---

Government of Wales Bill

The noble Lord is not going to entice me down the path of the Ram doctrine. I am not sufficient a constitutional lawyer to debate with him those issues. Let me say, however, that we have taken that point into account. It is because we do not think that Welsh Ministers can rely on that doctrine, which is fairly complex and leads to a great deal of academic debate, that we have included these clauses in the Bill. We want to reduce the uncertainty over Welsh Ministers’ powers. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that his amendments were modest, but so, let me say, are the clauses in the Bill. They are in a very real sense modelled on Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which gave local authorities the power to promote well-being—the noble Lord will be entirely familiar with that legislation. That was done to reduce uncertainty over powers of councillors to act where there was no specific power relevant to what they wanted to do, even though it would be for the benefit of the area and the people in it. If we seek to create for Welsh Ministers only that range of competence and definition as is in the Local Government Act for councillors, I do not think that the noble Lord can object greatly to what we have in the Bill. His amendments, although not wrecking—I would not use a concept as vulgar as that—would substantially change the Bill. We have included the power in the Bill for a very good reason. The power is executive and not legislative. The Ministers will be answerable to the Assembly for any powers that they exercise. The clause does not give Welsh Ministers the freedom to exceed the devolution settlement; it just enables them properly to exercise their powers by clarifying the extent of those powers. If the Welsh Ministers did not have a general power at all, they would be uncertain as to their precise ability to participate in important initiatives of benefit to Wales, such as supporting the police as part of a multi-agency initiative to tackle drug-related issues. Another example would be if they wanted to take action outside Wales. They might want to offer grant funding to Welsh National Opera to undertake an international tour. That would be to the benefit of the people of Wales in enhancing the reputation of the opera and spreading appreciation of Welsh culture. The power would not be specific. Ministers would be acting on a general power of promoting well-being and, if they exceeded any such power, the Assembly would check them, although, in that last illustration, I would expect the Assembly to endorse them and even egg them on in providing resources in that area. I seek to define a couple of areas, but there are many others—I could go through a long list, but it would not be anywhere near exhaustive—where Ministers would enjoy the support of the people of Wales for enhancing well-being. Unless Ministers had some aspects of general powers, they would not be able to do that. The frustration that obtained in local government and that led to the Local Government Act 2000 extending this concept would be felt in Wales if we did not provide for such a power, as we are doing in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that, just as he has pursued his amendments modestly, so I am trying to rejoin by saying that these powers are not excessive. There is no attempt to take away the answerability of Ministers from the Welsh Assembly or to extend the concept of the devolution powers. The Bill merely gives them authority and freedom in areas where they would have the right to expect that. It defines for them the area in which that should be so. I hope that, after that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.