6Concluding remarks
107.The majority of witnesses we heard from, and who have provided written evidence, have suggested improvements to the draft Bill. Some of these, such as replacing the “necessity” test with a test that is clearer and has a lower threshold, and that in relation to Ministerial consent, that the UK Government transfers to the Welsh Ministers all Ministerial functions in areas of devolved legislative competence, the Committee have been able to agree upon. Some of the evidence received raised other important and relevant issues; in particular many witnesses proposed a form of distinct legal jurisdiction. This issue may not have been apparent to all potential witnesses at the outset of the inquiry, so we cannot be confident we have received all relevant evidence on this important subject. Given the range of opinions on the Committee it is unlikely to be something on which we would have reached agreement. We thank all those who have contributed to this inquiry, the first for this new Welsh Affairs Committee.
108.There are a range of differing views amongst the Members of this new Committee, as would be expected, and the issue of a separate or distinct legal jurisdiction elicited strong views on all sides. There was a consensus that at some point this needs to be reviewed. However, it was not an issue that this Committee could agree upon now, but one we will have to return to. In terms of the broader picture, some Members are of the view that devolved powers in certain areas should be returned to Westminster. Furthermore, they strongly believe that a continual one-way transfer of powers from Westminster to Cardiff poses a threat to the unity and stability of the United Kingdom. Other Members take a different view, and would like to see more powers be devolved to the National Assembly. Furthermore, some Members thought there was a lack of underlying principles providing a basis for the draft Bill. The Committee could all agree that it is important that a new settlement needs to have greater clarity and workability for the future. This report has sought to find a balance between these views and to find some recommendations which, notwithstanding the wide range of views, all our Members can agree upon. Where the Committee has come to a conclusion, or made a recommendation, we have aimed to do so unanimously on a consensual basis. Our aim in this inquiry was to suggest improvements to the draft Bill, which are acceptable to all sides. We believe we have achieved this aim in this report.
109.We now ask the Secretary of State to pause, so that he can reflect on the recommendations we have made. These will require him to look again at the necessity tests, the list of reservations, the matter of ministerial consent and also to continue to review the issue of a separate or distinct Welsh jurisdiction. There is a growing body of Welsh law that differs from that which applies in England, but the implications of this requires careful scrutiny. We share the view of the Silk Commission, that the UK and Welsh governments will need to continue to review the issue of a separate or distinct Welsh jurisdiction.
© Parliamentary copyright 2015
Prepared 26 February 2016