| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
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
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC9
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.
4.30 pm
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.
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC10
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I declare an interest at the outset in that I had ministerial responsibility for housing in Wales. However, it was at such a remote time in the past that I had better describe it as being in the 80s. Wales had its special housing problems then, as now.
Obviously, a great deal of detailed work has gone into the preparation of these orders. Those of us who have studied them and the accompanying memorandum are appreciative of the clarity of these documents. I have a few comments. I want to deal first with the order which gives to Welsh Ministers functions relating to building and building standards. What is being done and why is well set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. We are told that it is a consequence of the one-nation agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru parties which support the present Welsh Assembly Government. That agreement provided for the Climate Change Commission for Wales and a carbon reduction target of 3 per cent from 2011 in devolved areas of government. In turn, that development requires the appointment of separate building regulations advisory committees for England and Wales in place of the single advisory committee currently covering both countries.
I want to concentrate on the duplication of these committees and the bureaucracy that goes with them without any apparent real need or supporting public demand. We are told that the impact on the public sector will not be significant and that there will be no budgetary transfer from the UK Government to the Welsh Consolidated Fund. That may be so, but we are facing a period of severe public spending restraint, whatever happens at the next general election, and we must be mindful of the latent costs of duplications of this kind and question the need for them whenever they are proposed. Where they are proposed, as in this case, can the Government ensure that there is maximum co-operation between what are very similar committees for England and Wales with similar functions in order to avoid needless duplication of effort, staff and expense?
I am concerned about the points made by my noble friend Lord Glentoran relating to how more stringent regulations may possibly result in increased costs to builders and, indeed, to building purchasers. This will not be welcome to Welsh people if it occurs, and with due respect, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was somewhat unfair in accusing my noble friend of making an anti-devolution point. I really think that with all his building experience, he was talking about the cost impact of more stringent conditions.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have high and warm regard for the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I would like to make it clear that in no way did I insinuate that he was seeking to avoid the issue and trying to attack devolution in toto. What I said was that his criticism-fundamentally, that any discretion given to the Welsh authority in relation to any field to apply a standard higher or lower than that of England has its problems-is something that is essentially an argument not against the particular regulations before us, but against devolution itself. It was in that context that I put the argument.
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC11
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I shall not follow the noble Lord into the intricacies of the political and philosophical field that he is trying to lead me into, but I make the point that I am sure my noble friend Lord Glentoran did not intend to put forward an anti-devolution argument.
I shall move on to the second order dealing with consequential modifications. It is a reflection of the new split in Welsh devolution between the legislative Assembly and the Executive in the form of the Welsh Assembly Government, as explained in paragraph 4.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Those of us who welcomed that development as a step away from a local government to a central government model of devolution will welcome this order in principle, and I am happy to do so. The proposed modification to the British Nationality Act 1981 to extend Crown service under the Government of the United Kingdom to Crown service under the Welsh Assembly Government seems to encapsulate the change made by the 2006 Act with regard to the status of those who serve the Assembly Government.
Some Assembly civil servants work overseas, as indicated in paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am happy to hear that their families are successful and producing children, but while the modification proposed will certainly place the parents on an equal footing with those who serve the Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations as well as those serving the United Kingdom Government, I hope fervently that those who are serving the Welsh Assembly Government will work closely with their United Kingdom counterparts locally wherever they may be because there are sometimes considerable benefits to be gained from collaborating and working together, rather than striking out independently.
That was certainly my experience over more than 15 years as a Minister in the old Welsh Office when we successfully attracted a great deal of inward investment to Wales with the assistance of colleagues in departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. With my noble friend the Duke of Montrose sitting beside me, I am bound to say that on occasion I was very happy to represent Scotland, simply because there was not a Scot in sight. But I sought to do so in the knowledge that if there had been the Scottish Minister, he would have represented Wales in the absence of a Welsh Minister. Incidentally, I would be interested to know how many Welsh Assembly employees work overseas, what they do and where they work. It would also be interesting to know just how the Welsh numbers compare with those relating to Northern Ireland and the Scottish Administration, although I do not think that we will be given those numbers today.
Lord Jones: 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
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC12
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.
4.45 pm
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,
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC13
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the order relating to the building regulations involved some courage. I have always looked upon courage as being the first political virtue. After all, Sir Humphrey often said to the Minister that pursuing a policy would be courageous, when he meant that it would be downright daft. However, for politicians as a whole courage is what marks them out; that is how they get things done. I am not worried about the charge that courage is needed in this area-although not to the extent that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated.
However, I do not have the courage to engage again in the devolution debate. I heard what my noble friend Lord Jones said and I heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, but when we are talking about functions consequential upon devolved legislation-which, with the best will in the world are points of detail which follow the logic of powers already devolved to Wales-raising the whole issue of the principles of devolution is stretching this debate a bit far.
I heard what my noble friend Lord Jones said; I know how lyrical he can wax on these issues and how eloquent he can be, and I have no doubt that there will be a time when that eloquence is deployed in future on the broad principles of these issues. If the Committee will forgive me, though, I will not follow that up now, otherwise I will never get my job done today.
I am obliged to answer one or two questions. I do not think that the changes are quite as significant as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has indicated. To take the most obvious point, is it likely that the changes regarding the empowering of the Welsh Assembly in respect of building regulations will have a significant impact on Welsh house prices? I ask you, in the context of the credit crunch and the enormous shift in house prices over the past couple of years, are we going to say that house prices are going to be significantly affected by these aspects of the regulations? Of course, it will be for the Welsh Assembly to judge that. The noble Lord, coming as he does from a part of the country that enjoys aspects of devolved government too, must surely have trust in his fellow citizens.
The Welsh Assembly Government will have to make their judgments about additional costs, and they are likely to be extremely careful in the context of the difficulties facing the building industry at present. We cannot overestimate the challenges at the moment for the whole building industry, but that is true in England as well. I maintain that we must trust the Welsh Assembly Government to advance these regulations as they see fit in due course, while having proper regard to exactly the points that the noble Lord has indicated: potential additional costs on the building industry, and perhaps thereby, as he has suggested, a marginal advantage to people who build houses in England as opposed to Wales. That is for the Welsh Assembly Government to reach their decisions on; that is the whole point of devolution.
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC14
I hear what the noble Lord has said, but I am obliged to say that he is being somewhat oversolicitous about the issues in Wales. If he is making a general point, then any advances in building regulations that increase costs at present might be considered untimely. In so far as that point is valid, it will be registered in Wales as much as it will in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland-in fact, anywhere in the United Kingdom. We must give due credit to our fellow legislators elsewhere to take account of these issues, but I am not of a mind to worry unduly about them. I think the noble Lord will accept that the Welsh Assembly will need to take this decision into account.
There is no doubt the Welsh Assembly may use their enhanced powers to improve the position of building in Wales to meet carbon targets. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, commended that, and so do I. After all, no one thinks that we are going to meet carbon targets without cost; if anyone does think so, they have not examined the debates about the whole issue of carbon targets and the challenges that face this nation in issues far beyond the question of housebuilding regulations, which are the subject of this order. We shall not always debate those potential costs, but while we know that we need to address our minds to those matters, to suggest that we might have doubts about these changes in empowering the Welsh Assembly Government in this narrow area because of the potential costs involved is straining the issues too far. I understand the noble Lord's concerns and he is right to identify the challenges faced by the building industry at present. No one underestimates that. I say merely that when these powers are transferred to Welsh Ministers, it will be for them to make judgments on the matter in the same way as Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom.
He also asked about consultation and whether participation in it has been extensive. I do not have the figures before me, but what is known is that it is not possible for effect to be given to this legislation without proper consultation and the Assembly Government are committed to that. When they bring in the regulations, consultation will take place.
I was also asked about the fact that we have divided the committee into one for England and one for Wales. There is now an opportunity for fruitful discourse between them. The intention would be for representatives to sit as observers on each other's committees so that there is an exchange of information. England will be responsible for its area, of course, and Wales for its own once these orders are given eventual effect, but there should be an understanding on both sides of the border-given that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, emphasised how quick the transition can be from populous parts of Wales to England and, to a certain extent, vice versa-that the two committees will have in attendance representatives from the other committee in order to see how these matters are being handled. I take on board the point that almost any aspect of Welsh affairs, taking into consideration the position so far as England is concerned, is bound to be of
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC15
I turn now to the other points that were raised in the debate. I have some difficulty in avoiding getting involved in the bigger debate, but I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, who welcomed these orders as a step forward for the people of Wales in terms of their empowerment to consider these matters. The issue of climate change has to involve the whole nation of the United Kingdom as best we are able to effect. Central Government have to take their case to Copenhagen where we have big issues to confront which can be resolved only within forums with an international agenda. Actual effective action will also depend on maximum participation of our citizenry at every level and therefore developments that devolve responsibility to local areas, and certainly as an aspect of the devolution process so far as Wales is concerned, are surely to be welcomed.
I respect the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who has vast experience of these matters. He indicated that times they are a'changing and therefore we face new challenges 20 years on from some of those he faced. However, I want to emphasise the point that effective co-ordination will take place. He also asked me about job specifications under the second of these orders. I do not have a detailed response for him, although I am prepared to write. He will recognise the limited numbers involved, but I did ask about the kind of work that these people are doing. Largely, it is that of promoting Wales overseas, so the work is related to business and tourism, thus mainly economic functions overseas on behalf of Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have the same facility, and while key representation is bound to be United Kingdom-wide, in certain areas where particular approaches may be fruitful, it is only right that the devolved nations are represented overseas, particularly as regards certain trade and industry matters and, for Wales, in terms of tourism.
The numbers are limited, which is why the number of children involved is likely to be small. That does not make it any more necessary; we want to ensure that the children of servants of the Welsh Assembly Government overseas enjoy the same rights as they would if they were children of people working on behalf of the Foreign Office or the Department for Business in our embassies overseas for the UK Government.
This has been a rather wider-ranging debate than I had anticipated, and I am well aware of the fact that I may not have answered all the general questions as effectively as I would have liked. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked me about certain aspects of fire safety; I will have to write to him about that.
The matters that we are considering today are a consequence of decisions that we have already taken with regard to devolved powers. Perhaps the wider debate on devolution, which is always an important one, ought to wait until another day.
21 Oct 2009 : Column GC16
Government of Wales Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications, Transitional Provisions and Saving) Order 2009
Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) (No. 2) Order 2009
Considered in Grand Committee
5.01 pm
Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications, Transitional Provisions and Saving) Order 2009.
Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009
Welsh Ministers (Transfer of Functions) (No. 2) Order 2009
Considered in Grand Committee
5.02 pm
Moved By Lord Davies of Oldham
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Groundwater (England and Wales) Regulations 2009.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to introduce these regulations. The water framework directive of 2000 envisaged a new groundwater directive to clarify the WFD's objectives for groundwater, and a new directive was agreed in 2006 to replace the 1980 groundwater directive. In the discussions on that directive, the UK aimed for simple, transparent measures to protect groundwater from pollution; locally determined risk-based standards and targeted monitoring; and to avoid measures that would be disproportionately costly compared with the environmental benefits achieved. I am pleased to report that potentially ineffective and costly EU-wide standards were, on the whole, avoided. The impact assessment indicated a cost-neutral outcome in relation to action already required under the directive. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the Committee about the nature and impact of these regulations.
The 2006 directive adopts existing EU values for controls over nitrates and pesticides, and provides for member states to determine national groundwater standards, the way in which these should be used to assess groundwater body status, and the identification and reversal of pollution trends. These elements are being transposed separately as part of WFD implementation. The regulations before us today transpose Article 6 of the directive, which makes operational the WFD objective to prevent or limit the input of pollutants to groundwater, and distinguishes the substances whose input into groundwater is to be prevented from those to be limited. Sensible exemptions facilitate a practicable approach.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |