We feel vindicated by this decision today. We have maintained all along that this money would be better spent on hospitals, perhaps dealing with the asbestos problem at Prince Charles Hospital. It would be better spent on schools. Only £8 million has been committed to a problem that needs £80 million. More is needed, so do not dismiss this with a shake of the head as if this £30 million does not matter. It does matter, or presumably you would not have taken this decision today. Would you not say that this decision must come back to this Chamber? That decision should not be made by you. It must come back here. Will you also tell us whether you are looking at all the options, including the option of staying here? The Labour Party or the Assembly press office told people before the announcement to Members that one of the options being considered is staying here with some consequential improvements to this building. We do not want to pay £30 million to remove a couple of pillars; that could be done much more cheaply. Is Rhodri Morgan also looking at the City Hall option? Will he tell us which options are now being explored? That is less than clear. Could he also be more precise about when he will come back with his decision, or recommendation if it is such, to the Assembly? He has said that it will be in up to six months’ time. I would be grateful if he could deal with some of those matters.

3:30 p.m.

In the meantime, we heard Alun Michael say that people in Wales will welcome this flagship. Alun, I do not know to whom you have been listening but they are not the same people to whom I have been listening. The further you go from Cardiff--and perhaps you have not been far from Cardiff South and Penarth, where it may be more popular--the more hostility there is to this waste of money. It would be better spent on hospitals, schools, business, farming and not simply in Cardiff South and Penarth. I can understand the Member’s feelings about Cardiff South and Penarth but there are other parts of Wales to consider.

The First Secretary: It is my understanding that Nick is invited to the project steering group meetings and does not turn up. He was not there this morning. If he had been there--

The First Secretary: He has chosen not to turn up to the policy steering group meetings. If he did turn up, he would have the chance to influence those decisions. I understand that he claimed in a press release, that he issued at 10.55 a.m. this morning, that this decision had been taken as a result of his influence. Since he does not turn up to meetings, that leaves us with the conclusion that, as far as Nick Bourne is concerned, his absence from meetings is more influential than his presence. It really takes the biscuit for him to claim that this decision has been taken as a result of Conservative pressure. This decision has been taken because I have only just received the figures that I asked for just before I became First Secretary.

To clarify as to what options are open to us, other buildings in Cardiff, such as City Hall, are a possibility as are the abandonment of the project and improvements to this building, and the recommencement of work on the new building. Those are the three most obvious options. I do not wish to explore any further options beyond that or we would go into years of controversy. I intend to set aside a few months for this breather and a reconsideration of those options. I hope that I have made the situation clear. I appeal to Nick, if he does want to have any influence, to reconsider his decision not to be a member of the policy steering group.

Michael German: As you know, I was present at the meeting to which Nick Bourne was invited and had a chance to let you know what my views were. However, I think that we are turning this issue into a woeful story. I understand that you want to verify the figures and check their accuracy. Not one Assembly Member would want to encourage you not to do that. However, the undue delay of six months would make the final decision even more difficult for us. I welcome that you will ask Edwina to bring forward the report earlier, not least because time is money. The million pound clock is ticking today. As time goes on, the money that we might throw down the drain of the Assembly increases. I hope that we will not go down that route.

This has been a woeful story. We have had the Ron Davies-Russell Goodway show over City Hall. If you are to look at that option again--and it might turn out to be cheaper now than the figures that we intially saw, which showed that it was not--then you must go down the road of getting a good deal from Goodway. I do not know whether that is a possibility. You might want to consider that. However, my principal concern is one of speed and of moving quickly to examine the figures in a thorough and appropriate manner so that we do not end up in further fruitless and endless debates on this matter. People are far more concerned at the moment about what the Assembly does for the people of Wales than about the chairs we sit in and the desks that our legs are under.

The First Secretary: I accept all that, Mike. As regards the City Hall, it is the most remote option, because it would involve recommencing a saga that already has a long history. However, it would be foolish not to even to consider it during the next few months. I agree with everything else that Mike German has said. I was pleased to have his contribution in the meeting of the policy steering group this morning. It was constructive, as was Dafydd Wigley’s contribution. I am sure that if Nick Bourne could bring himself to attend and we had the four party leaders present, it would make for a more inclusive Assembly and a better decision. I want to share that decision with the Assembly and the Presiding Officer, who does attend the meetings. I answered the request for an immediate statement to share this development with the Assembly on the day that it was made.

Rod Richards: I am more than happy to offer my services to the steering group as leader of the independent Conservatives. When I first heard of the First Secretary’s proposed statement, my first reaction was thank goodness that the Cardiff Bay barrage has been completed although I am sure that many Members would wish to be reassured that the First Secretary will not dismantle it. Speed is of the essence, as many Members have said. Why does he not make a quick decision and give the people of Wales what they want? They do not want a new building in the bay nor do they want Cardiff City Hall, which is the better option of the two. They want us to stay where we are now and devote the money to a new children’s hospital.

Finally, can the First Secretary--who seems to be ill-informed, as he has been in the Cabinet for almost a year and does not know the figures--tell us which of his two predecessors, Alun Michael or Ron Davies, is at fault?

The First Secretary: Until I became First Secretary, I was not a member of the policy steering group. That is what Rod Richards forgets. This is one of those peculiar decisions that involve the legislature as a whole, not merely the administration. It is a matter that has been dealt with by all four party leaders and the Presiding Officer, or rather the three party leaders after Nick chose to drop out from the policy steering group. The matter has not been dealt with by the Cabinet in the normal way. It has been dealt with by the party leaders and the Presiding Officer because it is not a matter for the administration alone. It has to be shared with all 60 Members of the Assembly and I am trying to do that today. There is no blame on my two predecessors. It is a certain kind of decision. The type of accommodation for an entire Assembly is not a normal administrative decision. That is why I approached it with a fresh mind from 17 February.

Jocelyn Davies: Most of us can remember having the debate about whether to go ahead with the new building. The majority of Members in this Chamber decided to support it. You have now suspended that decision. Can I assume, therefore, that you will come back to this Assembly to make the final decision?

The First Secretary: You have my personal guarantee.

Lorraine Barrett: I am worried about the decision that you have made today. The Assembly has twice endorsed the decision to go ahead. I believe that the National Audit Office has looked at this previously. I had phone calls this morning from the Cardiff Bay Business Forum and they asked me to express to you their concerns about this news. They are worried that the delay will damage confidence in companies already investing in Cardiff and send out the wrong message to those companies considering it. Delaying building contracts will cost money. Have you assessed how much? If we go to the City Hall--I know that you have said that it would have to be looked at--a new office block would have to be built. We are used to 60 modern, well-equipped offices. As much as we all love City Hall, it could not accommodate a new Assembly building in the way to which we have become accustomed. It is a mistake and I am disappointed. I ask you to move as quickly as you can on this because it is damaging and will turn into a farce.

The First Secretary: I understand Lorraine’s concerns as the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. If I had announced a cancellation, I could understand some of her other concerns. I have not announced a cancellation. I have announced that I am putting the scheme on hold for as many months as are required to decide whether to proceed. I think that Lorraine agrees that we must get it right. When I became First Secretary, I asked to see certain figures. I received them last weekend. The meeting requiring a further commitment of £1 million for the next phase of scheme design was this morning. I did not feel ready to take that decision and spend £1 million on scheme design. That would have led to detail design in August this year, and finally the contract being let in October this year. Every time you commit a further £1 million, and then have a change of mind about the scheme, you double the amount of aborted expenditure to which the Assembly is committed. The timing was wrong. I received the figures on the weekend and would have had to commit to a further £1 million of expenditure at the project steering group today. It is difficult.

3:40 p.m.

I accept what Lorraine says about the comparison between City Hall and here. The disadvantage of this building is the Chamber. We all accept that the Chamber is inadequate. Acoustics are bad and the pillars are a major obstruction to the full participation of all Members. I am frequently unable to hear contributions from the furthest ends from people such as Gareth Jones, Cynog, Janet and others. When they ask questions, I have difficulty in hearing what they say. Also, Helen Mary is behind a pillar. It is not right or fair to the Members. Some Members may want to be behind pillars but I am sure Helen Mary does not. There are problems here.

The advantage of this building is the modern office accommodation for staff, which is not available at City Hall. The Chamber at City Hall might be nicer, and it is historic. However, a new Chamber might be nicer. There are huge disadvantages in City Hall. That is why I mentioned earlier that it is the remotest of the options.

Glyn Davies: First, I give a qualified welcome to the decision that has been taken today. I have argued long and consistently in this Chamber that we should not go forward with the new Assembly building designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership. This suspension is the first step towards that end. I have been verbally abused by Assembly Members from other parties but today’s decision justifies the position that I have taken on this issue all along. Nothing is to be gained from raking over old ground today. However, the level of indecision that this Government and the First Secretary have shown over this project will lead to a negative perception of the Assembly in the eyes of the people of Wales. We have a great deal of work to do in repairing the damage that this decision will cause.

Initially, the Welsh Conservative view was that Cardiff City Hall was the better option for the new Assembly, endowed as it is with the status and history that would have helped to establish the Assembly. We were always concerned that the figures presented publicly after the decision was taken showed the usual tendency for retrofit to justify the original decision. The position today is not clear-cut because we are already committed to a sum of between £8 million and £10 million for the building in which we are currently located.

My instinct is to continue in our current building, accepting the inadequacies of this Chamber, until the Assembly has succeeded in the eyes of the people of Wales and until we have earned better facilities. We have been elected to serve the people of Wales. The decision to construct a new Assembly building does not do so. In the view of the Welsh Conservatives in this Assembly, the decision served the Assembly and not the people of Wales. Today’s decision is a sensible one.

I have long accepted that this is a difficult and controversial issue. I have said in this Chamber that I respect the views of those who genuinely believe that we need to construct a new flagship building. However, we never agreed with that view and do not agree with it now. I welcome this decision as a first step towards the abandonment of the project.

The First Secretary: I shall answer Glyn’s lengthy disquisition. I am not sure whether he is saying that it was a good or a bad decision. He said that it was a good decision but he also said that it would lead to accusations of dither. It puts the issue on hold for as many months as it takes to come to a final decision, when all the facts and figures are clearly understood by everybody, including myself. I will then share them with the Assembly, as per my earlier commitment to Jocelyn. Glyn Davies sees it as moving in one direction from there. However, only time will tell. I hope that it will not be long before we make a final decision. Then, I hope I will be able to carry him with me with whatever decision I announce, hopefully with the co-operation of the other three party leaders also.

The point about dither is interesting. Dafydd raised the opera house saga. That was a huge row and a blow to confidence in big public sector building projects in Cardiff. However, as far as I am aware, the mark two opera house now has its funding in place and its construction will begin soon. Sometimes, abandoning a mark one project and replacing it with a mark two project works. There may be a couple of years’ delay--it may start in 2000 instead of opening in 2000--but that is not necessarily bad if you get the decision right in the end, and get the right project or building in the right place. That is all that I hope will arise from today’s announcement.

Jane Davidson: I will mention an aspect that other Members have not. I welcomed the announcement at the end of your speech on the continuation of the project for public access, a visitor centre and a learning resource centre--there is no name for it yet--in the Pierhead Building. I do not usually speak in terms of my role in the Office of the Presiding Officer, but one of the most important aspects of that role is public information. That is, how we relate to the public and how we receive comments from them on the kind of services offered by the Assembly. The majority of Members, if not all, are aware that we fail dismally on some public services issues because the Assembly building is an adapted office block.

Will you confirm that, when you consider alternatives and figures, over the next few months hopefully, public access to the Assembly’s proceedings will be paramount? During debates that have attracted much public interest, our Public Gallery has been packed. The same is true of Committees. I went to Scotland on Monday to examine its provision, and a similar situation exists there. We must ensure public access. They must be in the same room as politicians, where they can see what is happening. I hope that that issue will remain at the top of the agenda. I also plead that, when we consider issues relating to the new building, we consider childcare.

The First Secretary: I accept the point about childcare and public access. We must also try to encourage young people to get involved as citizens of Wales in the new Welsh democracy that we trying to create. If there is a barrier between us and those citizens because the public gallery is overflowing and they cannot get access to an interesting debate, then they may never want to return. They will feel rejected and that can deter them for life. However, if they feel that the door is open, they may wish to participate by being present in the public gallery. That is an important opportunity that should never be denied to people. That is an important consideration in any decision, which I hope to share with the Assembly as soon as possible.

Elin Jones: I am disappointed by this decision. It is interesting that only Members of the Welsh Conservative Party have welcomed the decision to date. Ceredigion is far from South Cardiff and Penarth. One of the things of which the people of Ceredigion are most proud is the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth, which is in a building of national and international status. Our Assembly deserves the same kind of building.

This discussion should not be about sound systems or pillars, but about a fitting home for Wales’s first elected National Assembly. The Assembly has decided that that should be Richard Rogers’s building.

The First Secretary: Elin is right that the Assembly resolved on 26 January to proceed with the project. I have not cancelled that project today, so she may be misinterpreting or accepting the Conservative Party’s interpretation, although she belittles their contributions to the debate.

What is important is that we accept that we want a worthy and permanent home that is becoming of our new democracy. In order to do so, I want to ensure that all the figures are accurate and that the comparisons that were made between various choices are appropriate, and that we can therefore ensure that the right decision is made.

On the National Library, I intend to be there on 8 April to receive the Pennal Letter, written by Owain Glyndwr to the king of France, which is returning on a six-month loan to Wales. I am sure that Elin will also be there and will be celebrating with me that we have been able to borrow this letter from the French national archive--at least temporarily--over the summer.

Jenny Randerson: I have mixed feelings about today’s announcement. I wish to make it clear that my knowledge of this process goes back beyond yours, First Secretary, and beyond Alun Michael’s, to the time when Ron Davies was Secretary of State for Wales and was negotiating with Cardiff City and County Council. As leader of the opposition, I agreed--for once and rarely--with the council leader on our approach in strongly promoting the use of the City Hall. I start off from the point of view that I very much wanted the Assembly to be in the City Hall. We are not, however, starting off from there, which worries me.

I welcome part of your announcement unequivocally. A dispassionate, neutral and unassailable analysis of the figures should lay to rest many ghosts. People cannot then argue that the costings are unfair and not based on a level playing-field and so on. My concern is that this will undoubtedly ignite old controversies and discussions--it is designed to do so in many ways. I would be grateful for your clarification on the exact parameters of this investigation--you have mentioned this in passing, but I would like you to spell it out.

First, will it incorporate the old debate of whether Cardiff would be the home of the Assembly, or does it take for granted that it will be Cardiff and not anywhere else in Wales?

Secondly, will it consider--this is essential--that this building is already full? I struggled to hear in a Committee held in a conference room this morning, because there were no other free rooms. We are not talking only about the inadequacy of this Chamber, but about the problem of the size and number of Committee rooms. Like all institutions, we are bound to grow. I gather that the Cabinet’s accommodation is overcrowded--Peter Law is nodding. We must therefore consider future developments.

Finally, I emphasise the importance of swiftness in this inquiry because it will be a difficult decision. You will be damned if you do and damned if you do not, and you will not satisfy everyone, but it is important that we come to a swift decision.

The First Secretary: Jenny Randerson has raised many important issues regarding the estimated space requirement that was given in making the original comparisons. I believe that it was said that the Assembly would require 72,000 square feet of space. Crickhowell House has 125,000 square feet of space. She may be right that this is inadequate. If so, how on earth was the original sum of 72,000 square feet reached? Those are some of the issues to be considered. Five points have been covered by the National Audit Office and some of the points raised today can be covered, in the light of comments from all quarters of the Assembly, by Edwina Hart and her officials before I return to the Assembly to progress to the next stage. I appreciate Jenny’s point that swiftness is required on this matter, because we all appreciate the inadequacies of this Chamber and its impracticalities for democratic purposes and public access.

Alun Pugh: I am not concerned about pillars. It is a bonus that I cannot see the Tories when they start to talk about the John Redwood memorial children’s hospital. I am not desperately concerned about air conditioning and temperatures. There are many hot factories and offices throughout Wales during its brief summers. I am concerned about the unsatisfactory public access to Committees, not only to Plenary, as Jane noted. Many people who were interested in the Education and Training Action Group policy development could not access the hearings. I would like an assurance that public access to Plenary and Committees will be the main consideration.

The First Secretary: I am not saying that it will be the main consideration, but it will be a prime consideration, along with cost comparisons, adequacies of the debating Chamber and several other factors.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas: I am disappointed and surprised by this statement. I endorse what has already been said by several Members. I thought that we had discussed this matter and had reached a decision. There are fundamental questions to be asked about the Assembly’s procedures if we must have an official delay every time the First Secretary has cold feet about spending public money. We must also reconsider the matter of reopening this kind of negative and pointless discussion. The discussion was held and the decision made in the past. The Assembly has work that must be done. We heard earlier in the week that we fail to deal with legislation quickly enough, but we are spending an hour rediscussing this matter today.

Rhodri gave the impression that the delay will save money. Is it not true to say that this will cost more money? Can Rhodri tell us how much the delay will cost, or did he make the decision without considering that? Does he have any other option? A decision not to continue with this scheme would create substantial costs in broken contracts with the designers and builders. What he is doing in fact is not deciding. You asked the question earlier, Rhodri, whether this is a good or a bad decision. It is a classic example of indecision.

The First Secretary: I am not keen either on reopening a period of internal bickering in the Assembly, in Wales, between the parties or between people who have different opinions about the Assembly’s location. That is not the intention. I only received the figures for the new building over the weekend. I asked for them during my first days as First Secretary. After I had considered those figures, I had to make a decision to spend or authorise the spending of £1 million on the phase that is called scheme design. I was unwilling to do that because I had not considered the figures sufficiently. That is the purpose of the delay.

If Rhodri Glyn Thomas is trying to say that I have had cold feet weekly in making other decisions and have failed to make any decision within the required time, he should give examples of that. I am not sure what he is talking about. I would be interested to hear about any other examples he may have. Perhaps he will come to understand by the summer that I enjoy making decisions rather than creating delays. He is wrong and he should accept my reasons for delaying for a few months, before I return to share with the Assembly what I consider to be the best way forward.

4:00 p.m.

Alison Halford: I commend the First Secretary for refusing to be rushed into an important and costly decision. It is not indecisive to wait to decide on the best way forward. In Delyn, we will pay much money to keep the water quality in Cardiff Bay pure, which is another asset for Cardiff South and Penarth. The people whom I represent will want to congratulate the First Secretary for considering the Assembly’s needs again and not squandering precious taxpayers’ money unnecessarily. I agree that we need a building and that it is right and proper that the seat of Government should be properly accommodated. There is no problem in waiting to ensure that the Assembly’s needs are known before we spend much money. You are not indecisive, Rhodri. You are a courageous, wise and prudent First Secretary. Congratulations.

The First Secretary: I am not sure whether I should call for a vote on that. I agree that this is not waiting for the sake of waiting, but waiting in order to reconsider the figures that I only received at the weekend. I am grateful for Alison’s kind remarks.

The Presiding Officer: I have the names of 10 other Members who wish to respond to this statement, which indicates the strength of feeling among them. I must curtail this debate because we must move on to important debates on Orders and I must protect the time of the short debate. In view of the concern among Members, if a Member were to approach me with a request for an urgent debate on this matter, I might consider it.