The New Assembly Building

The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is the debate on the new Assembly building. Because of my interest in this matter, the Deputy Presiding Officer, Jane Davidson, has agreed to chair the rest of the session.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Due to the large number of requests to speak in this debate, and to protect the time of the short debate, which is due to start at 5 p.m., I will impose a time limit, under Standing Order No. 7.3. The limit will be five minutes for opening and closing speeches and amendments, and three minutes for other contributions. I want to try to ensure that as many as possible of those who have requested to speak are called to do so.

I have selected amendments 1 and 4 in the name of Glyn Davies, amendments 2 and 3 in the name of Andrew Davies and amendment 5 in the name of Owen John Thomas.

The First Secretary: I propose that the Assembly, having considered the work undertaken by officials and encapsulated in the document entitled 'National Assembly for Wales New Building Project Information’ laid in the Table Office on 14 June, resolves to pursue Option E described in that document.

I also propose amendment 2 in the name of Andrew Davies. Delete all after 'resolves’ and insert: to adopt Option A as described in that document I also propose amendment 3 in the name of Andrew Davies. Delete all after 'resolves’ and insert:

to continue to proceed with Option B as described in that document.

When I made my last statement on this matter on 22 March, I promised that, within three months or thereabouts, I would have prepared a series of costed options and a Cabinet recommendation and that it would then be over to the Assembly. That is what we have done. I hope that we can debate this issue in the same good-natured manner as the previous debate, although that was almost like a love-in at times. I must ask Tom what the secret is. This will be the first vote on the principle of the new building or other solutions to our accommodation problems. It will be a free vote and I trust that it will be the final vote.

This debate will require a series of judgments on whether this Chamber is supportable as a permanent debating Chamber; if not, whether we should solve our debating Chamber needs functionally, at a moderate cost, by building an extension to this building at first and second floor levels, at a cost of £13.5 million, or spend double that amount--£27 million--on the new building scheme, which we inherited from the old Welsh Office. Both proposed buildings are extensions to Crickhowell House. It is easy to see that the first is an extension because it is so, at the first and second floors. The second purports to be a new building, although it would be attached to this building at ground floor corridor level.

The circumstances of this afternoon’s vote, or series of votes, are unusual, special and almost anomalous. First, this is a parliamentary matter and not a matter of government policy. It is about our accommodation. Therefore, backbenchers have more rights than they normally have, as regards whipping and other arrangements. It is not a policy matter, but one in which we all have an interest, which is why Labour has chosen to have a free vote. Furthermore, we took a confirmatory vote on aspects of the Richard Rogers Partnership building scheme on site 1E behind this building on 26 January. That vote was not on the principle, but on revisions, on the timetable and the estimated cost. Departure from that, five months later would involve asking the Assembly to change from the original course that it chose in January. That vote was anomalous because it did not test the principle of whether the Assembly, as a client for the Richard Rogers Partnership, wanted the new building. It almost allowed us to slide into it without studying it and without supporting it or not.

3:52 p.m.

Today, being judgment day, is part of the Assembly’s growing-up process. To paraphrase the famous ringing declaration after Labour won its huge majority in 1945, 'we are the masters now’, today we must say that 'we are the clients now’, regardless of whether we inherited this scheme or not. Therefore, the Assembly should not just accept what it has inherited from the Welsh Office but vote either on the Richard Rogers Partnership, on the courtyard option or on doing nothing. That is our choice today and we have managed to reach this stage within three months from when I announced my review.

These judgment calls are difficult ones. They are all embodied in the amendments before the Assembly today. There is a huge majority in this Assembly that considers this Chamber to be inadequate. It is inadequate because it was always intended to be a temporary solution. If you do not agree with that, you can vote for amendments 1 and 2. For a new Chamber, other committee rooms, improvement of public access at a minimum cost, the Chamber on stilts over the car park in the courtyard must be the right choice. Finally, if you want to spend twice that money you can vote for the Richard Rogers Partnership design on site 1E. You know the cost, but paying that extra money does not guarantee getting a landmark building. That is the judgment call, which supporters of the Richard Rogers option must justify today. They have to believe that the Richard Rogers Partnership design gives Wales a prestige, landmark building that justifies an extra £13 to £14 million.

The Richard Rogers building will be supported by those who believe that it is worth paying that extra money for the prestige. Is prestige worth £13 to £14 million on top of the functional option? The Cabinet does not think so. The factors that led me to seek a review included the continued doubts and speculation about the original decision to locate the Assembly home in the Bay as opposed to the City Hall or other possible locations. I heard doubts, mainly from civil servants, about the operational problems caused by the split site between the 2,000 civil servants in Cathays Park and the new democratic end of the Assembly set up in the bay.

Both options before us are effectively extensions. We should build the extension that accepts that it is an extension and not the one that pretends to be a free-standing new building. Although, there are inevitably cavaliers, roundheads and hairshirts among 60 people, the roundhead option, namely, an answer to our accommodation needs at a cost of £13 to £14 million, is the right way forward and I commend the motion to the Chamber.

Glyn Davies: I propose amendment 1. After 'Assembly having’ delete all and insert:

regard to issues involving procurement requirements, absence of costings, logistical difficulties and contractual obligations in relation to site 1E gives no credence to the irresponsible and cynical Cabinet proposal to build over the courtyard car park.

I also propose amendment 4. After the word 'resolves’ delete all and insert:

not to proceed with any new building

When I first saw a sketch of the mini conservatory, which is being recommended to the Assembly by the First Secretary and his Cabinet today, it reminded me of my first day at primary school. What seemed like a massive redbrick edifice confronted this little five-year old lad from the hills, an edifice, which had a weird little extension around the back next to the staff car park. One of the not-so-new-boys told me, rather indelicately, that the weird little extension was the school bog. Indeed, it was. So, there you have it, the First Secretary’s idea of a new landmark building--the new debating Chamber for a new democracy is that it resembles a toilet block, except that it would cost anything up to £20 million and be raised on stilts above a car park--a £20 million bog on stilts.

Of course, it will not be built. It is just a sordid, squalid little stunt designed solely for the purpose of saving Rhodri Morgan’s skin. The real debate is whether to go ahead with the original Richard Rogers extension or not go ahead with the new building, which is our preferred option. The Welsh Conservatives’ view on this issue has not changed from the beginning, from which point I have consistently sought to convey two messages. The principle message was and remains that the Assembly should not spend £30 million of scarce resources on a new debating Chamber. Certainly, not before the Assembly has some solid achievements to its name. Our view remains that this money should be spent on the services that directly benefit the people of Wales. We must first convince Wales, through achievement and delivery, that spending on our own premises is justified. Architecture immortalises and glorifies something, hence there can be no architecture when there is nothing to glorify.

My second message is that I respect the views of those who have genuinely disagreed with us on this, but I have nothing but contempt--sheer, undiluted contempt--for the position adopted by the First Secretary and the Cabinet today. First Secretary, through your little stunt, you have demeaned yourself and you continue to do so now. The Cabinet has brought discredit upon itself and its party. You all seek to discredit this Assembly shamefully for one reason, namely, in a vain attempt to save Rhodri Morgan’s face--

The First Secretary: What about the building?

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Order. We will have one speaker at a time. Glyn, will you reconsider your statement in light of the protocol on Members’ conduct in the Chamber?

Glyn Davies: I have reconsidered my statement and I am perfectly content with everything that I have said.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Continue by concentrating on the issue under discussion within your five-minute deadline.

Glyn Davies: The First Secretary is putting forward a motion that he knows will not go ahead. He may not even want it to go ahead. He knows that everyone outside the Government’s pay roll influence will not vote for this proposal. He is knowingly putting forward a proposal that would offer appalling value for money, which has not been costed or investigated in any meaningful way. It is a proposal, which has been comprehensively rubbished by Lord Rogers himself. What disgusts the Welsh people most is that the First Secretary knows that even if he goes ahead with his £20 million bog on stilts, the Assembly would be contractually obliged to build the Rogers building. His motion is a charade and an appalling stunt.

When Members of the Cabinet press their 'in favour’ buttons today, they will be backing their own motion and everyone else in this Chamber will be looking down on them and judging them as being a disgrace to democracy. The decision will hang around their necks like dead albatrosses smelling until time eventually withers the rotting carcasses. However, First Secretary, you will not be so lucky. Your albatross carcass will never wither. You simply could not reach a decision on this issue. You sit there in the First Secretary’s seat shouting at me and you cannot make this decision. Therefore, you come up with this ludicrous carbuncled option just to avoid making a real decision while the rest of us must decide without you. Go and hide under the desk if you must. Today, we must settle this issue. I ask fellow AMs to think carefully about their vote. Think about the opinion and the needs of the people of Wales and I hope that you will support me. In the interest of an expression of opinion, I formally withdraw my amendment 1--

The First Secretary: Who is dithering now?

Glyn Davies: --and move amendment 4 calling for the abandonment of the new extension, the effect of which--

The First Secretary: Who is dithering now?

Glyn Davies: --will be a vote of no confidence in the First Secretary and his Cabinet.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Order. Only one person should speak at a time.

4:02 p.m.

Jenny Randerson: Deputy Presiding Officer, the bad temper and shouting being exhibited is completely counter-productive to sensible debate. We should debate this in a much calmer atmosphere than that exhibited by some Members of the Cabinet.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if Members confined their comments to the building. I indicated at the beginning that there is little time for this debate. Many Members have indicated that they want to speak, but it is unlikely that everyone will be able to do so. If I have to intervene again that will further restrict the time. I ask Members to help by keeping within time limits and focusing on the issues in hand, namely speaking on the motion or the amendments to the motion.

I understand that Owen John Thomas’s amendment 5 has been withdrawn.

Dafydd Wigley: Members know where I come from on this subject. Originally, I supported the City Hall as a home for the Assembly. However, that choice is not available today, therefore I have no doubt about approving Richard Rogers’s plan. We should support that.

We should consider three things. Is a new building needed? If so, which plans meet the requirements? Also, is the cost reasonable?

In terms of need, having sat here time after time, and left after three hours with a splitting headache, I am sure that this building is not suitable. The committee rooms are not suitable either, because there is not much room for the public. The building lacks dignity. We need something of which we can be proud. It is not fair that Members sit behind pillars. It is not fair on the public or the press.

Regarding the other options, it is hard to see how the Government’s plan will meet these requirements. It gives no assurance of an effective Chamber. It does not meet the requirements for committee rooms, and visually, it is awful.

It gives a message to the world that reflects an Assembly without vision and a nation that is lacking in self-confidence. If that is the size of our self-respect, what right have we, as an Assembly, to expect support and trust from the people of Wales?

Richard Rogers’s plan is reasonable. It is financially acceptable if you compare it with the £260 million that is being spent on new offices in London or the £230 million that is being spent on the new Scottish Parliament. Remember that South Glamorgan County Hall would have cost £40 million at today’s prices. The cost is not unreasonable.

I ask the Tories how many children’s hospitals could have been built by scrapping Trident or selling Buckingham Palace to the Japanese as happened with the GLC building.

I earnestly hope that today we put this issue firmly to bed. I hope that we have the vision to build for the future, as did our forefathers a century ago, when they had the vision of Cathays Park as a splendid civic centre. Civic buildings have a purpose that go beyond their direct function. They reflect how a community regards its institutions. That is equally true of national, regional or local edifices. It is true not only of Government buildings, but also of arts, sport and particularly religious buildings.

Big Ben means something more than a tall clock. The capitol in Washington and those splendid state capitols reflect America’s regard for freedom. Wales has had its share of buildings, which have reflected our values. The splendid cathedrals at St David’s and Llandaff, for example, and a host of simple chapels built by every community to show that they believed in something greater. Most of all, some of our national university buildings in Bangor, Cardiff and elsewhere, which were built using the pennies of slate quarrymen and coal miners to reflect their passion for education and the liberation that that meant for our people.

They could have built a shoddy, functional, nineteenth century lean-to, but they had the vision to build something that was a worthy temple of a worthy dream. Do we, as the first elected Assembly of our nation in 600 years, not also have a vision for our nation? Do we not have a dream also? Is it symbolised by nothing more than a cut-price, lean-to, functional appendage to a mediocre office block? Come on, colleagues, come on. We can do better than this. For once, let us put our party divisions behind us. Let us be bold. Let us show that we have a little self-respect. Let us show that we believe that this Assembly is here to stay and to work for Wales. Let us show that we have the confidence in our country’s future, in Cardiff’s magnificent waterfront, in this Assembly’s role, and in ourselves as representatives of the Welsh people. Let us vote--dare I say let us vote unanimously?--to go ahead without further delay with the Richard Rogers building and to commit ourselves to making the Assembly of central relevance to the Welsh nation. It is a practical means of driving forward our national regeneration, and a symbol of the new, positive Wales, of which our children may be proud.

Michael German: Yesterday a young homeless person called 'CJ’ visited me here at the Assembly. He sells The Big Issue in Cardiff. He asked me straight out why we are spending several million pounds on a new building when he has no place to live. It is a difficult question. It is an uncomfortable question for those of us, like me, who believe that today we should support Lord Rogers’s design for a new Chamber. It goes to the heart of the debate. Whose building is this?

I agree that if we were to spend millions of pounds on plush new offices or creature comforts for our own benefit--and ours alone--then CJ’s question would shame us all. It shames members of the Conservative Party, which, when in government, authorised £300 million for new parliamentary offices and £3 billion to £4 billion for the Millennium Dome. The truth is, however, that we are not building for ourselves; we are building a public, national building, which belongs as much to CJ as to us in this Chamber.

It will be a building where the people of Wales can access freely those who have been elected to represent them; where people can meet them, hear them and hold them to account. When, however, a homeless man came to the Assembly yesterday to speak to me, there was no room available here for me to hear his concerns. There were no committee rooms spare, no conference rooms, no room in the milling area; there was nowhere for us to go. Is that the way to give those excluded from our society a sense of ownership of the democratic process? I do not think so.

We must admit to ourselves that we have already failed to live up to that one central recommendation of the National Assembly Advisory Group, that we should give Wales an Assembly that is open and accessible to all. That would also not be the case if the Cabinet’s plans for the car park conservatory were adopted today. We all know that such a building would cost as much as the Rogers building in the long term.

I wonder, Rhodri, whether on your recent visit to Sydney, Australia, thought what fools they were for building a stupid opera house and an ugly harbour bridge? Did they not realise that they could have made do with a wendy house and a pontoon bridge? I wonder, Rhodri, whether the city fathers here in Cardiff were right to build the City Hall? The truth is that you cannot outbid a Conservative Party that never wanted an Assembly in the first place, and neither will you convince those who voted 'no’ that it is worth the money, even though, as we all know, the Conservatives here want the new building but have not got the guts to vote for it. Scrapping the building will not win you their votes, Rhodri. The only way to do that is to scrap the whole thing and make do with a Secretary of State. We must vote for the Rogers building, so that we can say to the people of Wales that we want the best for Wales and we want the best for Wales for generations to come. We want to make a powerful statement that we are a confident country, that we can take on the rest of the world, and that we are not afraid of the world outside us.

Before he left, CJ had a look around this Chamber. He thought that it was small and unimpressive, not fit for a council, let alone a parliament. He would still prefer a home to an assembly building, but, if we have a bit of courage today, we can make sure that he gets both.

4:12 p.m.

Lorraine Barrett: Everybody knows that I was disappointed when the Richard Rogers design was put on hold after we voted to go ahead with it in January. I was also disappointed when I saw the proposals to build what looks like a shed on stilts in the rear car park. It looks like something in which you would boil cabbage. However, it is one of the options and we must consider it. We are told that the shed option--as I will call it--will cost £13 million. However, how can a cost be put on something that has not yet been designed? I am told it is only conceptual but even the conceptual plans show that serious questions have to be addressed about access. Do not even think about a bomb scare when the only exit is via a lift. Disability Wales will have a view on that. I do not think that it is an option because we would have to get permission from our landlords, Grosvenor Waterside, and they have other plans for the piece of land adjacent to the car park.

We are told that the people do not want this Chamber. Many people I know, some of whom have come here today, find that offensive. Of course there are people who are against this proposal. However, I have received letters and e-mails that show that many are in favour of it. At the end of the day, real politicians with guts must make decisions. Every one of our popular landmark buildings was opposed before they were built: the City Hall, St David’s Hall and the Millennium Stadium. A brave decision was taken on those buildings and I ask you to take a brave decision today.

On the radio this morning, someone from Llanelli said that his taxes go towards paying for the Scottish Parliament, the new Greater London Assembly building and the lavish Westminster buildings for MPs. He wants value for money from his taxes. Why should they not go towards a new National Assembly Chamber? This is not just about providing a facility where we can all see and hear each other properly in a pillar-free environment. It is about giving the public an open, exciting and welcoming place to come, where they can feel part of our new democracy. It is not good enough that those in the public gallery can only see the top or the back of our heads.

If we do not endorse the Rogers building today and go for the shed instead, we will have to go out to open competition. We have done that once. If we do that again we will be saying to all world-renowned architects not to bother spending time, energy and money submitting designs, because in Wales we do not want a stunning building fit for its people to enjoy and participate in our fledgling democracy. If they are lucky enough to be chosen we would waste at least a year of their time and taxpayers’ money as we dithered and probably damage their professional reputation. We would then change our minds and go elsewhere for something completely different. If you had a real idea of what it would cost, common sense would have to prevail today. Dismiss the shed on stilts and support the Richard Rogers building.

Nick Bourne: People who have watched the performance of the First Secretary on television or from the public gallery will be thinking, 'never more, never again a glad confident morning’. It was an extraordinary display on such an important issue. The First Secretary opened by suggesting that this had never been the subject of debate before: it is the subject of debate virtually every month.

People who suggest that the Welsh Conservatives did not want a different home for this Assembly should remember that along with most people here we wanted the City Hall. It seemed that the First Secretary also wanted the City Hall when he gave a seminar on 22 March. There was a long discourse about how the City Hall might be a viable option based on costs that were going to be revealed to us. I asked a question to the Finance Secretary on that subject. I was told that the figures were in the public domain. I have searched in vain for them because they are not in the public domain. We were promised figures on the cost to transfer to the City Hall. The City Hall appeared to be back in the frame, then it dropped out. This debate is about saving face. First Secretary, you know that at the end of the day the Richard Rogers design will go ahead and that is what this is all about.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Order. Could we please focus on the building and the proposed amendments?

Nick Bourne: That is what I am doing. First Secretary, you know that the £13 million for this new building would be wasted on a lean-to shed. You said in your initial comments that we must judge whether it is worth paying an extra £13 million for prestige. What is important is not the building that we are in but what we do in the building. Let me contrast two systems. Singapore has an administration that works and is based in a makeshift building. Malaysia has a system that we would not want to emulate, and is based in the sort of building in which you once believed, but now you want a cheaper option. What we deliver in this building is what is important for the people of Wales; not the building in which we are based. I am glad that you are nodding in agreement.

Therefore, I hope that you will support the proposal that it is more important to spend this money on something of public significance, such as a national hospital, rather than on a new debating Chamber. That would be an effective testament to what the people of Wales want. I agree with Lorraine Barrett that some people are in favour of this new building, but they are a distinct minority. People from every corner of Wales have signed petitions, which I have here, saying that they are against this new building, Lorraine. I accept that some are not, but regardless of how they voted in the referendum, which is history as far as I am concerned, most people do not want this new building. I hope that Members will vote accordingly today.

Ron Davies: I was one of those who welcomed Rhodri’s decision to conduct a review, because there had been so much debate and concern about the project. It was perfectly understandable that when Rhodri became First Secretary he wanted to reassure himself of the financial basis on which we were making a decision.

There are two key findings in the review, which I welcome. The first was in the National Audit Office’s review, which states:

'The decision to locate in the bay was the correct one.’

The second finding was in the Turner and Townsend Group’s review, which states:

'The proposed --scheme;’--the Richard Rogers option--

'--;represents value in both functional and unit cost terms.’

I welcome those findings. However, I take issue with the Cabinet’s recommendation. I am at a loss to understand why it feels that we do not already have a policy. The decision we made on 26 January was clear. That motion said that we agree that the development should now proceed. That seems to be clear and unequivocal and there is nothing in this report that suggests why that motion should not be implemented.

I also take issue with the argument that the Cabinet’s recommendations represent a cut-price compromise or some alternative that will save us money. The National Audit Office insists that comparisons of this nature are done on the basis of the net present cost. That is the Treasury requirement. The report indicates that, using the net present costs as the basis for comparison, the Richard Rogers option calculates at £76 million and the car park option at £72 million over 15 years. If anybody thinks that by voting for the compromise option today, millions of pounds will be available to spread around Wales on their favoured options, they should think again, particularly as the car park option is nothing more than a design concept. The figure of £72 million bears no resemblance to the figure that we are likely to pay at the end.

After some three years of debate, to which I have been closer than most people in this Chamber, we must arrive at a firm decision that will allow us to proceed. It will disillusion people about the Assembly’s workings if we have endless debates about where we have our debates and do not set about the task of improving economic and social conditions for the people of Wales. We will rapidly lose their support. There is only one decision that we can make that will bring about a resolution to this debate. The Richard Rogers option is a costed option for which we have approval and with which we can proceed immediately. The alternative option is nothing more than a design concept. We do not have an architect, a design brief or planning consent. The costs are unsure, we do not have the landlord’s consent and we are likely to end up with a legal suit against us for breach of contract. The landlord will not give us consent under those circumstances. There are major questions about accessibility and sustainability. If we think that we can resolve these in two years without further endless argument and delay, we are denying the history of the last two years. We have a clear option; the Richard Rogers option exists, it has the benefit of widespread support inside and outside this Chamber and represents the only alternative available to us to end the debate and get on with the building.

Val Feld: I speak in favour of what I will call Rhodri’s roundel, which is the Cabinet’s proposal. I do so, Dafydd, as someone who has also had a dream all her life that there would come a time when people across Wales would support their own political institution. I have given a great deal of thought to this building, the amount of money it will cost and the signals that it will send out. I have no doubt that buildings send out important signals. However, there are far too many examples across the world of grand, civic buildings built by governments as monuments to political ideology but without substantive, solid foundations in their countries for those ideologies and aspirations. You only need to look to eastern Europe to the former communist countries to see the signals that were sent out by the kind of buildings that were built during those years of communism.

4:22 p.m.

People will judge this new democracy on how it affects their daily lives. We say over and over in this Chamber. Only a small proportion of the people of Wales will ever come to this building. However, all of the people of Wales will use our health and education services. The problem we currently have is that, in far too many places in Wales, people do not know what we do. They do not understand what the Assembly is here to achieve. I want the £15 million--or perhaps less if Ron says so, but whatever it is, there is a substantial amount of money to be saved--to be used to take this Assembly and its Committees and its work out to the rest of Wales. I ask Rhodri and Edwina to respond on how we could use these resources to take our work to west and north Wales where people do not understand enough about what we are doing. One great success in our work over the last year is the regional committee meetings where people come and engage with us. There is much more work that we can do on that. I would like to see us take the Plenary sessions to Caernarfon or Bangor and let people see what we do. There is much work to do to build the confidence of the people of Wales in our activities. That will happen as a result of what we do, not as a result of the building that we occupy.

Owen John Thomas: On 22 March, when the First Secretary announced that he was putting on hold the proposals for the new National Assembly, there was more than a flutter of support from the general public. These hopes were raised again in the debate on 4 April, when Rhodri described a two-option scenario that envisaged housing the National Assembly in the City Hall and delivering Crickhowell House into the hands of the local authority. However, it would seem from Sir John Bourn’s report on this issue that the City Hall was ruled out as an option in the very early stages of this three-month hiatus. It would appear that this unfortunate, lengthy delay could have been considerably reduced.

Once the possibility of using the City Hall had been abandoned, it was obvious that the majority of National Assembly Members were willing to give the go-ahead for Richard Rogers’s original and innovative plan, with the exception of the Welsh Conservative group who believe that anything will do for Wales.

This would have been a reasonable and honourable decision that would have been to the First Secretary’s credit, but that did not happen. Another option was invented--one which is close to the Conservatives’ standpoint-- that offered a cheap plan to try to deceive 51 Members into compromising with eight Members who do not even believe in the principle of devolution.

Could it be that Rhodri had recently read Graham Henry’s theory of the Welsh suffering from a national inferiority complex? A building with a capital cost of only a twelfth of that of Scotland’s would surely appeal to the inferior Welsh personified by the eight Conservative AMs. Option E’s most outstanding feature would be its inability to be seen. Despite the uplift it would receive from several well-placed stilts, surrounded on three out of four sides by the wings of an office block, 75 per cent of it would be permanently hidden from view, unlike the prestigious, eye-catching Option B. Option E would not share a waterfront position with the Pierhead building. The opportunity of portraying Wales as a young, modern, outward-looking democracy would be lost were we to opt for a retiring, four-legged mushroom cringing in the shadow of a five storey office block.

We could call it Morgan’s mushroom, perhaps. Proposing Option E is not worthy of the First Secretary and it is not good enough to represent the people of Wales. Option E is an attempt to cosy up to the Conservative group, which reached the height of its wishes for Wales by opposing the establishment of the National Assembly, the body that they are still trying to undermine today.

One is tempted to ponder how and why the Conservatives have lost touch with their traditional supporters in the world of business and finance. Only yesterday, representatives of the Cardiff Bay Business Forum pointed out that office accomodation in the bay would be harder to let if Option B were abandoned. In other words, the bay would be a less attractive business proposition without a building of national significance as its centrepoint. Our vote on this issue will decide the image viewed on television screens and seen in newspapers throughout the world whenever and wherever Wales is mentioned. The sum of £27 million is a small investment in our built environment but a sound investment in marketing our national profile and a firm statement of the rights of small nations in all corners of the world. Option E has none of these virtues.

Richard Edwards: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to express my view without fear or favour, and untroubled by press articles designed to intimidate. If you cannot do as you think right in public life, especially on important issues, what is the point of being in public life at all? Perhaps I am being naïve, but then I believe that there is too much cynicism in politics and even more so in our wretched media. In any case, is this not supposed to be the new politics?

I will not rehearse the reasons why the present Chamber is unacceptable; they are self-evident to all but those who oppose devolution in any case. As for the bolt-on lean-to in the car park, it is not a viable alternative. It is a compromise that satisfies no one. Those who want an appropriate symbol for Welsh democracy will be disappointed and those who argue against any additional expenditure will remain disgruntled. Although it is understandable, I regret how reopening the debate has served to maximise our difficulties in taking this important decision and has played into the hands of the enemies of devolution and the Assembly.

The way that this has happened typifies what seems to be a defensive mindset on devolution--always on the back foot and allowing opponents to dictate the debate. This defensive, apologetic approach compromises the performance of our fledgling Assembly and is in danger of allowing the prophecies of Conservative jeremiahs to become self-fulfilling jeremiahs who spent 18 long years systematically removing all vestiges of democracy in this country. Of course, they do not think that democracy is worth paying for. I believe that it is and that future generations will judge us harshly if we duck the need for an appropriate, accesible new Chamber now for short-term expedience dictated by the enemies of devolution. We risk undermining the potential of the Assembly and of democracy in Wales. This is a long-term investment in Welsh democracy. The decision falls to us because we are the first elected Assembly Members, but it is not about us. We are 60 transient politicians, here today, gone tomorrow. We are temporary keepers of our offices in this body, which I hope and trust will outlive us all.

I know that the public is sceptical and that the Assembly needs to prove itself. That point is frequently made by those out to wreck the Assembly. It is a brand new institution and it will take many years for it to take root properly. We are all embarked on a long-term enterprise requiring a long-term vision. It requires courage, leadership and vision. Let us not kow-tow to the forces of Conservatism that held this country in thrall for 18 long years and gave the Assembly such a rotten inheritance. Let us extend our vision beyond the end of our noses.

4:32 p.m.

Jenny Randerson: No one will be surprised to hear that I am a strong supporter of the Richard Rogers design. After all, I am an Assembly Member representing a Cardiff constituency. I was a supporter of the City Hall option but that ceased to be realistic when the decision was taken to use and refurbish this building, which had previously been a great source of financial embarrassment to the Government as it stood half-empty and expensive to maintain. It was a daily drag on the NHS budget because of the deal set up by the Conservative Secretary of State for Wales.

I was amazed when Rhodri announced that he was putting the new building on hold. His long speech citing the advantages of a move to the City Hall was based on facts that had all been looked at before. The papers and figures were available and should have been looked at before any decision to delay was made. Nick Bourne, if you want to see the figures on the City Hall, press the Chamberweb on the 'Supporting Papers’ option. You will find the letter from the auditor.

What has this three month delay achieved--another confirmation of the figures? I hope that it has achieved another confirmation of the building. The project price has increased because the lean-to for the car park was designed.

I will turn to the positive reasons why we need this building. There are practical and aesthetic reasons. It has been said time and time again that Wales needs a new symbol. Hopefully the new building will be that symbol in the same way that Sydney Opera House is a symbol and the Houses of Parliament are a symbol not only of London but of the United Kingdom. The Assembly will not establish itself in the national consciousness until it looks like a proper parliament.

The key issue is that these symbols are of great economic importance to the country. The Houses of Parliament are symbols of democracy worldwide. They bring in millions of pounds in the tourist trade. The new building needs to be a symbol not only of Wales but of the redevelopment of Wales. Unfortunately, and in many ways in Cardiff Bay, that stalled when Rhodri made his announcement. Investors would not sign until they knew the final grand plan. This is an all or nothing decision. The lean-to is not an option. It will not solve the problem of public access and it will not provide a national symbol except for national car parks.

It will be poor value for money. New buildings are not generally popular but a poll in the South Wales Echo today shows that a massive majority is in favour of the new building. I beg you to support the Richard Rogers design.

Brian Gibbons: In my constituency, one third of the ward are in the lowest 10 per cent in terms of social deprivation. The ward in which I have lived for the last 20 years is one of the worst in Wales. I came to the National Assembly to help to achieve a quantum change in Wales. We need the confidence, self-belief and vision to do this. The way in which we set about our work could deliver that.

We have heard the Conservatives’ viewpoint, whose trajectory of vision is grass-high in a cow pat. I would not expect amore from them because that is the height of their vision for Wales and its people. The compromise shed in the back typifies many of Wales’s problems that stem from the idea that just good enough is good enough. Just good enough is not good enough anymore if we are to achieve the quantum change to make Wales a qualitatively better place. The shed in the back would be a monument to mediocrity. Mediocrity has plagued us for the last 75 years in Wales. I do not claim to be a culture vulture, but the Richard Rogers building offers Wales an image of the best. It has creativity, imagination and it offers a solution to our functional problems. It offers our people a chance to engage with the new democracy that we are building in Wales. It is a place of which we can be proud. I have not brought constituents to this building to date because it is an embarrassment. I hope that the new Richard Rogers building will be something of which we can be proud, to show what Wales can achieve. Let us have the vision and the confidence to go forward. Let us go forward and try to get the best for Wales and our future.

Alun Cairns: I feel as though we are acting out a scene from Groundhog Day. We have been here on so many occasions in the past. Yet, here we are again debating this monstrosity of a purpose-built palace in Cardiff Bay. After Rhodri Morgan was elected First Secretary by Assembly Members, he generated an enormous amount of good will. The public reacted by saying that he had saved the day. Their man had stopped this purpose-built palace being built. He took the high ground and stood on the political fence. He considered the City Hall and Cardiff Bay options. However, we have the new, lean-to option today--the so-called compromise building. Having sat on that political fence, the First Secretary had to come down one way or another. Therefore, he devised the alternative project of the compromise building to dig himself out of the hole in which he found himself. Instead of digging himself out, he has taken the Cabinet down with him. They are digging deeper by the minute, with every contribution that is being made.

The lean-to has not been costed. It has not been planned in detail. It does not even have an architect. Richard Rogers won the competition for the Assembly building on site 1E. Therefore, we only have the concept diagrams of the lean-to, which were presented last week. It has been described as something in which to boil cabbage. Glyn Davies called it a bog. Even Alun Pugh, who will support it today, said in the presentation last week that it was a non-starter from the outset because we are contractually obliged to build something on site 1E. That demonstrates the farce of this compromise building, this lean-to, this bog, this something in which to boil a cabbage that has been presented by the Cabinet.

David Davies: Has it not been called that because it will be largely full of cabbages?

Alun Cairns: I am not sure whether I would prefer to boil a cabbage or a Cabinet in the building. The public will react and call on us to boil a cabbage in it.

The building has been called a new symbol: a symbol of democracy and a symbol for the new Wales. What better symbols than a fine health service or high education standards? That is what we are supposed to achieve in this Assembly, not a purpose-built palace because of Assembly Members who are full of self-importance. [Assembly Members: 'Oh.’] You should be humble like the Conservatives.

It is obvious that Rhodri Morgan realises that the Richard Rogers design will go ahead. It is obvious that there is enough support in the Assembly for Richard Rogers’s design. However, the only plan that will truly touch the people who elected us to this place is the Conservative Party’s plan to stay where we are.

Delyth Evans: I will vote in favour of the Richard Rogers design. I support it for two reasons. First, because of its significance for democracy in Wales and, secondly, for what it will achieve for Wales abroad. The most important feature of the Rogers design--a central element of the design--is its public access. The design of the milling area, the public galleries and the whole concept of the building focuses on openness and accountability. That is entirely fitting for the new democracy that we have in Wales. I have no doubt that people from all over Wales will want to come to see the new Chamber. It will be a source of great pride to us and will give a new impetus, relevance and dynamism to our deliberations.

In terms of our international standing, let us consider other recent building projects elsewhere in Europe. The Tate Gallery in St Ives, the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao and the new Holocaust museum in Berlin have contributed significantly to the image and stature of their respective regions and countries. Similarly, if we opt for the Rogers building, we will, at a stroke, reposition Wales on the international stage. Val Feld’s comparison to great buildings in eastern Europe is inappropriate. The Rogers design is a modest building, but it is appropriate to its purpose, as all great buildings are. I do not overstate the case when I say that that building will redefine Wales as a creative, confident, modern open democracy. That is what successful building projects can achieve, and that is what we would achieve with the Richard Rogers design.

4:42 p.m.

Helen Mary Jones: A group of people with learning disabilities visited me in the Assembly today. Their main focus was on asking me difficult questions about our plans on resettlement and advocacy. I was glad to be able to answer them. However, as part of that visit, I had to show them around this building. Their reactions were interesting. Their reaction to this room was, 'it is a bit scruffy’. That summed it up. Their reaction to the committee rooms was that they were poky.

While we were waiting to have a cup of coffee, some of them noticed the picture of the new building. One by one, they rose and walked over to look at it. They said, 'it is beautiful’. It is beautiful and we deserve it. The people of Wales deserve it, not us in this Chamber. It is not about us. It is worth saying to the public that Assembly Members’ accommodation will remain the same. Our offices will remain where they are. The new building is for those who visited me today and for all our other constituents who want to come here. Our nation deserves that.

As we all know, the Conservatives did not want devolution, they do not Wales to be proud of itself and they do not want the National Assembly to work. Therefore, it is no wonder that they are not going--

Alun Cairns rose--

Helen Mary Jones: No, I am sorry. Your colleagues did not give way to me, Alun. You have spoken enough this afternoon. In terms of self-importance, I think that the pot calling the kettle black award has been granted this afternoon.

The Conservatives do not want the Assembly to work and they do not want the nation to be proud of itself. That is where they are coming from. However, at least their stance is clear. I do not propose to say anything about the Cabinet’s proposals. There is nothing worth saying on that.

John Griffiths: There is one good thing about the layout of this Chamber: thankfully, because I sit behind a pillar, I often cannot see the Conservative Members. Listening to their pathetic performance today, personified by Glyn Davies’s rant, makes me certain that that is the best part of this Chamber. I am screened from having to look at them and am often unable to hear them. That is a wonderful aspect of this Chamber.

However, I concede all the points made about the inadequacies of this Chamber. It is not what Wales needs to symbolise what the Assembly means to the people of Wales and the new politics in Wales. I understand those who argue that what we achieve means far more than what a building can present. However, symbolism is important. Traditionally, Wales has lacked confidence for many historical reasons. The new building is about promoting a new Wales. It is symbolically important. It flags up to the world that there is a new Wales, a new political settlement in Wales and a new self-confidence in Wales. I notice that constantly when I travel across Wales and speak to people in my constituency. There is a new sense of optimism, symbolised by the new political settlement in Wales. We badly need a new building to symbolise that and to take things forward to show the world that Wales is serious about its new democracy. I make no apologies for thinking that symbolism is important.

Many of these arguments were rehearsed the first time around and I, along with other Members, made many of these points. Nothing has changed. It was right to have a fresh look at things and that Rhodri sought to satisfy himself of the figures. I fully respect that. It was necessary. We have all taken the opportunity to have a fresh look at issues. I am happy that everything I said the first time around remains true. It is still as important now as it was then. I will be voting accordingly.

The Finance Secretary (Edwina Hart): I take the opportunity to place on record my thanks to the Deputy Presiding Officer for the way in which the debate has been conducted. It has, in the main, been a well-reasoned and dignified debate. I turn to the non-dignified aspects of the debate. Glyn Davies’s contribution had no substance and was naked political opportunism at its worst. The tones of his remarks were unworthy of this Chamber. The Cabinet is not a disgrace to democracy. Democracy is about taking responsibility, something Glyn and his party have never done. You cavalierly disregard and disown your 18 years of administration when it suits you. Your leader, Nick Bourne’s, personal attack on the First Secretary was particularly unworthy. The Cardiff City Hall costs are in the public domain. A Commons answer by the then Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, on Friday 28 November 1997, to a question by Rhodri Morgan indicated all the costs of the City Hall. Those are on record in Hansard.

Alun Cairns rose--

Edwina Hart: I will not give way. I have five minutes like you and I want to use them more profitably than you did. I turn to some of the other comments raised in the debate. I understand where some of the comments are coming from and I understand some of the issues raised. I accept that they were made in the best possible spirit. However, I contend, on behalf of the administration, that the issues that you need to consider are the justification and need for an additional building, whether that need is accepted by all and ensuring that we meet that need in the most cost-effective way. Like the majority of Members, I share the view that the current Chamber, committee rooms and facilities for the public are not good enough. There are serious limitations to the facilities for the general public and we are not well placed to engage them fully in the democratic process, which is essential if we are genuinely committed to dealing with the democratic deficit for which the Assembly was established. With this in mind and accepting that we must do something, the Cabinet has sought to provide the Assembly with a less costly alternative of building a Chamber in the car park at the rear of the building. That meets the criteria of operational needs and is acceptable in cash-cost terms.

Much has been said about whether it was right to re-open discussions on the new Chamber. I believe that it was and I am pleased that others have indicated that they thought that Rhodri was right to examine the costs. It is important that all decisions are made on the basis of clear financial information. We now have cost options that we can review. It is always a brave person who says 'stop, we should look and evaluate any plan properly’. The First Secretary is to be commended for ensuring that all viable issues are discussed. Whatever the outcome of today’s debate, the Cabinet, and myself as Finance Secretary, will ensure that any building project will keep to the agreed contract in terms of building requirements and costs. It is not easy to take difficult decisions. It is even harder some days to defend them. However, the Cabinet is right to lay before you the car park option. It would be wrong of us as an Executive if we had found a more cost-effective option and we were not prepared to have a discussion on that information in the Chamber. I urge Members to carefully consider the options. The Cabinet’s recommendation is before you. We agreed to make the recommendation after lengthy discussion and debate among ourselves and I ask you to support it. I trust that my remarks in my right of reply will be taken in the genuine spirit that I have made them.

Amendment 2: For 8, Abstain 0, Against 49.

National Assembly for Wales - Senedd - Statement-210600

The following Members voted for:

The following Members voted against:

Bourne, Nick Cairns, Alun Davies, David Davies, Glyn Graham, William Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter

Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Butler, Rosemary Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Elis-Thomas, Dafydd Essex, Sue Evans, Delyth Feld, Val German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Gregory, Janice Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Hutt, Jane Jarman, Pauline Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Jones, Ieuan Wyn Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David 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

Amendment rejected 4:52 p.m.

Gwelliant 3: O blaid 35, Ymatal 0, Yn erbyn 22.

National Assembly for Wales - Senedd - Statement-210600

The following Members voted for:

The following Members voted against:

Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Dafis, Cynog Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Elis-Thomas, Dafydd Evans, Delyth Feld, Val German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Gregory, Janice Griffiths, John Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Humphreys, Christine Jarman, Pauline Jones, Ann Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Jones, Ieuan Wyn Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Neagle, Lynne Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Kirsty Williams, Phil

Bourne, Nick Butler, Rosemary Cairns, Alun Chapman, Christine Davies, Andrew Davies, David Davies, Glyn Essex, Sue Graham, William Gwyther, Christine Hart, Edwina Hutt, Jane Jones, Carwyn Law, Peter Melding, David Middlehurst, Tom Morgan, Jonathan Morgan, Rhodri Pugh, Alun Rogers, Peter Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda

Amendment adopted. Amended motion: the Assembly, having considered the work undertaken by officials and encapsulated in the document entitled 'National Assembly for Wales New Building Project Information’ laid in the Table Office on 14 June resolves to continue to proceed with Option B as described in that document.

Motion: For 48, Abstain 0, Against 9.

National Assembly for Wales - Senedd - Statement-210600

The following Members voted for:

The following Members voted against:

Barrett, Lorraine Bates, Mick Black, Peter Butler, Rosemary Chapman, Christine Dafis, Cynog Davies, Andrew Davies, Geraint Davies, Janet Davies, Jocelyn Davies, Ron Edwards, Richard Elis-Thomas, Dafydd Essex, Sue Evans, Delyth Feld, Val German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Gregory, Janice Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Hutt, Jane Jarman, Pauline Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Elin Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Jones, Ieuan Wyn Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David 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, David Davies, Glyn Graham, William Law, Peter Melding, David Morgan, Jonathan Rogers, Peter

Amended motion adopted. The Deputy Presiding Officer: As Kirsty Williams’s voting panel failed on the final vote, I ask her to confirm her vote verbally. Kirsty Williams: I confirm that I voted for. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The resolution’s effect is that the Assembly has reaffirmed its decision of 26 January. I thank Members for their brevity in this debate ahead of the stop-clocks being introduced in the Chamber.