Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

It is a pity that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has had to leave, because clause 2 makes considerable progress in interpreting the wording in clause 1. It defines draft legislation as

“primary legislation published before a bill is introduced into Parliament or secondary legislation published before the bill creating the relevant instrument-making power has received Royal Assent”,

and so it effectively covers statutory instruments, too.

In response to the points that have been made about London, “part of the United Kingdom” means England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. “Publish” means in both “hard or electronic form”. “Secretary of State” includes a Minister of the Crown, so the proposal relates to the legislation that the Government introduce, as opposed to that put forward by private business.

During the clause 1 stand part debate we discussed “separately and clearly identified”, which simply means

“with regard to legal effect, that there is a statement in the draft legislation setting out the legal effect on each part of the United Kingdom of each of the clauses and schedules of the bill”.

With regard to financial effect, “separately and clearly identified” means

“that the financial effects of the draft legislation on each part of the United Kingdom are set out in a financial memorandum accompanying the draft legislation, including any impact on Barnett formula allocations (or, should the Barnett formula be superseded, its successor formula).”

That interpretation is important. The Scottish National party, for example, often decides to abstain on a particular vote if it believes that the measure before the House does not apply to Scotland. On occasion, it has found itself unsure whether there is any impact on Scotland through the effect of the Barnett formula. It has, therefore, erred on the side of caution in voting in such situations. Including a requirement to spell out the financial effects, which is supplementary to the guidance that the civil service is currently required to produce, helps those who might, for whatever reason, feel that it is not necessary for them to vote in a particular Division or on a particular issue.

The financial effect of a measure can be discovered by other means, but the virtue of putting it on a statutory footing is that it is spelled out on the face of draft legislation. The financial consequences and the  legal effect of particular legislation is there for all hon. Members in this place and all whom they represent to see.

I shall not speak at length, because I covered several of the Government’s concerns when we debated clause 1. I still do not believe that the definitions of “separately and clearly identified” add anything to the current drafting of legislation in setting out the territorial extent clauses. Indeed, the definitions might make matters more complicated, because there would have to be a

“a statement in the draft legislation setting out the legal effect on each part of the United Kingdom of each of the clauses and schedules of the bill”.

Bills such as this one currently set out in the extent clause that the whole Act would extend to different parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 2 is not clear whether the specific territorial extent would have to be set out for each individual clause and schedule in a Bill.

The duty also extends to draft secondary legislation, as I said in the debate on clause 1. Whatever we are doing, the duty should apply only to primary legislation. Secondary legislation is already covered by the vires of its parent legislation. Even if secondary legislation were published in draft, it would have to conform to the territorial extent of its parent legislation. The territorial extent of that secondary legislation would therefore already have been considered during scrutiny of the draft Bill or during the Bill’s passage before it is enacted. Again, therefore, I do not think the provisions add anything.

The final point relates to the definition of the parts of the United Kingdom, which refers to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland separately and does not take account of the fact that England and Wales form a combined legal system. It is, of course, possible for legislation to take effect only in one of England or Wales, but it would still be the law of England and Wales, even if did not actually have any effect in one particular part.

I am extremely puzzled by the approach of Her Majesty’s Government. Having already been ignominiously defeated in a Division in Committee, how can they turn round and start picking holes in minute details of the Bill’s drafting? If their objection to the Bill related to some of these small details, it would surely have been only right for them to table amendments. Having not done so, they should surely be prepared to accept my hon. Friend’s drafting.

No. I acknowledge that the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has highlighted through her Bill is important and that the Government want to tackle the West Lothian question or, as she rechristened it on the ConservativeHome website, “the English question”—we have been trying to do that for some time, but we have never quite managed to make that name stick. However, the Government do not support the principle or the detail of the Bill, because it does not make any progress in solving the West Lothian question. We did not, therefore, support it on Second Reading and we do not support the individual clauses.

These are significant issues. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk was dismissive of the Bill and of addressing the West Lothian question. The Government do not agree with him about dismissing the West Lothian question. Hon. Members have explained that their constituents, like mine, raise this issue unprompted on the doorstep, so it is important. However, the Bill is not a step forward in tackling it, although it has allowed us to debate these important issues on Second Reading on the Floor of the House and in Committee.

For the reasons that I outlined when we debated clause 1 and for the extra reasons that I have outlined now, clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, and I urge my hon. Friends to agree with me when the issue is put to a vote.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.