Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

I simply seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that subsection (2) categorically rules out the use of a Sewel motion. I do not necessarily expect him to know what that is. He might, but if he does not, he could perhaps inform the Committee in writing.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

As the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, the Secretary of State is not present, but I shall pass on to him the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not think that he knows what a Sewel motion is. In terms of relations with Scotland, if the Bill required a Sewel motion, it would have had one before the last amendable stage of our Commons proceedings. That is not forthcoming. The Scottish Parliament is not in any way discussing a Sewel motion, because that is unnecessary for the Bill. It would have been slightly remiss of the Government to have got even this far in our proceedings if we had been told that we required a Sewel motion without having ensured that such deliberations were already under way. The Bill does not need a Sewel motion.

Ben Wallace (Lancaster & Wyre, Conservative)

Perhaps I have not explained myself well enough. Should the Scottish Parliament—under the leadership of a “Mr. Tommy whatever-his-name”—decide to refuse to implement any of these matters, including some relating to the public services, a Sewel motion could allow for Westminster to impose the obligation. Subsection (2) includes the words

“may not allow or require the imposition”,

but I am simply asking whether the Minister will rule out the introduction of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament to effect such an imposition.

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I understand that in a previous incarnation the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that he had a stronger grasp on Scottish matters at that time than he showed in his intervention.

No part of the Bill requires a Sewel motion. I do not need to give the hon. Gentleman any assurance that clause 44(2) prescribes the utilisation of a Sewel motion or otherwise. If the parent legislation does not require a Sewel motion, because of the matters that it covers, in terms of its dealings with the Scottish Parliament, none of the consequential elements in that parent Bill require such a motion—and that is the end of the matter.