The New Assembly Building

The Presiding Officer: I have selected amendment 1 in the name of Glyn Davies, amendment 2 in the name of Michael German and amendment 3 in the name of Helen Mary Jones.

The First Secretary: I propose that the Assembly:

welcomes the revised proposals for the new Assembly Building described in the 'New Assembly Building Project--Assembly Progress Report No1/2000’ laid in the Table Office on 19 January 2000;

notes the revised estimated costs of the scheme;

agrees that the development should now proceed on this revised basis with the objective of having a fully functional building in place by August 2002;

insists that further work on the design must continue to pay full attention to accessibility requirements, the need for good public facilities and that representatives of appropriate interests should be fully consulted during the detailed design process; and

calls for the maximum use of Welsh materials in the construction of the building, consistent with EU legislation and procurement and value for money considerations.

This motion will give the go ahead for a landmark building as the home of democracy in Wales. I am happy to support amendments 2 and 3, but I do not support amendment 1.

I agree that we should be open and transparent about all aspects of the building, including the costs. We will, as far as we can, make information about costs readily available. However, I am sure Members will appreciate that on occasions, considerations of commercial confidentiality might restrict the level of detail that can be disclosed publicly. That is always the case. Sensitive information will be shared with the other party leaders and with you, Llywydd, through the group that we have established for that purpose.

We want the new building to be exemplary in terms of environmental standards and practice. The architect’s brief is in line with amendment 3, tabled by Helen Mary. I am happy for the issues in amendments 2 and 3 to be dealt with explicitly by incorporating them into the motion.

Amendment 1 in the name of Glyn Davies is not in the best interest of the Assembly, although it may be a predictable response on the part of Conservative Members. This Chamber has got us off to a good start, but it has undesirable limitations in the long term and I am not only referring to the pillars that occasionally hide some Members. On 20 July, the Assembly endorsed the development of a new Assembly building, following an opportunity to express views on the initial design concept. Clear views were given by Assembly Members. Many Members, across different parties, underlined the most important points. The views given by Assembly Members have since been subjected to detailed consideration. That has resulted in the revised design proposals which are summarised in the paper that accompanies this motion and were described to Members in last week’s presentation by the architect and the project team. As a result of those discussions, the Assembly has improved our own building at the design stage.

3:20 p.m.

The main high level concerns expressed by Members in July were, first, that the design did not live up to our expectations with regards to accessibility, particularly access for people with disabilities. Secondly, that the level of provision for members of the public to be able to witness at first-hand the proceedings in the Committee rooms as well as the debating chamber needed to be improved. Thirdly, that the Committee rooms needed to be designed to take account of our experiences in those used as a temporary facility in this building. Those views were taken seriously and the architect has produced positive and imaginative solutions to address them.

We now have a design for a building that enables access for all, while retaining the best features of the original design, whose concept was one of of openness and transparency. The point was made in the discussion last week that stairs are an opportunity of access for people without disability but can be a barrier for those with disability. It was therefore important to reconcile those two. Crucially, there is now a drop-off point at the main entrance which gives access to all at the level at which the public will use the Assembly building. There will now also be gently sloping ramps from the waterside level up to the main entrance, providing an alternative to the steps. In addition, an external lift access from the waterside level will provide a further option for anyone who wishes to enter the building from road level.

Once visitors are inside the building they will have access to all the major public facilities on a single level. Previously, that was stepped through the building. Taken together, these changes represent an excellent response to the concerns on accessibility raised by Members and others. Disability Wales and the Cardiff and Vale Coalition of Disabled People, the local organisation, have both welcomed the progress that these changes represent. Naturally, they are equally keen to ensure that further detailed design also supports accessibility for all. We will ensure that they have every opportunity to influence the detailed design, and the motion today gives that promise. We will appoint an accessibility consultant to establish objectives on accessibility. Disability Wales will be invited to be involved in that appointment, and we will review the design team’s ongoing work in meeting these objectives.

Revised plans for the debating chamber allow access for 100 members of the public and 30 members of the media, which doubles the present provision. Galleries have been introduced for each of the three Committee rooms. These will be entered from the public area at the first floor level, as will the Chamber. This greatly improves and simplifies the interface between the public, the media and Assembly Members during the Assembly’s work, and particularly during Committee work. The public and the press will be able to enter and leave as they wish, without affecting the Committee’s proceedings. The changes also improve the working area of the Committee rooms for Members and those presenting evidence, creating a more open working space for the task. This came up in discussion with Members last week: it will make the distinction between Members of the public who are coming to observe and to hear what happens in the Committee and the members of the public or representative organisations who are coming to participate, perhaps by giving evidence. It therefore creates a more practical working environment for all.

These changes, along with more detailed consideration of some elements of the plan, have led to some increase in the cost estimates for the scheme. I am confident that we now have full and robust cost estimates. The Finance Secretary and I have sought assurances that the design can be built within the estimates, provided that there are no unforeseen events or design changes. Having examined the cost estimates, I believe that they represent good value for money and that they are not excessive for a major public building of this status.

It was made clear from the start that the cost estimate of £12.5 million for building construction did not include a number of items--external works and landscaping, fitting out, inflation provision and the costs of recent changes. That was made clear when the presentation was made some months ago. It was made clear that these items would take the cost to over £20 million. A full review of all estimates--

Dafydd Wigley: Can you confirm that a comparatively small element of that cost increase is due to the needs of disabled people and that other adaptations are responsible for a substantial amount of that increase? Assuming that that is the case, why do we face such an increase in cost due to items that had not originally been fully costed?

The First Secretary: The cost has not increased very much. The first figure was the cost of the building alone. That is the usual practice in a competition such as this. The original design does not include many of the items that substantially add to the final cost. That was evident during the competition until we received the information from the architect a few months ago, and until this current information was received.

I have been involved once or twice with design competitions. It is almost part of their nature that the original design concept includes a tight footprint and costing of the essential building, but that everything else is excluded. The competition guidelines specify whether the cost should include items such as fitting out and environmental costs and so on. Those are normally excluded. That was made clear at the end of the design competition, in the design brief and in our briefing. When Members were briefed last week, a comparison was made so that we could compare like with like from the beginning. That information is on the intranet. The changes include some cost increases in respect of disability. They also take account of the increased numbers for the public gallery so that there is greater public access. They also include improving the interface between the public area, the main Chamber and the Committee rooms. The design is more practical and down to earth.

The change is the result of the full review of all estimated costs. In that information, which was spelt out to Members last week, the full estimated project cost--as opposed to the basic building cost--of the design that we examined and questioned in late autumn to early winter was £20.45 million. Making provision for the recent changes increases the estimated cost to £22.8 million. Therefore, the direct comparison for all aspects of the development is £20.45 to £22.8 million. These figures have been available on the intranet since the presentation last Wednesday so that Members could see the full breakdown and explanation.

David Davies: I am grateful to the First Secretary for clarifying that the cost was not actually £12.4 million and that it was going to be £20 million all the time. Can he confirm that the targeted cost of £22.8 million is the final cost and that there are no other hidden costs of which we are unaware and that the cost will not rise any further?

The First Secretary: I hope that that is the case. Everybody who has any experience of building is aware that it is usual practice with projects of this type to build a contingency. Professional advice generally indicates a contingency figure of 15 per cent. We want to ensure that there is strict financial control over this project, therefore we will take that professional advice into account in setting the level of financial provision. There will only be a call against contingency with the express permission of the Finance Secretary. The committee of Members that was mentioned earlier, representing all four parties and the Presiding Officer, will monitor spending against costs carefully throughout the process. In my experience, one has to be careful about costs from the beginning. It is no use waiting until afterwards and doing things retrospectively. The project team understands that.

3:30 p.m.

There are still many details to be resolved as the design develops, as with any major building project. As I have said, there is something unusual and exciting in being involved in a project where you see the development and can take part in it. Often, with a major public building, nobody knows about it until the finalised design is unveiled with a fanfare of trumpets. We have a chance to influence this design and ensure that it is right.

The architects are keen on matters such as the design of the Chamber. They want a practical debate with those of us who have to work in it. We have already learnt lessons in this Chamber. For a temporary Chamber, it is not bad. It does the job. However, it does not create the positive and relaxed atmosphere for debate to which we all aspire. There are many models around the world; there is experience elsewhere. However, we have our experience to bring to bear, as we do with our experience in the Assembly Committees, to ensure that we get it right.

Taking Members’ views into account, proposals will consider a wide range of environmental performance concerns--another issue that figured heavily in the discussions--and the use of indigenous materials. I must add the caveat that we must be consistent with procurement legislation. However, the hope is that indigenous materials will be used in the building. That is clearly set out as an aspiration for the project team and is spelt out in the resolution.

I commend the design to the Assembly with these revised cost estimates. I am confident that, apart from the obvious advantages of having a modern purpose-built building from which to operate and engage the people that we serve, there are many other benefits that will more than outweigh the initial capital costs. Those important benefits include the prestige that Wales as a nation will gain from this landmark building representing us on the world stage--the Sydney Opera House factor if you will. It is interesting when people talk about buildings. Everyone celebrates the success of St. David’s Hall. I was involved in the original decision and was a member of the procurement team right the way through the design, and I remember the opposition and grumbling about that project. Now, everybody looks at that building and what it symbolises with pride rather than doubt.

Another benefit is the message that the new building will send to the world of commerce and industry, in Wales and outside. That message is that Wales is forward-looking, visionary and keen to embrace the challenges that the new millennium offers. Those who have doubts should consider the positive impact on Welsh business and commerce. There is much support for this project from business in Wales. It will also help the continued encouragement of plans to regenerate Cardiff and the surrounding region.

It is time to take a positive approach to this exciting development and we should set this above any party political considerations. It is a matter that involves and benefits the Assembly and the people of Wales. We must involve the public and capture their attention.

Alun Cairns: I am pleased about the First Secretary’s perceived positive comments from the business community and other sectors in Wales. However, do you accept the general public’s negative comments and scepticism about spending £23 million on one building project when our health service is in such desperate need of resources?

The First Secretary: I made the point a few moments ago that you need to get the balance right between investment in our public services and investment in things that drive the Welsh economy forward. We would not have a vibrant capital city in Wales had not the decision been taken to build St David’s Hall, for instance. Associated with that was the attempt to bring conferences and tourism to Cardiff. We persuaded Holiday Inn of Canada to build the first four star hotel in the city. If we had not pushed ahead with those matters, we would not have had all the other developments that followed. There would not have been any opportunity to promote the development of Cardiff Bay. It would have been difficult to promote tourism for the whole of Wales on the scale that I think is the ambition of everyone in this Chamber. The balance must be right.

I talked about the Sydney harbour factor a few moments ago. Wales is a small country and we have to punch above our weight on a world stage. We must get this Chamber right so that it is the right place to conduct our democracy and offer leadership to Wales. We must also use it as an opportunity to lead and help drive forward the Welsh economy. These matters are closely related. In my days in local government in Cardiff, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party worked together on those projects. It is sad that the Conservative Party seems to have drifted away from that drive to promote the economy.

There are three ways in which I propose that we should involve the public and capture their attention. First, information is now available on the internet which will be regularly updated. That ties in with other matters we have discussed--involving young people through Young Voice/Llais Ifanc, consulting with the public more generally as with 'A Better Wales’, and making ourselves more accessible through the use of information technology. Secondly, a public information road show, which the committee ruled last week should be presented in six locations covering the whole of Wales, and which the architects will attend. Thirdly, real-time development information should be provided through the internet when work starts on site so people can keep up to date with the way the building is progressing.

It has been important to spend time revising the proposals to achieve a close fit between the design and the Assembly’s requirements. I confess that I was a little impatient at one or two stages regarding the time it was taking to get this right. However, given that the design has come out so positively, I am now quite confident that we were right to take that time and deal properly with issues such as access for disabled people rather than with a quick fix.

Subject to your approval today, the detailed design and construction will commence quickly. We expect preliminary work to commence on site in August this year, with the main construction starting in November 2000. This should be completed in May 2002, with the building operational from August 2002. I hope that the whole Assembly will support the motion, so that we can make progress in delivering this excellent new building for the people of Wales.

Glyn Davies: I propose amendment 1. In the first clause, insert 'notes’ in place of 'welcomes’. Delete clauses 3, 4 and 5 and insert in their place

'agrees that the development should now be abandoned’.

It will come as no surprise to you, Llywydd, nor to any other Assembly Member, nor to the wider public, that the Welsh Conservative Party does not support the proposed new Assembly building. We believe that the large sum of money needed to finance this new building project, almost £23 million and rising, could be invested in other ways that would bring greater benefit to the people of Wales. During previous debates on this issue, the Welsh Conservative group has called for the investment to be made in a specific health care project. Today, I ask Assembly Members to ask themselves whether they would prefer to invest £23 million in a new Assembly building or in delivering health care to the people of Wales, whether in a specific project or simply in helping our health authorities cope with the increasing demands we put on them. I readily concede that when Nick Bourne asked me if I would lead for the Conservative group in this debate and when I was considering whether or not to table an amendment, I took some time to decide on my approach. On the one hand, the issue is straightforward in that we oppose, and always have opposed the project. However, if despite our opposition the project is to go ahead, we have views about the sort of building it should be, and I will refer to those views later. We also accept that as development work progresses there will come a time when the cost of abandoning the project will mean that our argument has been irretrievably lost. Significant sums have already been spent and are non-recoverable. Realistically, this debate is the Assembly’s last opportunity to abandon this project. I decided on my amendment after taking account of the intensity of opposition that permeates the Welsh Conservative Party and the scale of opposition that exists amongst the people of Wales.

3:40 p.m.

The Conservative Party’s opposition on continuing with the new Assembly building must not be interpreted as a negative attitude towards the Assembly itself. That is an important point. A more accurate interpretation is our determination to make this Assembly a success. Concern about how it is perceived by the people of Wales underpins our position. I have heard it said that one of the great ironies of devolution to Wales, is the manner in which the Welsh Conservative Party is committed to making this Assembly a success. Sometimes, those words come from a surprising source.

Another irony is that if the Labour administration had been prepared to act more independently on Millbank, and had not treated this Assembly as the Cardiff branch of London Labour’s headquarters and if it had focused on satisfying the people of Wales that the Assembly benefit them, there would have been much less antipathy towards a new building project.

We welcome the design changes that allow the disabled to enter the building through the front door like everyone else. We welcome design changes that facilitate easy engagement by the media and the public with our activities and we welcome a commitment to source Welsh materials wherever possible. However, like others, we are deeply concerned about cost.

The White Paper, 'A Voice for Wales’, referred to a cost of £12 million to £17 million. Sometime last summer, the figure grew from £17 million to £20 million. The latest estimate is almost £23 million. I am not sure what the First Secretary meant in his statement by 'a 15 per cent contingency’. We must consider that later. We can only guess at what the final figure will be.

It is no surprise to read comments by a non-Conservative Assembly Member that we are now saddled by a new building, the costs of which are spiralling out of control. We can only wonder what a free vote would produce. I will ask the First Secretary one small question on cost. We are told that a few extra yards were needed in addition to site 1E to accommodate the new project. That site was leased to the Assembly to a great deal of fanfare, for a peppercorn cost of £1. We were told that the extra yards had also been leased at a peppercorn cost. Therefore, what is the peppercorn cost of the extra yards, and when was it agreed? Was it just £1 or was it more? I would be pleased if it was only £1.

To address the heart of my amendment. Let us consider some of the concerns expressed by Assembly Members over recent weeks. We have all been concerned about the difficulties facing the NHS: cancelled operations, rising waiting lists. We have all been concerned about farmers facing ruin and driven to suicide, young farmers in particular. Thousands of elderly and vulnerable people throughout Wales are wondering how they will pay the huge increases in this year’s council tax. What does the Assembly do? It decides to spend almost £23 million on a new building project that almost nobody in Wales wants. What do you think the people of Wales will think of us? What do you think it will do for the standing of the people of Wales?

I do not condemn those Members who disagree with me and who are in favour of what they consider a landmark project. I am willing to accept that they genuinely believe that our new democracy justifies a grand new building and that almost £23 million is an acceptable amount of money to spend on enhancing our democratic process. I do not condemn them or their views, but the Welsh Conservative Party disagrees with them.

Michael German: I propose amendment 2. At the end of the motion add:

reaffirms the need for openness and transparency on the matter of the cost of the new building.

I am moved to respond to Glyn Davies in some way, because, in a sense, if we were starting on this journey now, we would not have chosen to start from here. Many of us would have chosen to start elsewhere and would have been located elsewhere. However, we are here and we must face the reality that we must stay here. The costs to move elsewhere are too high. The Welsh Conservative Party may wish to wake up to the fact that we are in Cardiff Bay and cannot move.

New buildings are not popular. No one would expect them to be. When new buildings are in the planning stage they are even less popular than when they are being built. I ask you all to reflect on public feeling towards the national millennium stadium in Cardiff. It received enormous criticism from the public all the way through--some of which was probably justified--yet you would not find many people in Wales criticising it now, especially as it will be the venue for the Welsh team to win the six nations championship. If we want a symbol for our country and a flagship building that will make a statement about Wales, we must make a statement that is better than this building. Many people just drive past the building and do not even know where it is. This week I had to direct somebody who wanted to know whether it was near Eversheds solicitors’ office.

I must also mention the pressures on space in this building, which obviously the Welsh Conservative Party and Glyn Davies have forgotten. Glyn Davies tried to get into a Liberal Democrat group meeting the other day, simply because they were short of space for a Conservative group meeting. There is enormous pressure on space in this building. You cannot find space for meetings.

We all know about Helen Mary and her pillar. If you want a dignified Chamber, then it must be better than an old computer room. The problem with this Chamber is that unless you stand in the front, you do not address anybody except the Presiding Officer. I know that he is interested in listening to every single word, but the audience that is being addressed is the other side of you. If you turn around to face the audience, the audio recording system cannot pick up your voice and you are lost to the world and to the official record.

However, there are problems in the design of the new building that need to be overcome. I refer to two of them. I share the concerns, expressed by many, about glass buildings and walls. If you have seen the Chep Lap Kok scheme in Hong Kong, the largest airport scheme in the world, you will know that the glass walls there are suffering. Luton Airport suffers the same problem. I want absolute assurance that the glass procedures that we intend to put in this new building will be substantial and withstand the risk of damage.

I also want to mention flat roofs. The ancient Greeks had a theory that flat roofs leak and we still have not learnt that lesson. I want to be sure that there will be no leakage from the roof structure.

David Davies: On the glass roof, I have still not received answers to my questions on the seagull population of Cardiff Bay and the three window cleaners that are employed around the clock to clean the glass building of St David’s Hotel and Spa. I wonder if he will broach that subject as well?

Michael German: It may have escaped your notice, but the roof will not be glass. It will be made of another property, which will be skinned with, we hope, Welsh timbers. My point is that it is flat. Of course, the cleaning of the building is an issue. I am sure that David will spend many hours dealing with that and I hope that we can find him a potted plant to commemorate the project. The Greeks learnt the lesson about flat roofs, but we have not.

However, my amendment today concerns transparency of funding. It is essential that what we say is what we mean. If this is a project in which we believe, and in which we expect the people of Wales to believe, we must ensure that our figures are accurate. I am afraid that there are elements in what we are considering that do not follow this through. Many of you would be forgiven for thinking that the figure for the new building was £12.5 million. It does not pay to disguise your eventual financial commitments because they have a habit of catching up with you in the end.

3:50 p.m.

The figures that we were given on 19 January suggested that the actual original figure was not £12.5 million, but was just under £14 million. That is when you include the corrections to the estimate that were left out and reported, apparently, in March 1999. I would not mind about that if we had been given those figures, but until last Christmas we were still circulating information stating that the estimated cost of the building was £12.5 million when we knew that there were such items as lanterns, cowls, structural fins and generators whose cost had been underestimated or omitted from the Richard Rogers Partnership’s original estimate. Those costs were known in March and were obviously additional to the £12.5 million. We should have included those figures all along and should not have continued to quote £12.5 million. We are now told that the estimate should have been £20.45 million, with everything taken into account. We should have had that figure from the beginning.

Dafydd Wigley’s question earlier is valid. We are told that there will be a £1.6 million addition to the cost. The major additions that I can see are to provide disabled access. Is that £1.6 million additional cost really attributable to the provision of disabled access? If not, to what else is it attributable? If it is attributable to design changes and we are satisfied that they provide value for money, I am sure that the Assembly would welcome that.

In conclusion, we have been told that the financial provision stands up because the figures can be moved around. However, those figures are not the same as the headline figure that we have given to the people of Wales, and I regret that. We have to be clear and honest. More than that, we must be honest with ourselves. If we want a flagship project for Wales, we must stand up and speak about it rather than complain about the building and then move into it to sit comfortably behind potted plants.

Helen Mary Jones: I propose amendment 3. Add to the end of the motion:

Puts measures in place to ensure that the work be carried out to the highest environmental standards, taking into account local conditions.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate although I am not an architectural expert. I imagine that my group has asked me to speak because I am probably the person who has complained most about the current Chamber. It certainly is good to be here at the lectern out from behind that pillar. Some of my colleagues may feel that I am blessed in being placed behind it, as I cannot see any Liberal Democrats or Conservative Members, but it does make it hard to engage in debate.

Assembly Members rose--

I will take an intervention, but one at a time. I am not alone in facing the pillar problem. Huw Lewis has the same difficulty, but has not complained about it as much. That may be because Huw is a more tolerant and patient human being than I or, on the other hand, it may be that he gets less hassle from his constituents than I do for allegedly not being in the Chamber when I am.

As Mike German has outlined, this Chamber poses serious difficulties in terms of engaging in debate and, particularly, in inclusive debate. Much more serious is the problem of public access to our debates in the Chamber and, particularly, Committee rooms. We welcome the aspects of the design that will deal with that.

We also welcome the changes that have been made to the building design with regard to disabled access, though we must regret that we got it so badly wrong initially. Disabled groups have told us and the Government that they are pleased with the changes to the external access, especially the getting rid of those monolithic steps. The symbolic importance, as well as the practical importance of that should be stressed and so too should the importance of placing all public areas on one level to ensure easy access. However, on this issue, the devil is in the detail. I seek assurances today that, for example, full wheelchair access will be available to areas other than the public ones. We must take into account the need of future possible disabled Members and members of staff. We must not only consider people with mobility impairment. We must consider deaf people, people with visual impairment and so forth.

It is vital that we learn from the mistakes that we have already made, particularly the mistakes that were made in the national stadium. Disabled groups made recommendations at an early stage. Those recommendations were ignored and mistakes were made which were costly to rectify at a later stage. In that context, I welcome the First Secretary’s categorical assurance that disabled groups will be consulted throughout the process. I ask him and the Cabinet to add to that assurance that disabled people will not only be consulted but that their opinions will be acted upon.

Turning to amendment 3, this new building provides us with an opportunity to set an example, by insisting on the highest environmental standards in terms of materials and future energy use. I have personal concerns in this context about the amount of glass that will be used. Colleagues would expect this, given what I think about glass ceilings in other contexts. I am particularly concerned, however, about the durability problems. I do not wish to open a technical discussion in this Chamber. I would dread that and be absolutely terrified. However, I seek the Government’s assurance that in supporting our amendment, environmental considerations will be central to the future development of the building and contracts will reflect the need to ensure that the glass that we use is safe and durable. Contractors should face penalty clauses if we face problems later on.

This is an opportunity for us to comply with our responsibilities--set in the Government of Wales Act 1998--towards sustainable development. I trust also that we will bear in mind the local environmental conditions, particularly in relation to the outside design of the building. I am thinking in particular of how exposed and windy the site is. This could cause problems for elderly visitors, disabled visitors and families with children.

The rise in the estimated cost is a real concern. However, it is pretty rich for the Conservatives in Wales to oppose the building of a decent home for our Assembly when their colleagues in Westminster have wholeheartedly supported the spending of £380 million pounds over the last five years in upgrading the House of Commons. That includes, £25,000 for upgrading the smoking room. I do not wish to mark you with what your colleagues do on the other side of Offa’s Dyke, but it should be considered in the context of your remarks--

Glyn Davies: This is not allowed, Presiding Officer. This is not Westminster.

Helen Mary Jones: Is that an intervention Glyn, or are you just chatting?

Glyn Davies: I am chatting.

The Presiding Officer: Order. Despite the fact that Helen Mary Jones has invited interventions and speeches, I would be grateful if they were made through the Presiding Officer.

Helen Mary Jones: Thank you. It would certainly make my life easier. We seek assurance from the Government today--while fully taking into account the points that have been made about commercial confidentiality--that, when the contracts are let, the expected costs and timescales will be tightly specified. The contracts should include strong penalty clauses if those costs are exceeded or if the timescales are allowed to slip.

We seek assurance that the Assembly, in letting the contract, will only use companies that have fair employment policies and will seek, where possible, to use companies that will provide job opportunities for local people. I raise this to ensure that we as an Assembly meet our statutory equality obligations and, more seriously, because I understand that one company with which we may be negotiating is currently facing a serious race discrimination case. We would not want to be involved with a company of that nature if it was found guilty and we would not want to be responsible for that kind of conduct towards employees.

In the context of the above, we invite the Cabinet to assure us--and I welcome what Alun Michael has already said--that the whole Assembly will receive regular reports about the building’s progress.

Plaid Cymru welcomes the new building. We must have a practical, suitable and dignified home for our Assembly. The public must have full access to see and hear the deliberations. That is not available at present. I must admit that I do not wish to spend the next four years hiding behind the pillar. However, there are more important issues than that. Most of all, we must have a building that can be a symbol of our nationhood, a building of which the people of Wales can be proud, in 2002, in 20 years’ time and in 100 years’ time.

4:00 p.m.

Nick Bourne: It was interesting to hear Mike German speak with a passion on this subject for which the Liberal Democrats are not renowned.

We have to face people throughout Wales. It is not only the Welsh Conservatives who wish to consider the cost of this new building. If we say that £20 million is fine, that £23 million is fine, where does it stop? Is £30 million fine? We hear that figure bandied about. At what stage do we say that this money is better spent on the health service, on farmers, on minimising the council tax increases that are bearing down so heavily on people throughout Wales?

This is not about the institution. Let us not sell ourselves short. Somebody criticised the quality of debate here. We have had good debates, and when we have had a good topic, we have had extremely decent debates--that is due more to the topics than the nature of this Chamber. Committees work well here. The only room in this building that is criticised--with some justification--is this Chamber. As Assembly Members, should we not be discussing earning ourselves a new Chamber? Let us have some successes here for the people of Wales and revisit this decision. We only have a limited pot of money--the Barnett block--to spend on Wales. The new building must be paid for from somewhere else and it is now exceeding the amount that we were told was the ceiling in 'A Voice for Wales’.

The figure is creeping upwards. It is extraordinary that it is said that this is in order to ensure proper disabled access. Does that mean that that original figure was put forward on the basis that there would not be proper disabled access? There must be proper access for everybody on an equal footing. I feel strongly that we must look the people of Wales in the eye and tell them that we have earned this new building, this new symbol for Wales. In the meantime, we are able to operate here effectively and efficiently.

I have written to Alun Michael as First Secretary because I feel strongly about this subject. It has nothing to do with the institution--I am sure that everybody here is committed to making it work. We would not attend Committees and Plenary sessions and work as we do were that not the case. Let us not bandy words and throw accusations around about that. This is a question of whether we spend this money out of valuable resources. We should not be doing this with the figure inevitably climbing ever higher. I would urge that there is support for amendment 1 and that there is at least a postponement of the decision until we can afford this building, because we cannot at the moment.

Until that time, I regret that we will not be able to participate in discussions about the building because we feel strongly about whether or not we should have a new building at this stage. That is nothing to do with the institution, which is here, and we will of course do everything that we can to make it a success. This debate is part of that process, a genuine issue as to how resources should properly be spent.

Cynog Dafis: I am tempted to speak in English to see whether great laughter would echo through the room. I will withstand the temptation.

I have two points--Helen Mary has already mentioned one of them. First, the Tories’ double standards on this matter. What questions have they asked on expenditure on the Palace of Westminster? If they wish to protest about the expenditure on the Assembly building, are they willing to protest about the expenditure on Westminster? For example, the expenditure on Portcullis House, over five years, is £191.4 million. The cost of new works and renovation, apart from that figure over the same period, is £153.6 million. A total of £345 million.

I compare this to the £85 million for which we ask the Treasury for Objective 1 next year--it is more than three times as much. That is the sort of comparison that needs to be made.

Maintenance costs are additional to this, namely £58 million. The cost of modernising the House of Commons kitchens is £8.7 million over three years. Next year renovations would include:

'Refurbishment of Norman Shaw South: £2 million
Furniture and Soft Furnishings Replacement: £174,000
Redecoration of the Smoking Room: £25,000
Refurbishment of the Chess Room: £45,000
Restoration of Internal Stone Reveals, Oak and Brass: £80,00
Stone Cleaning of a Picture Corridor at Central Lobby: £85,000’.

I will not say much about such matters as:

'Replacement of Encaustic tiles, Restoration of the Medals Corridor’.

All these things are worth thousands of pounds. Nobody counts the pennies or the pounds in Westminster. A comparison between these costs and the cost of the Assembly building is nothing less than grotesque. Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on this building in London, and I have not heard even a murmur from the Tories or Glyn Davies about this. I could make other comparisons--what about the Millennium Centre and the national stadium? Large sums of public money are involved in these.

Secondly, I ask Glyn Davies whether he believes that Wales deserves a parliament house? Nick Bourne said that we need to work to demonstrate that we deserve a better room than this. What about the nation? Does it not deserve a beautiful and dignified parliament house? If Glyn Davies does not believe that it does, then his boast that he is a patriotic and proud Welshman is completely empty. A nation that does not desire a real parliament house does not deserve to be a nation. It does not deserve to be described as a country.

If Glyn Davies claims that Crickhowell House will make do as a national parliament house, there is something wrong with his architectural taste. Merely accepting this pile of red bricks would make us a laughing stock in the eyes of foreign visitors, politicians, diplomats, business people, industrialists, and so on. I am disappointed in Glyn on this matter. I think quite a lot of him--he represents the best type of Tory. He is similar to many of my family in Brecknockshire and Radnorshire.

Glyn and his party are playing a cheap, populist game. He will gain a modicum of popularity in the short term, but when the new building is up and thousands flocking to see it and taking pride in it--from Wales and from every corner of the world--the Tories will pay the price for their lack of vision and their small-mindedness.

Glyn Davies: Point of order. I am pleased that Cynog is so well bred. Is it proper for a Member to speak at such length about an issue that does not have any bearing on this Chamber, which is what Cynog Dafis did in the first part of that speech?

The Presiding Officer: I am grateful for that point of order, because I am exercised by the question of debating issues in this Chamber that are not relevant to our activities. We are here to debate, in the words of the Government of Wales Act 'matters affecting Wales’. We are not involved in by-elections to the United Kingdom parliament or general elections to the United Kingdom parliament. However, I took the view that Cynog Dafis was developing a comparison of relative public expenditure on central, as opposed to devolved, institutions in the United Kingdom, and therefore it was a matter affecting Wales. However, I will reflect on this.

4:10 p.m.

Glyn Davies: Please do not, I want to use it in future.

Mick Bates: There are certain decisions that always require courage. I endorse Cynog’s comments about the populist view taken by some Members. I will come to the issues that should be addressed in a moment. However, I emphasise the importance of a party making a decision and taking their seats in that new Chamber and as Cynog says, taking visitors around. You should reflect on your views today and ensure that you are making a decision together.

David Davies: Does Mick Bates think that groups like Plaid Cymru, which do not believe in the sovereignty of Westminster, should be entitled to sit there? I believe that if they are elected, they have a right to be there.

Mick Bates: You should be asking a member of Plaid Cymru.

David Davies: I am asking you.

Mick Bates: Do you not have the courage to ask them?

The Presiding Officer: Order. I know there is great interest in our internal affairs but the sovereignty of Westminster, or anywhere else, is not relevant to this debate.

Mick Bates: The building offers us a great opportunity, particularly to use Welsh building material. I endorse the last clause in the motion. Every effort must be made to ensure that the social and economic value of sourcing material in Wales is fully understood. The effect on our business community will be great. What could be better than to use oak from Montgomery, slate from Gwynedd and steel from Llanwern? The building should also be a statement on a future renewable energy industry in Wales. Let us see a wind turbine in the bay, supplying electricity, solar cells and, perhaps, even a red dragon made of photovoltaic cells. We have an opportunity to make this building a model for this century. Solar power is a clean, inexhaustible source of energy. It is this century’s equivalent of a microchip and I would like us to have the courage to make this building an example for the renewable energy industry in Wales.

Alun Cairns: To clarify the situation, Mick, the initial figure was nearer £10 million; it escalated to around £15 million. It then increased to £20 million and is now up to £23 million. You are presenting preposterous, impractical and stupid ideas that would have no bearing on the building and would escalate the cost even further. I suspect that we would not have much change from £100 million if you continue.

Mick Bates: As someone who considers himself to be a bit of an economist, I tell you that renewable energy pays for itself. That is the principle of this building. The necessary investment will be returned in that way. Part of our responsibility is to inspire a better future and this building could do that for a renewable energy industry in Wales, if it was built out of local materials, was energy efficient and powered by renewable sources.

There is a problem with the perception that the people of Wales will have of the building and we must therefore find a creative way to involve people around Wales. Identity is an issue. Consideration should be given to including a large piece of artwork in the building, constructed by people from all over Wales.

Alun Cairns: Shall we start an auction? [Laughter.]

Jenny Randerson: Do you share the Conservative view that art in Wales is a joke?

Mick Bates: It is obvious from their reaction to the voluntary sector, renewable energy and art in Wales that they consider most things a joke and only take the populist stance.

To conclude, I wrote to Tom Middlehurst about such a project and look forward to a positive response. My party and I have the courage to support the new building project and let us hope the nation does too.

Christine Chapman: Unlike Glyn Davies, I welcome the revised plans for the new Assembly building. I look forward to the completion of this project in the shortest possible timescale. I agree with Mick Bates that it took a courageous decision but it is the right one. Since May, we have had many discussions, questions and spurious supplementaries to oral questions about the new building and its proposed cost. Today we have the information in front of us and we must realise that the decision to build the new Assembly building, a symbol of the new politics and the new beginning in Wales, was one that was taken with good reason.

In a minority party debate in June 1999, if memory serves me, Nick Bourne spoke about the symbolism of a new building and referred to several grand council buildings in town centres. He also referred to Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council, which I found curious at the time. The location of this council building has been criticised as inaccessible by many of my constituents. In addition, it is not always easy to accommodate many of the public who want to observe the proceedings. An inaccessible building is not democracy in action. It is not what we should aim for.

Nick Bourne: The reference to Rhondda Cynon Taff and other local authorities was not an endorsement of the access their buildings provide for disabled people or others. It was to attack the cost of that particular building. That is the point that we come back to in this debate. Could Christine Chapman--taking out some of the passion that Members understandably feel--give an indication of where she thinks that this overshoot on the budget should come from? Will it come from cuts in the hospital services or education? From which budget will you pay for it? It must come out of the existing Barnett block, therefore, it must come from somewhere.

Christine Chapman: I thank Nick Bourne for, at least, agreeing that access to a public building is an important issue. I will refer to some of the other points later. I welcomed Nick Bourne’s speech last year when he said that his Conservative group were committed to making the Assembly work. I was pleased about that. That sentiment was repeated this week in an article in The House Magazine by his colleague Glyn Davies. He said that the Assembly is here to stay and that all 60 Assembly Members have a responsibility to ensure that it functions for the betterment of Wales. I hope that we are all committed to making the Assembly work: that is why we are here. The last message that we want to send to the public is that we concentrate on trivial matters as we have done recently when we have had questions about potted plants and, today, seagulls.

Alun Cairns: I am concerned about the point you made about trivial matters. Do you consider the sum of £23 million to be trivial?

Christine Chapman: I was referring to the question about potted plants. I had many phone calls from constituents who felt that that brought the Assembly into disrepute.

David Davies rose--

The Presiding Officer: Will you give way to David Davies?

Christine Chapman: I will move on. You have had your day, David. Questions about potted plants only make the Assembly a laughing stock.

David Davies: The reason I asked that question about the potted plant was because the answer to a similar question had shown that somebody had spent £32,000 on curtains that do not even close. Do you consider that spending £32,000 on curtains that will not close, instead of on teachers’ salaries, flu jabs, school textbooks and other items was a useful way to spend money?

Christine Chapman: Every budget decision is important. We must move on and look at the real priorities of the Assembly. As far as the building is concerned, we have set out our stall. We have the guidance issued by the National Assembly Advisory Group. We want the Assembly to be as open, accountable and--particularly--accessible to the public as possible. I do not believe that our present building satisfies these requirements, and I know that many of you agree with me.

4:20 p.m.

We have a public gallery that has seats for fewer people than there are Members. That does not allow us the greatest degree of openness. Let us not forget that we are investing for the future in Wales, and the new building is part of that investment. The Conservative group will come out with the old line that the money should be used for hospitals and education. I reiterate what my colleagues Huw Lewis and Ron Davies said last year. It is hard to be lectured about spending money on hospitals and schools by a party that was in power in Wales for the best part of two decades. I must have missed Nick Bourne’s journey to Damascus. When his party was last in power it did as much as it possibly could to run down and under-fund all of the institutions on which it now claims to approve spending money. There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in Glyn Davies’s amendment.

Jonathan Morgan: I find that incredible and almost misguided. If you were to examine the local education authority budgets managed by your own party, for example in Cardiff County Council, you would see that it spends £500 per secondary pupil on administrating the LEA budget. That is 20 per cent of the allocation. You should look to your own party to see where it spends money. Perhaps you should write to the local authorities telling them to rein their expenditure back so that you can find some money to build this monstrosity.

Christine Chapman: I will discuss this with Jonathan later on. I find it repugnant to call the new Assembly building a monstrosity. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer: Order. I have a point of order from Carwyn Jones.

Carwyn Jones: Llywydd, I find it extremely disrespectful to this institution and to you as Llywydd that when Members of the Conservative group stand up to speak they turn their backs on you and speak directly to the Member they wish to address. That is wrong. They should speak to the Chair.

The Presiding Officer: If we had a new Chamber in the round, that problem might not arise.

Jenny Randerson: Point of order. I have put up with this all afternoon. We are all prone to making the odd comment during speeches. However, the level of noise from the Conservative gentlemen to my right has been great during speeches--not just during this debate but throughout this afternoon. Clearly, Members have the right to make interventions, but these are not interventions. The level of noise has made it impossible for me to hear much of what has been said.

The Presiding Officer: I am grateful to you for drawing that to my attention. It concerns me that there seems to be more excitement when we debate our own internal matters than when we debate policy.

Christine Chapman: I thank Jenny for that and agree heartily with her comments. I will not take any more interventions as I know that many more Members want to speak on this.

This talk about the health service and education clouds the issue. We have promised to be open, accountable and wholly democratic. The new building will contribute greatly to that. The current building functions well up to a point, but it is not good enough. We want our actions to be transparent to as many people as possible. That is at the heart of devolution, and this building does not serve devolution well.

We are not seeking a new building merely to feather our own nests. This is not about current Assembly Members wanting plush new accommodation, because, in the great scheme of things, we are only passing through. We need a chamber that promotes the best possible debate. It is simply not good enough that people like Huw and Helen Mary are obscured behind pillars in this Chamber due to a design defect.

Also, we do not have the facilities here to allow the educational aspect of the Assembly to be fully utilised. Groups of children are unable to come to this Chamber and observe democracy in action easily. They are looking at our backs, cramped into a space at the back of this Chamber and there is no space for them to do any written work or to see what is going on. We want to look out from the Assembly and inspire the people of Wales and, more importantly, the children of Wales who will occupy our seats in the future. We want to engage them in the Assembly process. Several colleagues, including Jonathan, have made this point many times.

The new design and the improvements to the plans to incorporate changes requested by Assembly Members show that the new building will be fully accessible, open to all members of society and will allow greater pubic scrutiny of Committee proceedings. Those are plus points.

Carwyn Jones: What happened a minute ago in this Chamber illustrates its shortcomings. When I stand up to speak, the first thing that the public see is my back. That applies to all Members. The public do not see their politicians’ faces, they see their backs. The first thing that you do to visitors to this Chamber is turn your back on them. You can try to rectify that, as Jonathan did, by turning around and talking to the person behind you. However, there are two drawbacks to that. First, the camera sees your back and, secondly, the microphone cannot pick up your voice. People come to this gallery and cannot hear what is going on. They have to use the headphones all the time to hear what is being said. Often, they cannot hear what some Conservative speakers are saying, thankfully.

The new building will cost £23 million. Cynog drew comparisons with Westminster. People say that our new building will be a politician’s palace but, in Westminster, over £300 million was spent on precisely that. It was not a building to which the public would have access or which people off the street could visit. Although this is an office building for us in terms of working space, people can visit it. It is open to all the people of Wales, unlike Westminster.

We are not talking about a grandiose building where we are about to put marble in the toilets, granite in the roof and so on. We do not want to spend money unnecessarily. We want a functional building that allows access for all, and which at the same time looks architecturally attractive. For once, we will not have a square block. The new building will bring people into this area and illustrate what our nation is about.

If everybody believed that we should not look at new buildings such as this and at the architecturally interesting, we would never have had Cathays Park. The people who built it would have left it be. We probably would have had a shopping centre there by now--a tremendous addition to architecture. We referred to the fact that we are passing through. Christine reminded us only too sharply of our mortality here. I thought immortality came with election; unfortunately, we all have to pass on. We must ask ourselves this: when we have left this place, what legacy will we have left the people of Wales? Do we leave this underground car park-like Chamber, an ex-computer room, or a building that is worthy of the new self-confident Wales? We should ask that question and that is why we should all vote for this new building as an illustration of what the new Wales is all about.

Alison Halford: I am being Rod Richards for the afternoon, speaking from his seat because my equipment has failed. We need a new building. That has already been said. It will be a magnificent statement about Wales coming of age and looking after itself. However, the public will accept it more if we are absolutely honest and open. I do not suggest that the First Secretary has not been that. However, why does it seem that so little attention was paid to the need for disability access at the original stage? I am confused about that. A year ago, a Labour women’s forum flagged that up and wrote a letter to somebody in power suggesting that it was right and proper that we should have disabled access and crèches. As not much care was taken at the original stage, I would like assurance that we will not have to pay more to include these facilities later.

4:30 p.m.

I accept that I do not have the razor sharp memory of colleagues on the front benches. However, unless I am mistaken, during our discussion in the July meeting, I recall us saying that, as we devolved and took on more responsibility--as we would have to and are already doing to some extent--we should consider the need for more seats for Assembly Members. I would like assurance that this issue will be considered, because we do not want to ask the taxpayer--who is, sadly, having fun using this great concept as a political football--to pay again. In the future, we might need more Assembly Members to serve the public in the way that it deserves: the best, most efficient way.

Richard Edwards: I will be brief. I warmly welcome the design changes to the new Assembly building and the fact that they are in response to the concerns of Assembly Members about accessibility and openness. These concerns were expressed in presentations and in the Committee on Equality of Opportunity. They are a vindication for the democratising process that devolution represents. Under the old regime, it is unlikely that the design faults of a building of this calibre would be challenged as they are now. I welcome the change to the external space at the front of the building, so that all areas are accessible at one level and, therefore, equally accessible to disabled people.

The extra cost represents value for money when it means that the seat of Government in Wales will be housed in a wholly accessible public building that embodies and symbolises the overriding concept of inclusivity that most of us strive to promote and integrate into our political culture. I say 'most of us’ because if the Tories--sorry, the Welsh Conservatives--are so exercised about cost, they should not ask damn silly questions about potted plants.

In Pembrokeshire, which is in Wales, so it is relevant--

David Davies: Point of Order. Does the Llywydd feel that 'damn silly’ is an acceptable form of words to use when referring to the actions of a fellow Member?

The Presiding Officer: As I have previously indicated, I leave it to the discretion and self-discipline of Members to decide on their use of words in context. I remind Members of the Protocol on Conduct in the Chamber that we have adopted. In other words, we should always be courteous. Perhaps Richard would like to reflect whether 'damn silly’ is discourteous.

Richard Edwards: I hope I am a courteous person but, as I said, that was a damn silly question about potted plants.

In Pembrokeshire, there is a brand new county hall that did not cost much less than the cost of the new Assembly building. That is just one unitary authority. The Conservatives in Pembrokeshire--those who call themselves Conservatives as well as those who choose to misrepresent themselves as independents--enthusiastically support the new county hall.

I welcome the changes and the continuing involvement of Disability Wales in the project and I look forward to completion of the brand new building in August 2002.

Lorraine Barrett: I will not remind Glyn Davies of Alun Cairns’s comments to Mick Bates earlier, when he accused him of saying stupid things and asking stupid questions. Everyone has got a bit hot under the collar today, particularly on that side of the Chamber.

Several Members have made excellent contributions in welcoming the new building, so I will not take up time by repeating those points. I want to concentrate on a small but important issue. I welcome the fact that the First Secretary has ensured, in his discussions with the project team, that the Merchant Seaman’s Memorial can stay in its original place. There was much concern and upset among the Merchant Seaman’s Association when the original design indicated that the memorial might have to be moved. Mr Bill Henke, in particular, made representations to me and the First Secretary, and I know that he, the members of the Merchant Seaman’s Association and their families would want me to pass on their sincere thanks to Alun Michael for ensuring that the memorial that they worked so hard to get placed in the bay, overlooking the sea where so many of them worked for all those years, can now stay where it is.

John Griffiths: I add my voice to those that have highlighted the Conservatives’ hypocrisy on these matters and I reinforce that message with a few facts. The point repeatedly made about the Thatcher Governments, that they knew the price of everything but the value of nothing, certainly applies to the Assembly Conservatives in this debate. All we have heard is cheap posturing and political point scoring, which is a most unedifying spectacle to witness. It is time that they reflected on their attitude.

People have said that the new building will be symbolic of the new Wales and will send powerful messages to the world. That is absolutely right. They will be messages about a new self-confidence, a new, young Wales with international standing and will have obvious economic, tourism, social and cultural benefits. It is a great shame that not everybody here can accept and appreciate that. The Conservatives should rise above the cheap opportunities for populist rhetoric which they have indulged in today, and engage in a serious debate about what should be considered to be serious issues.

I add a couple of points to what Cynog very effectively said, by way of comparison with Westminster. The last Conservative Government initiated a new British Embassy building in Moscow at a cost of £81 million, and we all remember that John Redwood tried to send £100 million back to the Treasury. The Conservatives would like to forget that, but it will take an awful long time for the people of Wales to let them forget it.

Glyn Davies: Has John Griffiths discussed this issue of John Redwood sending money back with the Finance Secretary? He needs to be accurate when he makes a statement like that in this Chamber.

John Griffiths: I appreciate the need for accuracy, which is why I said 'tried to send £100 million back to the Treasury’. That is my understanding of the situation. It was widely reported at the time and I did not hear it challenged by John Redwood. In the Assembly, the Conservatives attempt to portray themselves as custodians of the public purse while continuing to waste a great deal of public money by asking ridiculous questions. I reinforce the points made by a few AMs already on this. The Conservatives seem to have lost the plot. They tabled 88 written questions in one day costing the taxpayer around £10,000. By the middle of December, the cost of answering Conservative questions had reached £150,000. No doubt it has moved on substantially since then. We have had examples of ridiculous questions, such as the potty question that David asked about the potted plant.

David Davies: I make three simple points. First, as I ascertained when I spoke to Edwina Hart about the cost of questions, it is not possible to determine how much individual questions cost and that particular one would not have cost much money. Secondly, we have asked a lot of questions because we believe that as an opposition we should put the Executive under scrutiny. We are doing our job. Thirdly, we hardly see any questions from the Labour Members, because they do not want to scrutinise their Executive; they are too controlled by the whips. I would far rather ask questions about potted plants than ask planted questions.

4:40 p.m.

John Griffiths: It is quality, not quantity, that counts, David. You should appreciate that. This is an important issue. We all recognise that Assembly Members must ask questions. That is part of their task in fulfilling their democratic role, but they must do so responsibly, and that is what the Conservatives fail to do. Much of the information that you have garnered from asking questions is readily available via the Library, for example. Glyn Davies has said that being an Assembly Member is not a full-time job; perhaps you could give him some sort of research duty? He could obtain that information for you and save the taxpayers money.

Glyn Davies: Assembly Members should not say things that are untrue in this Chamber. I most certainly did not say that, and what is more, I explained what I said in the Chamber, so the speaker knows it is not true. It demeans this Chamber when people say things that they know to be untrue.

John Griffiths: I did not say anything that I know to be untrue, Glyn. My recollection is that you considered an Assembly Member’s role not to be a full-time one. That is my understanding of what you said. If I did not think that was the case, I would not have said it. I reinforce the fact that I consider it sheer nauseating hypocrisy that the Conservatives constantly set themselves up as guardians of the public purse and yet they continue to squander public money by asking unnecessary questions.

Alun Pugh: I bring a north Wales perspective to this debate. There is a widely held perception among many people in the north that the Assembly is not for them. There is a perception that this is a Cardiff institution dominated by south Walian Assembly Members. I do not ask for a showpiece £20 million building in the north, nor do I ask for an alternative debating chamber--although it would be nice if we could have a Plenary session in the north--but we need a modest, physical, public presence for the Assembly somewhere in north Wales. It would be an information point and a place where members of the public could use video-conferencing to contact their Assembly Members. It could be a place where Committees rather than Plenary meet; it is important that Subject Committees do not always meet in this building. It could be a place where Members could make contributions from north Wales. If we were imaginative in the use of information and communications technology, it could even be a place from which Members vote.

Finally, I will make some points about the new Assembly building. The new building will have an expanded public gallery. I welcome that. However, most people will see the Assembly through the medium of television. The camera angles for television are all wrong in this Chamber. They are even worse for Committee meetings. I suggest that early on in the detailed design stage considerable attention be paid to designing camera angles, rather than simply bolting cameras onto the ceilings.

Alun Cairns: I did not plan to speak in this debate. However, because of the way the debate has been conducted, and because of the attacks made against the Conservative Party, I feel it is incumbent upon me to try to correct what has been said in the interests of democracy--and as Glyn Davies has just reminded me--in the interests of truth.

Last May, we accepted that an enormous amount of responsibility has been placed on us by devolution. We have been allocated a block grant of £8 billion to spend to the best effect in Wales. Many of us were elected on manifestos of reducing waiting lists, reducing class sizes, creating a more efficient health service and a prosperous economy. Therefore, I ask every member in the Chamber whether spending £23 million on a purpose-built palace in the car park next door is an effective use of resources. When you receive letters from constituents saying that the waiting list for their heart operation has been extended or that the operation has been cancelled, when you consider the recent flu virus that caused enormous pressures on the health service and when you receive letters from parents about class sizes getting bigger, ask yourself whether the expenditure of £23 million is effective use of our resources.

On one hand, John Griffiths accused my colleague of believing that being an Assembly Member is not a full-time job. That is a total misrepresentation of what Glyn is reported in the press to have said. On the other hand, John Griffiths highlighted the fact that a colleague of mine tabled 88 questions in one day. If that is not a full-time job, I do not know what is. There is no coherence in the argument. We have been accused today of being hypocritical and populist. Is it not hypocritical to spend £23 million when we have rising waiting lists? Is it not hypocritical to spend £23 million on a fishbowl--as the new building has been described by many journalists--when we have rising class sizes?

Helen Mary Jones: Talking of hypocrisy and double standards, Alun, I invite you to take this opportunity to dissociate yourself from your colleagues in Westminster and their enthusiastic support for the ludicrously extravagant spending that Cynog has outlined for us this afternoon. None of you have done that yet. Gentlemen, you cannot have it both ways.

Alun Cairns: I said at the beginning of this speech that we accepted our responsibility to the devolution process as Assembly Members. The Welsh Conservative Party concerns itself with decisions for which it has a mandate in this Chamber, not for things elsewhere. This debate must be about the £23 million that has already been spent on the car park next door even before a brick has been laid or a pane of glass has been fitted. The figure is £23 million now and I would be surprised if we get change from £40 million or £50 million at the end of the project.

John Griffiths made a point about political point scoring and our populist approach. If that is the case, it indicates that the views of the public are firmly behind our argument. If we took a poll outside or asked members of the public who are sitting in the public gallery whether we should spend £23 million on the new building in the car park or on the health service, I am confident that they would support our view. We are debating legroom and additional space. However, this is about spending £23 million on a new building. It is not an advert for a Renault Espace.

I was glad that Glyn Davies raised the question about the alleged handing back of money to Westminster by the former Secretary of State. That matter has been cleared up. Those accusations have been thrown back and forth time and time again. Let us clear the issue. I have said many times in this speech alone that we accept our responsibility as Assembly Members. If Assembly Members accept that responsibility, they should not throw wild and inaccurate comments back and forth about that genuinely populist attitude.

Huw Lewis: Alun is probably right that if we took a straw poll of people’s opinion on the millennium stadium before it was built and while it was being built, we would have had the same result. If that poll was taken now, you would see the difference between political leadership and responsibility and saloon bar politics.

4:50 p.m.

The First Secretary: Thank you. That was a good point. We must look to the future rather than stay in the present.

It is difficult to debate this issue constructively, but we have done so this afternoon. Most speakers mentioned the design and our hopes and aspirations just as they did in constructive exchanges with the architect last week. That was an exciting session. I regret that the Conservatives have gone for a quick headline. They will be condemned by history for a lack of vision. Alun Cairns has not been attacked this afternoon; he has been gently chided by people who are saddened by his attitude.

At 3:02 p.m. today, Nick Bourne e-mailed me to say that the Conservatives would not play a part in the new building project. Now we know where we stand. The rest of us can get on with the job. Our budget allows for this project and the building was envisaged as part of the project as far back as the legislation. Our job is to get value for money, to control costs and, at the same time, to make it a landmark building.

In response to Alun Cairns’s synthetic anger over questions: asking silly questions or ones where the information is already available, is not just hypocritical and populist; it is a waste of the time of the officials who are here to serve the whole Assembly, and it is downright lazy. The Conservatives’ decision will tell history, our children and grandchildren that today’s Conservative Party has no more confidence in our future and economy than they had in democracy in Wales during the debate on devolution.

David Melding: You could also conclude that our vision of having the Assembly in City Hall was denied to us and the people of Wales because of the failure of senior members of the Labour Party to agree, despite the complete consensus in the political world that if we were to have an Assembly, that is where it should be.

The First Secretary: That was a nice try, David, but incorrect. The cost of going to City Hall would have been greater. When I became Secretary of State for Wales, one of the first things I did was scrutinise that decision and I am quite satisfied about that.

Alison Halford asked whether too little attention had been paid to disability at an early stage of the process. That is not the case. In a competition, you start with a design concept, so at that point, the design is not fully worked through. The architects said that they were confident that all the envisaged problems relating to disability and access could be overcome and they have justified that by presenting this design. I am satisfied that the problem can be resolved. Alison also referred to the number of seats. The Chamber will be designed to seat 60 but it could be extended to seat 80, if there was a decision on that in the future. The number can stay at 60; there is no pre-emptive decision for the future.

David Davies returned to one of his favourite topics: seagulls. It is important that people understand the designs. They have been in the building for people to scrutinise and a full briefing was held on the project. The roof, which is not glass, will extend over the glass walls. Therefore, they will be protected. That is an essential element in the design. In answer to Mike German, the building cost corrections resulted from careful work, and the quantity surveyor’s work and the costing details have now been completed. I confirm that that cost is allowed for in the budget.

Helen Mary and Mick Bates referred to environmental issues and I am pleased that they underlined their importance. The brief to the architect was to make this a landmark building not only in terms of image but also in terms of environmental considerations and costs. As time goes on and people engage with the way the architects develop the design, there is an appropriate element of excitement. It is sad to hear Alun Cairns rubbishing photovoltaic cells as if they were expensive rubbish. It is in fact using modern science within the developing industries in Wales. The Baglan energy park is a good example of the use of that technology, and of saying, 'here is the future, let us think about it, and make it a part of our industries in Wales’. We should aspire to have that vision as part of this building, and have renewable energy as part of the design.

Mick said that we should involve people throughout Wales and he is right. We can do this not only by means of the six briefings where the architect will be accessible to the public, but by means of the internet through which people can be kept up to date, and can see the progress of the design and building. Helen Mary Jones raised some environmental issues, which I will pick up some other time. However, the environment of Cardiff Bay is such that there will be wind tunnel tests to examine the effects of the wind and the rain, that, as a resident of the area, I have witnessed over the years. The architects have been looking at ensuring that the building is appropriate to its environment, not only when the sun is out, but when the wind is whipping up the waters and sleet is coming around Penarth headland.

An element of 1 per cent has been included for artwork. A building should be designed not only to include quality materials, but artwork and, where possible, it should bring art that would not otherwise be on display into a public environment. That is what we have done in our current building. We have asked the architects to consider the display of art in their design.

As Alun Pugh commented, this must be a building that is in Cardiff Bay but is for the whole of Wales. It is not necessarily seen that way now, but it is up to us to ensure that it will be. The Assembly, in terms of us as people, and as a building, must be a powerhouse for Wales. I do not think that it is a question of having alternative buildings elsewhere but of having video-conferencing, for example, in each local authority building in Wales and in our own buildings, so that people in every part of Wales have access to us through technology--perhaps through schools, colleges and libraries also. The geography of Wales will always be a problem. As those of us who travel frequently between north and south know, it will always be a difficult journey whatever improvements are made. However, those difficulties can be overcome by the use of new technology and imagination.

I agree that the design of the Chamber should take into account camera angles and such elements early on, so that they are designed in, in a way that is not intrusive but gives access to the outside world without the Chamber feeling like a television studio. This is certainly in the minds of the architects as it was in the minds of our group when we met. The architects are meeting with the host broadcaster and other experts to try to ensure that they get that right.

We now need to go firm on this outline design, and allow the project team and the architect to reach the milestone of progressing the design to the planning application stage. That is in line with the programme, and at that point, we will be able to fix all the elements in this project. The appropriate management structure is now in place. We have the means at our disposal to keep effective downward pressure on costs--and I refer to the systems as well as to the Finance Secretary--while ensuring that both time and quality are not adversely affected. We need to try not to impose or allow any further changes to the design once we have fixed each element.

Much time and effort has already been invested in progressing the design to the point at which I, the policy steering group and the project board feel able to recommend that we proceed with confidence to the next stage, which is the approval of the outline scheme design. I hope that the Assembly will give its wholehearted support to the new building project, and authorise those involved to get on with the task of developing the design and constructing the needed new Assembly building with its improved public facilities, debating chamber and Committee rooms. We must accept our responsibility in the next two years to build an Assembly team of landmark standards. We have to be as good as we want our building to be: we have to be ambitious for the economy, in our architecture, in our own behaviour and actions and for Wales.

5:00 p.m.

Amendment 1: For 8, Abstain 0, Against 42.

National Assembly for Wales - Senedd - Statement-260100

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 Edwards, Richard Feld, Val German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Gregory, Janice Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Jones, Ieuan Wyn Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Michael, Alun Middlehurst, Tom Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Phil

Amendment rejected.

Amendment 2: For 51, Abstain 0, Against 0.

The following Members voted for: Barrett, Lorraine
Bates, Mick
Black, Peter
Bourne, Nick
Butler, Rosemary
Cairns, Alun
Chapman, Christine
Dafis, Cynog
Davies, Andrew
Davies, David
Davies, Geraint
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Janet
Davies, Jocelyn
Edwards, Richard
Feld, Val
German, Michael
Gibbons, Brian
Graham, William
Gregory, Janice
Griffiths, John
Gwyther, Christine
Halford, Alison
Hancock, Brian
Hart, Edwina
Humphreys, Christine
Hutt, Jane
Jones, Ann
Jones, Carwyn
Jones, Gareth
Jones, Helen Mary
Jones, Ieuan Wyn
Law, Peter
Lewis, Huw
Lloyd, David
Marek, John
Melding, David
Michael, Alun
Middlehurst, Tom
Morgan, Jonathan
Neagle, Lynne
Pugh, Alun
Randerson, Jenny
Rogers, Peter
Ryder, Janet
Sinclair, Karen
Thomas, Gwenda
Thomas, Owen John
Thomas, Rhodri Glyn
Wigley, Dafydd
Williams, Phil  Amendment adopted.

Amendment 3: For 43, Abstain 0, Against 8.

National Assembly for Wales - Senedd - Statement-260100

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 Edwards, Richard Feld, Val German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Gregory, Janice Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Hutt, Jane Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Jones, Ieuan Wyn Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Michael, Alun Middlehurst, Tom Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Phil

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

Amendment adopted. Amended motion: that the Assembly welcomes the revised proposals for the new Assembly Building described in the 'New Assembly Building Project--Assembly Progress Report No 1/2000’ laid in the Table Office on 19 January 2000; notes the revised estimated costs of the scheme; agrees that the development should now proceed on this revised basis with the objective of having a fully functional building in place by August 2002; insists that further work on the design must continue to pay full attention to accessibility requirements, the need for good public facilities and that representatives of appropriate interest should be fully consulted during the detailed design process; calls for the maximum use of Welsh materials in the construction of the building, consistent with EU legislation and procurement and value for money considerations; reaffirms the need for openness and transparency on the matter of the cost of the new building; and puts measures in place to ensure that the work be carried out to the highest environmental standards, taking into account local conditions.

Amended motion: For 43, Abstain 0, Against 8.

National Assembly for Wales - Senedd - Statement-260100

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 Edwards, Richard Feld, Val German, Michael Gibbons, Brian Gregory, Janice Griffiths, John Gwyther, Christine Halford, Alison Hancock, Brian Hart, Edwina Humphreys, Christine Hutt, Jane Jones, Ann Jones, Carwyn Jones, Gareth Jones, Helen Mary Jones, Ieuan Wyn Law, Peter Lewis, Huw Lloyd, David Marek, John Michael, Alun Middlehurst, Tom Neagle, Lynne Pugh, Alun Randerson, Jenny Ryder, Janet Sinclair, Karen Thomas, Gwenda Thomas, Owen John Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Wigley, Dafydd Williams, Phil

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

Amended motion adopted