---

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

My Lords, I should declare that I played a positive part as a Minister in the 1979 referendum and a part in the more recent referendum. After 1979, I keenly followed the ministerial career of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. His was a distinguished contribution and, my word, it seemed he was there for ever. That is a compliment, not a criticism. Indeed, I was ignominiously thrown out of office in 1979 and when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, took my place he took every advantage—and that is not a criticism either. I recommend his memoir—a very serious tome—which was very well received in Wales. In the Explanatory Memorandum, so kindly made available to the Committee, there is at paragraph 7.3 a reference to fire safety. There a coherent policy control is claimed for the regulations; for example, the integration of development and building controls. Can my noble friend make available now or later any detail concerning fire safety? How are our excellent fire authorities involved in Wales? Furthermore, paragraph 7.17 of the memorandum refers to public consultation. What details might be given on consultation? Are any details available at this time for the consideration of the Committee? How many thousands of people attended the consultation meeting in Penrhiwceiber in the south and how many hundreds from Llanfairfechan in the north? That is a rhetorical question, but I should like to know what consultation is taking place. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his opening remarks. As ever, I have no trouble in supporting these orders. Finally, on a philosophical point, it is my opinion that the Welsh Assembly is on a certain course to acquire more powers. Arguably, that could be by evolution, as seems to be the case, or possibly on the big bang development, which may be the case in the medium term. I do not know which it will be. All of us followed the decision of the Scottish Parliament to release a sick prisoner to enable him to return to Libya. The case brought a searching and continuing examination of British governance—particularly the relationship between, in this instance, the Westminster and Edinburgh Parliaments. It has thus brought the claims of devolved government to the fore of parliamentarians’ considerations at a time when our major political parties are considering the contents of their general election manifestos. Shall they offer more devolved powers to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast? Does the Libyan experience enhance or diminish the case for more devolution to our Celtic nations? I would be very surprised if the inner counsels of the London-based parties were not debating with policy makers where to go next on the devolution map. It is reasonable simply to raise that point as we consider these important documents. If the parties are not considering those issues, perhaps they should. The Edinburgh Parliament—or, rather, the Government in the Edinburgh Parliament—did not appear to give ground during the Libyan furore. The Scottish Government had their way. They did not budge. What happened there was seen and considered in some detail, I should think, in Cardiff and Belfast. Are there any implications for the Welsh Assembly? I believe that the Welsh Assembly will continue to seek more powers. I would be astonished if it did not. My guess is that the London parties are likely to bid against each other to offer more devolved powers to the Celtic nations. I would be surprised if party manifestos did not bring forth more offers—and the likelihood—of more powers. I offer these remarks only to enable me, if no one else, to put these regulations into better context. This is a question of governance raised in the mother of Parliaments—an ancient Parliament.