---

Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) (No. 2) Order 2009

My Lords, I certainly welcome the content of the two orders that we are now considering. In many respects, both involve what might be described as consequential developments. In the case of the second order, it clearly deals mechanically with matters which arise from the passing of the Government of Wales Act 2006. It is worth noting that although that Act received Royal Assent on 26 July 2006, we are now in the third tranche of consequential amendments. The Act itself, a rather bulky piece of legislation, contains dozens if not more consequential amendments. In 2007, there was a very substantial clutch, again dealt with by way of regulation, and now we are in the third tranche. If I was of a mischievous disposition, I would ask the Minister whether he can give an undertaking signed, as it were, in his heart’s blood, that there will be no further tranches but, not being of that disposition, I allow that to remain as a wholly rhetorical question. One must note the difficulty when one is dealing with a process of devolution that started in 1964 and which has gone on piecemeal, dealing with hundreds of small items, some of them of impact, others are very little impact. I regard them almost as a cloud of confetti. It is very difficult to count each and every one and try to place it in its exact sequence. That is why I—and, I suspect, one or two others in this House—would welcome a transfer of functions on a general basis, with a short schedule of matters which are excepted and not transferred. When that happy day will come, we know not, but that would take away a great deal of the pain, anguish and frustration inherent in the present system. Turning to the first order, which deals with the question of building regulations, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, with his usual force and dynamism, has made a powerful case, but it is not a case against the regulations, it is a case against Welsh devolution in general. We have a devolution settlement which confers on the Welsh Assembly, a democratically elected body with certain substantial powers, the right to ask this House to allow it to be distinctive in areas which have been well delineated since 1964. However, if you then say, "Except in relation to anything where Wales might in fact take a different line from that of England, and where we assume that there is a Welsh border that distinguishes between what happens to the east and to the west", you will have made devolution a nonsense. You will have negated the whole purpose of devolution. I say that with the utmost respect, which I feel for the noble Lord. The case that he is making is an anti-devolution case rather than an anti-regulation case. As for the consequentiality—if there is such a word in the English language—of the provisions, into their creative merits they are to a large extent consequential on the events that took place many years ago. They are mainly based on the Building Act of 1984. Most of the administrative and legislative provisions of that Act were devolved to Wales a long time ago. All that is happening now is that a few gaps are being filled in. If there were a general case, it would have been decided a long time ago, so this is consequential on decisions that have been laid down and established. The powers in fact mean that Welsh Ministers will be able to take a more holistic, creative view of the whole situation. They will have greater flexibility and be able to look at safety, for instance, side by side with carbon reduction. Regulations in Wales may well be of a standard marginally higher than those in England—in theory, it could be marginally lower because there is no stipulation that it must be higher. We know not what the 2010 regulations will be in England, but they will take precedence. Whatever the situation, the building regulations will allow a distinctive Welsh approach to be taken to building. They will allow the Welsh Assembly to show whether it can live up to its undertaking of a 3 per cent carbon reduction by 2011, and a much more flexible and integrated approach to the problems. To deny the Assembly that would be to deny the very basis of devolution. For that reason, I welcome the order. As regards cost, I doubt whether the point made by the noble Lord is valid. There will obviously be greater cost if you have a higher standard—it is axiomatic. On the other hand, the market value of the produce you create will also be greater.