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

The clause outlines the principles of legislative territorial clarity, which are that every citizen of the United Kingdom has the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect them, and that Members of this House have the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect their constituents. That strengthens and puts on a statutory basis new principles of legislative territorial clarity. I am delighted that on Second Reading, the Minister said he believed those to be sensible principles, and I am sure that it will be hard for anyone to object to them in this debate.

I fear that I may disappoint my hon. Friend. Although the principles may be welcome, we are talking about creating legislation that will put duties on Ministers. There is a lack of clarity about what is meant. For example, it is not clear how far the Bill would require the Secretary of State to go. In the case of  a declaration of compatibility with the European convention, which is the comparison we have used, the convention exists and there is extensive case law so that we know with what the Bill is compatible. All we have here are the words in the Bill.

Would the Secretary of State, for example, be fulfilling the principles of legislative territorial clarity if he or she set out in legislation the legal and financial effect, as required in clause 1 and interpreted in clause 2? If that is the case—if including the extent clauses detailing the extent of the legal effect of legislation is required to fulfil the principles of legislative territorial clarity—clauses 3 and 4 are unnecessary. The Bill would do what it needs to do without them. If the clauses mean something else and the Minister has to go further, it is not clear what the Secretary of State would have to do to comply with them. Would a Bill, for example, have to detail the effect on citizens and on Members’ constituents, or would that detail have to be in the explanatory notes?

The Bill applies only to draft legislation, which is almost always accompanied by a White Paper and is often subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Those mechanisms, which are already used by the House, are useful for providing extra detail on the impact of legislation such as why Ministers are bringing it forward and why the Government think it is a good idea. I think those mechanisms are more effective than including many more words in legislation.

It would be a significant change if, rather than a Bill only containing the wording of the provisions that change the law, we started including descriptions of the effect that those changes would have. I am not clear—and I am not sure that draftsmen, Ministers and Members of Parliament are clear—about how people would comply with the requirements in clauses 3 and 4. That lack of clarity might risk creating a new ground on which people could challenge primary legislation in the courts, either on the basis that there had been no declaration or that a declaration was one that no reasonable Secretary of State would make.

The clause either does not add anything to the Bill or it is not clear. After listening to my hon. Friend’s description I was not any clearer about what the Secretary of State would be certifying in his or her statement on a Bill’s compatibility. I am not clear about the processes and steps that officials and Ministers would have to take to be able to make such a declaration. When Ministers make the existing declaration about compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 they make that statement personally. The Minister has to take responsibility for that, because it is legally challengeable. Ministers consider it seriously before issuing such a certification.

Will the Minister confirm that he continues to believe that it is a sensible principle, as he stated on Second Reading? I would have been interested to see what amendments he would have proposed to the wording, but in general does he agree that the principle of every citizen being able to see how they are affected by changes to the law and how proposed changes to the law might affect the constituents of Members of Parliament is a sensible one?

Let me draw the distinction I am trying to make for my hon. Friend. In legislation we set out the changes to the law that we want to see. With the legislation we publish White Papers, which expand in more detail on why it is that we are bringing forward that legislation and what we hope to achieve. The principle and the detail of legislation are debated in the House, but we do not include all of that wider information in legislation. In legislation we stick to writing the law. We do not include all of the surrounding information on the effects that it will have.

I am not clear, and I do not think that Ministers and officials drafting the legislation would be clear about what they had to do to comply with clauses 3 or 4, which are linked, in order to make that particular statement. Of course it is important that people know what effect the law will have, which is why we try to draft it in a very clear and straightforward way. Then we have extensive debate in Parliament so that people are clear about what it does, but it is not as straightforward as my hon. Friend thinks. That is why it is our business to debate legislation.

Much argument is made about the effect of legislation, we tease out the details and legislation is often changed as it moves through the House. I do not think it is clear and straightforward. The burden put on Ministers is potentially quite a significant one, without the benefit of citizens being any clearer than they are today about the effect that the legislation will have. That is why I think the Committee should oppose clause 4.

I am increasingly puzzled by the Minister’s stance. Leaving aside his broad concerns with the general thrust of the way that the Bill is drafted, the principles behind clause 4 are incredibly straightforward. The Minister and the Government opposed the motion proposed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that the House should be sovereign. Similarly, they seem to be opposing something that is as plain as the nose on your face. Of course it is right that the citizens of the United Kingdom have the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect them, and that Members of the House of Commons have the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect their constituents. To deny or gainsay those two principles fundamentally undermines the purpose of having a House of Commons. Of course those things are right.

If the Minister chooses to vote against the clause, he will be saying that every citizen of the United Kingdom does not have the right to see how proposed changes to the law will affect them. Of course they do; obviously, they do. As a Member of Parliament, he must recognise that they do. His argument against the clause was that he could not quite work out how the Secretary of State would conform to the terms of the clause. He said that it would be very difficult: would they do it in a White Paper? Would they do it in the explanatory notes? No doubt that can be sorted out down the road. Surely we can find a way in which the Secretary of State could comply?

For the Minister to say that he is uncertain about how the Secretary of State will comply and that that is a good reason for voting against our constituents’ knowing what is happening in this place is bizarre. I therefore challenge the Minister. He has made his overall opposition to the Bill plain by voting against clauses and has been  humiliatingly defeated on three separate occasions so far. Her Majesty’s Government have not taken such a beating in recent times. Despite the Minister’s opposition to other parts of the Bill, surely he can see that clause 4 is about an absolutely straightforward and basic principle of democracy. I hope he will find it in his heart to support what the hon. Lady has proposed.

I think that my hon. Friend is missing the point that I am making. Of course it is the case that citizens need to know how the law will affect them. The job of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation in detail, which is what we are doing. I am pointing out that it is not at all clear what the Secretary of State would have to do to comply and to be able to make a statement of compatibility. Alternatively, the position is not clear if they cannot make a statement of compatibility but they wish to proceed.

In clause 4?

Clause 4 sets out what the Secretary of State has to do to be compatible with clause 3, so clauses 3 and 4 are intimately combined. There are already processes that exist in this House when we are publishing draft legislation—the White Paper and the process of pre-legislative scrutiny—where the Government can set out exactly what they mean and the House can then tease out, test and challenge Ministers on what they mean. But I am not clear about how to ensure compliance. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that a way could be found for it to work. That may be the case, but the Government do not want to create significant burdens that will create extra work and extra cost for Government, particularly at a time when we are trying to do Government more efficiently and at lower cost, without a commensurate benefit. If the Government believed that the burden that the Bill imposed on Ministers would lead to a significant improvement, and that it would result in Members of Parliament and citizens being much clearer about the effect of legislation, the Government might have taken a different view. However, we believe that the burdens are potentially significant and unclear, and that they will not lead to any improvement in clarity for Members or citizens. That is why we oppose the Bill in principle and are opposing it in detail as we work our way through it.

The Minister alluded earlier to the fact that he remains committed to establishing a commission this year to examine the West Lothian question. His comments worry me. Will he confirm that the terms of reference for that commission will allow recommendations that might increase some burdens on Government and allow some expense to make clearer to which parts of the United Kingdom legislation applies?

The point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is not that the Bill imposes burdens that may have some cost, but that it is not certain. The scope of those extra burdens is not at all clear. As I said, on one reading the territorial extent of legislation is already there, so the Bill does not add anything. If that is not what it does, then it adds a  lot of unclear complexity; it is uncertain how much extra burden it imposes. It is not clear that any benefits will result.

Having considered the Bill in detail, I am not at all sure that at the end of the process—if it were to pass through Parliament and become law—any extra information would be available to Members of Parliament or constituents that would make any clearer the extent to which legislation passing through the House might affect them. I am no clearer having debated the matter.

That goes to the crux of what we have been debating. Will the Minister confirm what the terms of reference will be for the West Lothian commission?

My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not yet able to do so. Indeed, Mr Gale, seeing your expression, I know that you would rule me out of order if I were to try. We will announce the membership of the commission and its terms of reference in due course to the House in the normal way. I ask my hon. Friend to be a little patient.

I made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee that the Government are committed to dealing with the West Lothian question, but at a time when it is not the most burning issue, as we do not want it being decided in a political climate that is not particularly hospitable. I have given that clear assurance at each stage. We believe that this piece of legislation will not move us any further forward, which is why I urge my hon. Friend not to proceed with it. She obviously takes a different view, as she is entitled to, but I still urge the Committee not to support clause standing part.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.