PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

LEGISLATION (TERRITORIAL EXTENT) BILL

Second Sitting Wednesday 27 April 2011

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 1 to 6 agreed to. Bill to be reported, without amendment.

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON – THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED £4·00 PBC (Bill 10) 2010 - 2012 Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in General Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.

No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons,

not later than

Sunday 1 May 2011

STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN GENERAL COMMITTEES

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2011 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through The National Archives website at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/parliamentary-licence-information.htm Enquiries to The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 11 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 12

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: MR ROGER GALE

† Baldwin, Harriett (West Worcestershire) (Con) Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall) (Lab) Bryant, Chris (Rhondda) (Lab) † Hunt, Tristram (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab) Chope, Mr Christopher (Christchurch) (Con) Lloyd, Stephen (Eastbourne) (LD) † Connarty, Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP) (Lab) Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co- † Gray, Mr James (North Wiltshire) (Con) op) Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) † Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con) † Harper, Mr Mark (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet † Stewart, Iain (Milton Keynes South) (Con) Office) † Hart, Simon (Carmarthen West and South Sarah Davies, Committee Clerk Pembrokeshire) (Con) † Hinds, Damian (East Hampshire) (Con) † attended the Committee 13 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 14

hon. Member for West Worcestershire and the Committee Public Bill Committee is that the proceedings should continue. We shall therefore debate clause 1 stand part. Wednesday 27 April 2011 Harriett Baldwin: Thank you for that ruling, Mr Gale. [MR ROGER GALE in the Chair] I certainly want to associate myself with your sincere wishes that the hon. Member for Rhondda should Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill make a speedy recovery from his broken leg. The clause goes to the heart of what the Bill is trying 9.30 am to achieve. Essentially, it will create a duty on the Secretary of State. The term Secretary of State is chosen The Chair: Before we commence, it might be for the carefully, because this Bill is intended to influence convenience of Members if I explain about the amendment Government legislation. When publishing draft legislation, paper. Clause 1 stand part has been proposed, and the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that the therefore no amendments can be accepted to that clause. legal and financial effect of that legislation on each part That means that amendments 1 to 5, which relate to of the United Kingdom is separately and clearly identified. clause 1, have been ruled out of order. The grouped amendments that we are going to take with clause 1 The clause is also worded carefully to refer to draft stand part all relate to clause 2, but are akin to the legislation because, if it were to go any further than subject matter of clause 1. They can therefore be debated that, it might encroach on the exclusive cognizance of with clause 1 stand part and if appropriate moved later, Parliament in respect of legislation. It is saying to the as can new clause 1. That is exactly the position. Secretary of State that, when Government legislation is prepared, we want spelt out at draft legislation stage its impact, both legal and financial on each part of the Clause 1 United Kingdom—an effect that we want clearly identified separately. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that, DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE when legislation is passing through both Houses, everyone Question (30 March) again proposed, That the clause examining it will understand both its legal and financial stand part of the Bill. effects throughout the United Kingdom.

Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con): May I Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): start by seeking your advice, Mr Gale? As you will I am actually pleased to be back here today. I have no recall, before the recess, the Committee agreed a sittings other commitments until 10.30 this morning and can order under which we would sit for at least another think of no better way to spend the time until then Wednesday, because we realised that this was a fairly other than opposing the motion that the clause stand controversial Bill and no amendments had been tabled part of the Bill. In fact, I oppose the whole crazy Bill. for that sitting. We were a little surprised about that, My predecessor in part of my constituency until he because the hon. Member for Rhondda, who speaks for retired—Sir Thomas Dalyell of the Binns, known as the Opposition, had said on the Floor of the House that Tam Dalyell—flagged up the West Lothian question. he wanted to put forward a range of amendments, but The reason behind such action was the fact that Tam he had not tabled any for the first sitting. During the Dalyell’s school was Eton and, believe it or not, he was recess, he tabled a full set of amendments that broaden head of the Oxford University Conservative Association. and deepen the direction of the Bill. Sadly, however, the It was only when he saw what the policies of successive hon. Gentleman—perhaps while tabling the amendments, Conservative Governments had done to his West Lothian I do not know—broke his leg, and he is in hospital in his homeland when he returned there from Oxford that he constituency this morning. I seek your advice, Mr Gale, realised that he had to switch sides and stand up for as to whether it is appropriate to adjourn and sit again people who were oppressed by those Governments who next Wednesday, or to continue with the business at did not care for the miners and others. hand. Tam Dalyell found out that people who went to Oxford, and others from the shires—who seem to be The Chair: I thank the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] well represented here today, especially by the hon. Member Before we go any further, I advise the hon. Member for for West Worcestershire, the presenter of the Bill—were Stoke-on-Trent Central that he is not allowed hot drinks fixated on the machinations of this place rather than in the Committee Room. Will he take it straight outside the worries of their constituents. I respect Tam’s view. again? He realised that, under devolution, some backwoodsmen I had, of course, been advised that the hon. Member and women would want to ask why parts of the United for Rhondda had suffered an injury and is unable to be Kingdom with a devolved Parliament should allow with us this morning. I am sure that the first thing that their hon. Members to come here and vote on matters the Committee would like to do is to send him good relating to other parts of the UK without devolution. wishes for his recovery. That said, the business of the He was right. We now have an example of what happens Committee cannot depend on the health and well-being when we stir up the pot of that little constitutional of one Member. The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity, oddity, the House of Commons. if he chose to do so, to seek a deputy from within the As I said, I respect Tam’s view because he was opposed membership of the Committee, and it might well be to devolution. That is why he thought that the West that Members on either side wish to move the amendments Lothian question would bring out such interminable in his name on the amendment paper. My advice to the arguments and the good thing is that, since devolution 15 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 16 has come about, there have not been lots of Bills such as there was some advice on the drafting. If the promoter the one that we are discussing now nor has there been does not mean it, do not put it on paper. Do not much controversy. As I confirmed in a question to the pretend that one thing is meant by putting something Deputy Prime Minister, both parties in the present else on paper that is not meant. Government oppose the Bill. They do not see it as The whole idea seems to be that there might be one or relevant. They are tackling a task in hand. I do not two Acts of Parliament that could be described as entirely agree that they are tackling it with some vigour, but it is relevant to, for example, local government in England important to those who are represented by members of and Wales—or in England, since Wales is devolved. the Committee. Tam was right. People would pick at the Would it not be better to have a Bill that states that problem like a sore. Instead of doing what they should about local government legislation, rather than having a be doing, which is looking for solutions to problems in Bill that pretends to be something that it cannot be? their constituencies by applying their own vigour and Few Bills going through this place do not have some looking to the mechanisms of the Government and effect on someone in other parts of the United Kingdom. their own endeavours with the private, public and third We might decide that we will do something with the sector to solve such problems, they would blame someone armed forces, as we have seen in Scotland recently, with else, which is what the Bill is all about. the closure of one RAF base already and Lossiemouth Under clause 1, the idea that the Secretary of State, and Leuchars still under threat, and that will affect when publishing draft legislation, would ensure that its people in the armed forces. It will affect my local legal and financial effect on each part of the United regiment, which is actually based in Kent at the moment— Kingdom is separately and clearly identified is complete honourable people that they are—and they are part of madness. Let us consider a health Bill, for example. We the UK. That is just the beginning. We would have to would have to work out exactly how many people from define the effect in every such Bill. In that example, parts of the UK, other than England, would come to therefore, we would have to state the effect on Lossiemouth England for operations because the cost of those operations or on Fife of the closure of Lossiemouth and Leuchars. would then have to be charged back to the responsible That is what the Bill states—that every single Bill authority in that part of the country. Let us consider a would have to be drafted so that it “separately and higher education Bill. What if the funding authority in clearly identified” all the financial effects of the proposed Scotland that pays the bills for all the students from legislation. That is what the clause says. If it does not Scotland were charged £9,000 for every student who mean that an armed forces Bill should be treated in that came to England? We would have to calculate how way, then why is it an overarching clause applying to all many students would come from Scotland and, therefore, draft legislation? For goodness’ sake, if it really means the total of their student fees of £6,000 or £9,000, so only local government and planning in England, the that it could be charged back to the funding authority hon. Lady should promote a private Member’s Bill on in Scotland. That is how ridiculous the clause is. that issue, not this Bill. If what is meant is some sweeping statement, in some small clause as, for example, we usually get in a Bill Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I am most about the financial or human rights effects—just a grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is, statement, with absolutely no facts—then the clause is however, making a slightly obscure point in the sense worthless. If it genuinely means that the Secretary of that the closure of Lossiemouth or Leuchars would not State, when proposing any legislation, should have to of course be subject to an Act of Parliament and, calculate the amount that would fall to every jurisdiction, therefore, there would be no requirement for the Speaker the task would be an interminable and difficult one. We or anyone else—such as the Secretary of State—to would have to set up a whole department in the Treasury make any reference to it. Furthermore, since defence is just to do that. Does the hon. Lady really mean that? not a devolved matter, it would not come under the terms of the Bill anyhow. Surely we are only talking Harriett Baldwin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for about devolved matters, in which the Secretary of State being here today and for giving us such an interesting would have an interest in stating whether such a matter perspective on the Bill. As a whole, the Bill allows for particularly affected Scotland, Wales or England. However, the possibility that legislation might be described as defence affects the whole of the United Kingdom and applying to the whole of the United Kingdom. It might would therefore not really be subject to the Bill, and in not be possible to separate out in any specific piece of any case there is very little legislation on it. legislation what the effect on particular parts of the United Kingdom might be. However, in the case of Michael Connarty: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s legislation that could apply to one particular part of the interest. He runs the all-party group on the armed United Kingdom, the Bill might encourage parliamentary forces and we served together on the armed forces drafters to draft the proposed legislation in such a way parliamentary scheme, but I do not think that he is that it would be easier to make such a statement. right. I believe that there are Acts of Parliament relating to the actions of the Ministry of Defence. It is not right Michael Connarty: The great difficulty with that is to say that Acts of Parliament that have anything to do that the hon. Lady is arguing against her own Bill. The with the armed forces, or with procurement, for example, point is to are never passed. “ensure that the legal and financial effect of that legislation on each part of the United Kingdom is separately and clearly 9.45 am identified”— If the hon. Gentleman tells me that there are no Acts not vaguely and possibly identified. The hon. Lady’s of Parliament that legislate for what happens in the statement contradicts the clause. If we have to have a Ministry of Defence, he has to prove it to me. I am Bill, for goodness’ sake let us get it right—I am sure afraid I do not take that as read, because I cannot 17 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 18 understand how anyone can say that we spend so much people who would be obsessed with the issue instead of money on defence without ever having to pass an Act of getting on with the business of trying to run the country, Parliament. generate jobs and look after the social welfare of their constituents. Mr Gray: Bizarrely, the hon. Gentleman is misquoting So, it is a badly thought-out clause. I have heard me, so it is important that I set the record right. I did nothing said by anyone so far to convince me that the not say that there was no legislation attached to defence. clause is well drafted and would not have massive Of course there is. The Armed Forces Act is passed problems for every single Act of Parliament. I will want every five years, and there is one currently before the to know exactly what rights people have. As I have said House at the moment. That is true, but most defence before, my brother moved to London when he was 16 to decisions are not under legislation. No law is passed in work in the civil service. He continued in the civil Parliament, for example, to close an air base or deploy service, eventually married and lived in Gosport. In soldiers overseas. Most defence things happen under of Gosport, he had to rely on the health service and the the royal prerogative as decided by Ministers. They are hospital in Portsmouth let him down. It misdiagnosed not carried out under legislation in this place, although what was wrong with him. He eventually had a leg the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that from time amputated and died of a blood clot that was not to time there is indeed legislation, such as the Armed properly treated by that hospital. My concerns for the Forces Act. I never said there was none but there is very people who use the health service in Gosport, Portsmouth little. Where there is legislation, it affects the whole of or anywhere else are just as important as the concerns the UK and therefore would not be subject to the Bill. of the Members sitting here today supporting the Bill. The expenditure cannot be allocated between areas Michael Connarty: They say it is grand when one without substantial inputs. sinner repents. The hon. Gentleman has just agreed that I had an operation in Glasgow called a radioablation, the Armed Forces Act, which we consider every five where one of the two natural pacemakers in my heart years, would have to be a completely different Act if the was taken out, because they can misfire once people are Bill were enacted. It would have to be analysed in a over 50. People come from over all the UK to Professor completely different way. The Bill says that the Secretary Cobbe’s laboratory, as he calls it—he does not even call of State would publish draft legislation and it an operating theatre—to undergo that operation. I “ensure that the legal and financial effect…is separately and have constituents who have had to come to London for clearly identified.” major operations that they could not get in Scotland. Suddenly, the Armed Forces Act would become a People from all over the UK go to Newcastle for heart mammoth task in sub-dividing all the expenditure into operations. How would that be allocated to the Scottish different sectors of the UK. If that is not the case, why budget, to the Welsh budget or the Northern Ireland does clause 1 of the Bill ask that we do that? budget without making a joke of it? Are the supporters I remember when I was the leader of a council in of the Bill saying that they want that to go on? This Bill Scotland. I had a degree in economics and was fascinated would have a broad sweep of a brush across most Acts by accounting systems. We brought in a zero-based of Parliament, but what its supporters really want is planned-programme budgeting system and asked people something that says that the Scots, the Welsh and the to allocate the use of all the staff and resources to every Northern Irish should get their noses out of planning single thing that they did, and if they could do that, business in the shires. I hope that we reject this clause. they would get the money that they demanded to fulfil In fact, I hope that we throw the Bill out. The Government that. The exercise turned into a gargantuan and difficult are right not to support it. task and took up lots of resources. It was very difficult. On the scale of those accounts, it was minuscule. On the Mr Gray: It is a pleasure to serve under your scale of the United Kingdom and a service such as the chairmanship, Mr Gale. It is also a great pleasure to armed forces, it would be unbelievably difficult, but it is follow someone whom I would describe as a close and a good illustration of what we would have to do every old friend, as he and I spent two weeks in a tent in five years. Kenya together, among other things. What I do not I know that that is not the Bill’s intention. I know know about the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East that it is really about starting a process so that people Falkirk is not worth writing down. can express their grievances against the Scots and the I would like to start my contribution by correcting Welsh for coming here and voting on matters to do with the implication of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks, their little shires. I know that that is what it is all about. namely that those of us who support the Bill are somehow But the consequences of the Bill and this clause are not or other Eton and Oxford, south of England, county well thought through. It is a silly Bill. The clause is folk desperately trying to do down the Scots. He knows badly drafted; it has not been thought through and that I attended Hillhead primary school in Glasgow, the should be rejected. It worried Tam Dalyell, and he was High School of Glasgow and the University of Glasgow, correct to be worried about it, although not because it and that I am the son of the Moderator of the General was a reality. I always said to Tam that his worry about Assembly of the Church of Scotland. To this day, my it was because he had been to Eton where he had seen mother lives but a few miles from the hon. Gentleman’s the performances of the people who run this country constituency. I did not leave the borders of Scotland and who thought they could continue to run it. He until I was 21, and am therefore proud to describe knew that the idea that the Scots, following devolution, myself as a thoroughgoing, 100% Scot, but none the should then be allowed to also have a say about things less a huge supporter of my hon. Friend’s Bill. in England and cause problems in this strange place—where Incidentally, it is perhaps worth mentioning in passing he served for 43 years—would worry some people. He that for a brief time—a record short time—I was appointed understood, probably better than I did, that there are by the then leader of the Conservative party to be 19 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 20 shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Within the first The operation was carried out here in London, and she night or two of my appointment I underwent a Paxman was on life support for six weeks before she got that interview on “Newsnight”, when he questioned me on transplant. some previous remarks I had made on Scottish devolution. I stood by what I had said previously. Lord Howard, the The Chair: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the then leader of the party, found it necessary, quite correctly, difference between a speech and an intervention. This is to dismiss me from my job. Being shadow Secretary of supposed to be an intervention; make it brief, please. State for six days held the record for shortest ever political appointment. I therefore have a long and distinguished track record in standing up for these Michael Connarty: That treatment would be charged particular issues as a Scot representing an English seat. back to the Scottish budget, because it would be paid I am particularly pleased to follow the hon. Member for by her local health board. The money would come for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, not least because the out of that given to the devolved Scottish Parliament. arguments that he advanced in seeking to undermine That is my point. That charge would have to be calculated clause 1 were so extremely weak as to be hardly worthy in the application of a health Bill to English hospitals of discussion. The notion that my hon. Friend’s Bill that carry out operations on people from other jurisdictions. falls on detail—it was detail that the hon. Gentleman was discussing—is laughable. In my 15 years in this Mr Gray: The hon. Gentleman has sought once again place, this is the first opportunity I have had to participate to focus on absurd details in an attempt to undermine in a substantive discussion of the extremely important an extremely important Bill. The great Tam Dalyell’s constitutional issue of the West Lothian question and ancestor, General Dalyell of the Binns, was responsible how it affects the people of England as well as the for hanging, drawing and quartering my ancestor, John people of Scotland. Saying that, merely because Tam Parker, at the battle of Rullion Green in 1666. I was Dalyell had been at Eton, it was a bad Bill, it was all prepared to overlook that little historical aberration in awful and we all hate the Scots, is absurd. support of what he stood for. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman gave two bizarre The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Tam examples of why the clause is absurd. The first was in Dalyell correctly viewed the matter as a major constitutional regard to the armed forces, ignoring the fact that there worry and, therefore, something that would indeed be is remarkably little armed forces legislation, as we discussed picked away at until such time as it was answered. We a moment ago. The second example was particularly are discussing only clause 1, which takes one step towards bizarre. I am deeply sorry to hear of the unfortunate solving the problem that Tam Dalyell correctly highlighted. experience of his brother in the hospital in Gosport. It I am not certain why Tam Dalyell’s views on such is extremely regrettable, but it is not an argument matters should necessarily undermine the Bill. for saying that Scottish MPs should have a great deal of say over the national health service in England. After The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point all, my mother has been suffering in Stirling royal against devolution regarding the health service. From infirmary, a few miles from the hon. Gentleman’s memory, he and I tend to agree on devolution, unless I constituency. She went on to recuperate in the hospital am much mistaken. I know that he his sound on first in Falkirk, which is in his constituency. She is currently past the post and I suspect that his views on devolution in the hands of the national health service in are sound, too. He makes a good point that if a Scots Scotland. That is a matter over which I, as an English person is in a hospital in England, their MP in Scotland MP, have no say. That matter is entirely decided by the has an interest. One of my constituents might break a Parliament in Edinburgh. The funding for the national leg in Inverness. I would have an interest in ensuring health service in Scotland is accounted for entirely that the Inverness hospital is a good one, but I cannot separately from that in England. If the system can work do so, because I have no say over that whatever; that is that way round, why should it not work the other way entirely a matter for the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood. round? That is the nature of the West Lothian question, and we are trying to address it here. Michael Connarty: Let me correct the hon. Gentleman’s The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he thought first misapprehension. Tam Dalyell did not say that this that some details of clause 1 were drafted in such a way kind of Bill would be bad or good. He had long as to make it almost impossible to implement, and that experience in the House and knew the obsessions of appallingly complex financial calculations would have people in here. I think he also drew on his experiences to be made for every piece of minor—possibly even with people he had been at school or university with. As secondary—legislation in this place. He may be right. I chairman of the Conservative Association at university, suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for West he knew that people with a certain obsession would Worcestershire might take the view that the precise pick away at the sore of grievance that Scotland had drafting of clause 1 could be improved, but the purpose devolution and that therefore Scots should somehow behind it is clear, which I shall discuss shortly. Perhaps be excluded. He did not argue for a measure in the form words could be improved to prevent the kind of of the Bill that we are considering. Look at the Bill—I administrative and bureaucratic nightmare that the hon. was not arguing what the hon. Gentleman claimed, Gentleman has described. However, for that to be the although my brother’s experience brought home to me main thrust of his argument to undermine the clause in a salutary sense that the English health system is seems wrong. important. The purpose behind the clause is perfectly plain and My point was about people who have to travel. I shall we should support it. Every Bill in this place currently give another example from my family. My niece’s daughter affects different parts of the United Kingdom in different was born with a damaged liver, which had to be replaced. ways. A health Bill affects England; it does not affect 21 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 22

[Mr Gray] The hon. Gentleman is not doing justice to his arguments in picking the NHS. Scotland at all. However, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk can come and vote on that Bill in Mr Gray: The hon. Gentleman is undermining his England. It is the same with education, transport, and arguments by focusing on minutiae rather than on the all the other devolved matters. broad thrust, which is that Bills passed in this place affect different parts of the United Kingdom in different Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South ways. It is right that we should acknowledge that, and Pembrokeshire) (Con): I want to put it on record that, that we should seek to find a solution, and my hon. following the referendum on further powers to the Friend’s Bill goes some way towards doing that. Welsh Assembly, the same rules apply now to Wales. Finally, another part of the hon. Gentleman’s argument seems to undermine his stance. He indicated that such 10 am matters were extremely unimportant. I think he said Mr Gray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was that a few people in this building are fixated on the using Scotland as an example, but many of the same issue, that we ought rather to be down in our constituencies arguments apply to Wales and Northern Ireland. doing important things for our constituents and that The clause provides that, every time the House has to such silly matters should to be dismissed because they consider proposed legislation, we must assess the effect are unimportant. What silly people we are to be sitting on different parts of the United Kingdom. here discussing what he kept calling a silly Bill. We can do that quite easily. For example, the ruling I think the hon. Gentleman is absolutely, 100% wrong. on a national health service Bill passed in Westminster The constitution of the United Kingdom is our most would be that it has no effect on Scotland or on Wales. precious jewel, and we tamper with it at our peril. It was With other Bills, assessing the effect might be much more tampered with significantly when the devolution settlement difficult. Others might state that they equally affect all was introduced, and it is very important that we should the nations and regions of the United Kingdom—that get things right. The same applies of course to the is quite possible. Devolution Bills, presumably, might alternative vote, on which there is a referendum a week only affect Scotland—100%. Leaving aside the detail, on Thursday, and to the House of Lords. Tampering with including such a statement would not be that difficult. the constitution in an unthought-through way is simply The proposal seems to be an extremely important wrong, and to dismiss discussions about our constitution first step towards addressing the West Lothian question. as insignificant or silly is fundamentally wrong. We know that something is wrong. We know that 70-odd The Bill is important, and the clause is important in Scottish MPs coming down to Westminster and voting it. I strongly support it. on English matters is wrong. Why should the people of North Wiltshire have their futures voted on by Scottish Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): It is a MPs when I can have no say whatever on similar pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gale. I matters north of the border? Why should that be the had not intended to speak to the clause, but I must case? That is the West Lothian question that Tam respond to some of the comments and assertions made Dalyell enunciated so clearly.Only by dividing up legislation by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. and assessing how it affects constituencies in different At the outset, I reassure the Committee that, as far as parts of the United Kingdom can we take a step towards I am aware, none of my ancestors were slain by the addressing the problem. ancestors of another hon. Member. However, like my I strongly support my hon. Friend’s Bill and therefore hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, I have to clause 1, which is at its heart. Some aspects or details pick up on one point made by the hon. Gentleman. He might need to be improved, but that can be done in claims that we are supporting the Bill because of some another place or in later stages of consideration. However, debating nicety—that it is some wheeze for Members for the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk to from the shires to pass the time—but it is a real issue attack the Bill and the clause on the slightly dubious that many of our constituents raise. As someone who ground that Tam Dalyell thought that the question was passionately believes in the Union and its continuation, a sore that would run and run, or because his family it is an issue that we had to address. had unfortunate experiences in English hospitals, belittles I am not a knight of the shire; I grew up in Hamilton the argument. The argument is vital, and should not be in the central belt of Scotland during the 1980s. I well tackled in that way. remember the political debate at the time, when policies introduced by Conservative Governments were vehemently Michael Connarty: The hon. Gentleman keeps rewriting opposed by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East history and attributing to Tam Dalyell things he did not Falkirk and his colleagues in Scotland. They were not say. simply opposed because of the details of the policies, as Focusing on the hon. Gentleman’s point about an was their right, but because the policies were thought to NHS Bill, he seems to have completely ignored the fact be somehow anti-Scottish. It was argued that because that such services are available to everyone in the UK, the Conservatives did not command a majority of the but that they are charged back to the respective health seats in Scotland, they had no authority to legislate on budgets in the various places. Presumably, therefore, matters in Scotland. That argument was put vehemently some general clause would have to state that a proposal throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and that helped to could have some effect, which would mean that everyone pave the way for devolution. could pitch in and have the same right to vote throughout But now the situation has turned. Potentially we face the UK, regardless of the Bill being about the NHS in a situation in which the Conservatives could command England, or the matter would have to be ignored. a majority in England but would not form the Government, 23 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 24 and the will of Scotland could effectively override the beginning that, on that issue, the hon. Member for will of England. I am not saying that that issue is Linlithgow and East Falkirk is absolutely wrong. It is a topmost in people’s minds at the moment, but it does real issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton raise its head. People do write and say, “Why is this Keynes South put his finger on it. It is not the case now, happening?” It will gradually gnaw away at the bonds but as I said on Second Reading, if a Government who that hold the Union together if we do not address the had a majority in the United Kingdom, but who did not issue. have a majority in England, started implementing policies in England using that majority from elsewhere, this Michael Connarty: I do not recall it that way, and I would become a very live issue, very quickly. was involved in that debate as a member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I have to ask the hon. Mr Gray: As an example of precisely what he is Gentleman where it stops. London has a separate ability describing, what would happen if, in next week’s referendum, to legislate for the control of its services. It has better the people of England voted no, but overall the answer policing than most of the counties of England and in the United Kingdom was yes, because of Scottish most of the parts of Scotland. When do we stop excluding votes? people in this process? At the moment, the clause refers to parts of the United Kingdom. Do we have to state how it affects London as opposed to other parts of Mr Harper: That is a different issue— England? The Chair: Order. Can we please not go there? Iain Stewart: I do not think that that argument does the hon. Gentleman any credit. Four nations make up Mr Harper: I was happy to answer my hon. Friend, the United Kingdom. It is perfectly clear that that is but there has been a clear ruling from the Chair. what we are talking about, not about further devolution. This is an important issue and it is better if we tackle I must challenge him. Throughout the 1980s, the constant it now, when it is not live and at the top of the political cry from the Labour party in Scotland—and other agenda, rather than waiting until we are in that scenario parties—was that the Conservative Government measures and are then plunged into the debate. It is important to were anti-Scottish, and there was no democratic legitimacy solve the West Lothian question, which is exactly why for what they were doing. That was one of the reasons the Government, made up of the two coalition parties, why we ended up with devolution. I am not going to who come from different perspectives on this issue, have revisit whether that was right or wrong, but devolution said that we will set up a commission to look at it and has happened. Now the situation is reversed and the bring forward a solution. We will announce the details people of England—I say this as a Scot who now of that commission this year. It will work on this represents an English constituency—have a perfectly subject to bring forward some proposals. legitimate claim to say that if a measure affects only England, only English Members should determine that. Michael Connarty: Does the Minister recognise that Michael Connarty: Could the hon. Gentleman define the Government are opposed to the Bill? The point I one of the issues that affect only England on the basis was making was against the Bill and clause 1, rather of what I said about everyone being able to use services than against the principle that people should look at across borders? how the constitution of the UK develops in the future.

Mr Gray: Fox hunting. Mr Harper: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman did not let me get past my opening remarks. I thought it was Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend gives a perfect example. worth mentioning the commission. He is right; the There are issues that are solely territorially distinct. Government, on Second Reading, did not support the Look through the Scotland Bill at all the issues that are Bill and we still do not support the Bill. I did not, specifically reserved and those that are devolved. There however, want to describe it in the same intemperate are issues that affect only parts of the United Kingdom. way that the hon. Gentleman has. He belittled the issue. But the important point is that clause 1 does not specify The Bill raises an important issue about the West Lothian the mechanism by which the English voice should be question, which is raised on the doorsteps by many heard. It is merely the first step to defining whether a electors in England. Indeed, many Scots MPs think that Bill applies to the whole United Kingdom or to different it is relevant. Members of the Scottish National party parts of it, and the financial effects on it. I warmly who sit here do not vote on things that do not affect welcome the introduction of the Bill by my hon. Friend Scotland or are devolved to Scotland, because they the Member for West Worcestershire, which may be recognise that this is an issue and that those are things amended at a later stage. The purpose of Committee they should not be voting on. It is something that the and Report stages is to make sure that the detail of a Government take seriously and we will address it when Bill is correct, but the principle behind clause 1 is we announce the details of the commission. That is absolutely sound. Anyone who claims to be a supporter worth saying. of the Union should back the Bill. Having said that, I do share some views with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. We cannot The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark support the Bill. I said on Second Reading that the Harper): I will not dwell on the West Lothian question main problem was that the Bill would put extra burdens in general for long, given that we are discussing clause 1 on the Government and on Ministers, without a of the Bill. I am sure you, Mr Gale, would rule me out commensurate increase in clarity and information for of order if I did. However, it is worth saying at the our constituents. As my hon. Friend the Member for 25 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 26

[Mr Harper] Ministers introduced legislation that did not adequately set these things out, we would be pulled up by Members West Worcestershire has explained, clause 1 states that on both sides if we brought it before the House; in fact, the Secretary of State, when publishing draft legislation— we probably would not even get past our internal processes. this applies to both draft primary and secondary legislation—has to Michael Connarty: Would the Minister also like to “ensure that both the legal and financial effect of that legislation put it on record that the House does in fact debate and on each of the United Kingdom is separately and clearly identified.” vote on Bills that cover Scotland? Sewel motions extend The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk Bills, as was the old practice. If something is not a suggested that the same problem applied to sub-dividing matter of controversy, it is usually passed by this House, England, but clause 2, which is about interpretation, even though it will affect Scotland. sets out that for the purposes of the Bill, parts of the United Kingdom means England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does discuss sub-dividing England. Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman is correct. One The hon. Gentleman did raise the issue of London and thing that came up in our earlier discussion was that we matters that are under the control of the London assembly need to be clear about the language we use. We have to and the Mayor. The definition in clause 2 of “separately be careful when we talk about Bills that apply to different and clearly identified” means parts of the United Kingdom and about Bills that deal with devolved matters, and those are not necessarily the “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 same thing. In other words, a Bill might apply only to Kingdom of each of the clauses and schedules of the bill”. England, but might cover an issue that is not devolved. Similarly, when colleagues talk about the West Lothian The concern that the Government have is that it is question, they are really talking about issues that are not particularly clear what “legal effect” or “financial devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly effect” mean. Is “legal effect” simply a requirement to and the Northern Ireland Assembly, not just things that say to which part of the United Kingdom the law apply to them. It is already the case that legislation extends or, where the legislation extends to England could apply across the United Kingdom, in the sense and Wales—which are, of course, one legal jurisdiction—in that a Bill’s extent covers the whole United Kingdom, which one it applies if it only applies in one of them? If but it might apply only in certain parts of the country, that is what it means, it does not add a great deal to the and that is an important distinction. information contained in the extent clause of a Bill or statutory instrument, or in the detailed notes that go The second thing that clause 1 talks about is the duty with them to explain their territorial extent. If that is in relation to the Bill’s financial effect, which was one of not what it means, I am not clear what it does mean. the issues that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and Given that it is not particularly clear, the duty may be East Falkirk raised when he talked about defence matters. very wide ranging, which I think was the point raised by Under the present arrangements, all new UK-wide the hon. Gentleman, and it may impose significant legislation must already specify its financial impact, and burdens on a Secretary of State and be unnecessarily it must be drafted within Departments’ existing spending burdensome when they were introducing draft primary plans. If a piece of legislation is brought forward, it and secondary legislation. cannot have any Barnett consequentials, because it must be within existing plans that have been agreed by the 10.15 am Treasury in financial legislation. Again, the Government are not clear what “financial Harriett Baldwin: I am grateful to the Minister for effect” means. If it meant what the hon. Gentleman acknowledging the intentions behind the Bill. Would he suggested, it would indeed be incredibly complicated to be able to amend the wording in any way to bring it set out. However, I am not sure that it does, and that is closer to what the Government see as acceptable? part of the problem with the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has done the House a Mr Harper: The problem is that if the wording is service by giving us the opportunity both on Second clear, or it can be made clear, and it refers simply to the Reading and in Committee to debate such an important territorial extent of legislation, that information would matter and to tease out some issues. already be included in the extent clause of the Bill or statutory instrument, in which case the provisions add Mr Gray: I sense that the Minister is beginning to nothing to the information available to Members of wind up. Does he agree that, if the Government support Parliament and our constituents and they are unnecessary. the principle behind the Bill but are worried about some The Government certainly do not want to impose of its details and consequences, it should be incumbent unnecessary legislation that brings no benefit. on them to table amendments to the Bill in Committee? The fact that no such amendments have been tabled to Harriett Baldwin: Would the Minister acknowledge the Bill show that the Government are either not content that such an extent clause—obviously, there is one in with the principle behind it or have been slack in not the Bill, in clause 5(3)—is included only because of civil tabling amendments. service guidance? The Bill would strengthen that arrangement and put it on a statutory footing. Mr Harper: If the hon. Gentleman remembers, we did not support the Bill on Second Reading. We did not Mr Harper: The point is that Bills already have extent support its principles, but I acknowledged again in the clauses in them. They might be there only as a result of debate that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire guidance, but that guidance works perfectly well. If had done the House a service by bringing forward a Bill 27 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 28 that enabled us to debate the West Lothian question. Michael Connarty: I respect the hon. Lady’s motivation, Although the Bill is related to the West Lothian question, but the points raised by the Minister and me have not the particular approach adopted by the hon. Lady is been answered. The clause does not provide for general not one that we thought was particularly helpful. We statements about where financial and legal implications therefore did not support the Bill on Second Reading will have effect. I hope that the hon. Lady, if she was nor did we support its principle listening, accepts that people use the NHS in England and that that is charged back to Scotland, and that even Mr Gray: The Government did not. the effect of the decision on tuition fees, which are paid by the Scottish Funding Council for every Scottish student going to an English university, will affect the Mr Harper: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The education budget back in the devolved parts of the Government, whom I speak for, did not support the United Kingdom. Therefore, the detail for which she asks Bill. The House did support it on Second Reading, is different from the principle, and the detail is flawed. which is why we are in Committee debating it. Although I have great sympathy for the issue raised by the hon. Lady and acknowledge that she has done the House a Harriett Baldwin: I do not really want to ask for the service by enabling us to debate it, I am explaining why indulgence of the Chair and move on to clause 2, which the Government do not consider the Bill to be helpful. I starts to define all the different meanings, but that will urge hon. Members on both sides of the House not to go a long way towards allaying the hon. Gentleman’s support the Bill, but I ask those who think that the West concern about clarifications. Lothian question is worth dealing with to support the Government’s proposals when we announce them this Mr Harper: The problem is that, having looked ahead year at our commission. Regretfully, I advise colleagues to it, clause 2 does not explain in any more detail what not to support the clause standing part of the Bill. those terms mean. To go back to what happens with legislation, it is already the case that Bills spell out their Harriett Baldwin: In recommending that the clause territorial extent. I know that the hon. Lady says that stand part of the Bill, I wish to reassure the hon. that is in the guidance that officials use for drawing up Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk about several legislation and that Ministers use before introducing a issues. I feel myself to be an embodiment of the Union. measure, but that seems to work perfectly well. I have As I said on Second Reading, my grandmother, Flora not heard any argument about that process being broken. McLean McLeod Morison, was born in Dunbar to a If it is working well and there is no problem, the House general practitioner from the Isle of Mull so I have should not pass another Bill to do it. strong family roots in Scotland. I promoted the Bill If the hon. Lady can explain where the territorial from the perspective of someone who cares passionately extent clauses in Bills are broken and do not work, we about the Union and who is worried that, through the can look at whether that can be rectified without the process of devolution—which I also support and thus need to pass another piece of legislation. If that is not differ from the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor—more the case, the Bill might make sense, but I have not heard issues have been devolved and thus more legislative any reason or explanation about why what we do already matters are likely to be brought forward in this Parliament is not sufficient. that apply to only parts of the United Kingdom. That was the motivation behind my introducing the Bill. Harriett Baldwin: The crucial point is that when civil About 100 hon. Members can vote on issues that would service guidance is followed and civil servants work not apply in their constituencies. with the Secretary of State to prepare draft legislation, I assure the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East they often state the territorial extent in the Bill, but they Falkirk that I am proud to represent West Worcestershire, are not required to do so by law. There is simply which I regard very much as the heart of England and guidance, which future Secretaries of State might choose the heart of the shires. There is no question about that. I to dispense with unless it is put on a statutory footing. was pleased to hear the Minister echo such sentiments. The other reason, which I have just mentioned, is that The issue is raised on the doorstep, so to say that we are the Speaker might be put in a politicised position should not listening to our constituents when debating such the description of territorial extent be used in the matters does us a disservice. Both the hon. Gentleman future, with the House’s agreement, to inform Standing and the Minister asked about the wording of the clause, Orders and their application by the Speaker, and should but I regret that they have been unable to propose the Government of the day—whichever political party alternative wording that would satisfy them. they represented—be the only people who, through The clause will put the requirement to spell out the their civil servants, had put such an indication in the territorial extent of legislation on a statutory footing, as draft legislation, without its having gone through a opposed to relying simply on civil service guidance. statutory process, which is outlined later in the Bill, of Doing that will require drafters to think more carefully, effective scrutiny by the House. when they draft legislation, about ensuring that it can Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. be clearly identified in that way. The importance of that was discussed on Second Reading: it is possible that the The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 3. House might ask the Speaker to certify that a Bill Division No. 2] applied to a particular part of the United Kingdom and, unless it were set out in the measure, that might put AYES the Speaker in an awkward position and politicise his Baldwin, Harriett Stewart, Bob role. Having it on a statutory basis and subject to Gray, Mr James discussion in the House is extremely important. Hart, Simon Stewart, Iain 29 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 30

NOES legal effect of particular legislation is there for all hon. Connarty, Michael Hinds, Damian Members in this place and all whom they represent Harper, Mr Mark to see.

Question accordingly agreed to. Mr Harper: I shall not speak at length, because I Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 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 Michael Connarty: I apologise for having to leave. I the current drafting of legislation in setting out the note that the Stewarts who were not murdered by Black territorial extent clauses. Indeed, the definitions might Tam Dalyell are supporting the Bill. make matters more complicated, because there would have to be a Clause 2 “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”. INTERPRETATION Bills such as this one currently set out in the extent Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the clause that the whole Act would extend to different Bill. parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 2 is not clear whether the specific territorial extent would have to be 10.30 am set out for each individual clause and schedule in a Bill. The duty also extends to draft secondary legislation, Harriett Baldwin: It is a pity that the hon. Member as I said in the debate on clause 1. Whatever we are for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has had to leave, because doing, the duty should apply only to primary legislation. clause 2 makes considerable progress in interpreting the Secondary legislation is already covered by the vires of wording in clause 1. It defines draft legislation as its parent legislation. Even if secondary legislation were “primary legislation published before a bill is introduced into published in draft, it would have to conform to the Parliament or secondary legislation published before the bill territorial extent of its parent legislation. The territorial creating the relevant instrument-making power has received Royal Assent”, extent of that secondary legislation would therefore already have been considered during scrutiny of the and so it effectively covers statutory instruments, too. draft Bill or during the Bill’s passage before it is enacted. In response to the points that have been made about Again, therefore, I do not think the provisions add London, “part of the United Kingdom” means England, anything. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. “Publish” means The final point relates to the definition of the parts of in both “hard or electronic form”. “Secretary of State” the United Kingdom, which refers to England, Wales, includes a Minister of the Crown, so the proposal Scotland and Northern Ireland separately and does not relates to the legislation that the Government introduce, take account of the fact that England and Wales form a as opposed to that put forward by private business. combined legal system. It is, of course, possible for During the clause 1 stand part debate we discussed legislation to take effect only in one of England or “separately and clearly identified”, which simply means Wales, but it would still be the law of England and “with regard to legal effect, that there is a statement in the draft Wales, even if did not actually have any effect in one legislation setting out the legal effect on each part of the United particular part. Kingdom of each of the clauses and schedules of the bill”. With regard to financial effect, “separately and clearly identified” means Mr Gray: I am extremely puzzled by the approach of Her Majesty’s Government. Having already been “that the financial effects of the draft legislation on each part of ignominiously defeated in a Division in Committee, the United Kingdom are set out in a financial memorandum accompanying the draft legislation, including any impact on how can they turn round and start picking holes in Barnett formula allocations (or, should the Barnett formula be minute details of the Bill’s drafting? If their objection to superseded, its successor formula).” the Bill related to some of these small details, it would That interpretation is important. The Scottish National surely have been only right for them to table amendments. party, for example, often decides to abstain on a particular Having not done so, they should surely be prepared to vote if it believes that the measure before the House accept my hon. Friend’s drafting. does not apply to Scotland. On occasion, it has found itself unsure whether there is any impact on Scotland Mr Harper: No. I acknowledge that the issue that my through the effect of the Barnett formula. It has, therefore, hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has erred on the side of caution in voting in such situations. highlighted through her Bill is important and that the Including a requirement to spell out the financial effects, Government want to tackle the West Lothian question which is supplementary to the guidance that the civil or, as she rechristened it on the ConservativeHome service is currently required to produce, helps those who website, “the English question”—we have been trying might, for whatever reason, feel that it is not necessary to do that for some time, but we have never quite for them to vote in a particular Division or on a managed to make that name stick. However, the particular issue. Government do not support the principle or the detail The financial effect of a measure can be discovered of the Bill, because it does not make any progress in by other means, but the virtue of putting it on a solving the West Lothian question. We did not, therefore, statutory footing is that it is spelled out on the face of support it on Second Reading and we do not support draft legislation. The financial consequences and the the individual clauses. 31 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 32

These are significant issues. The hon. Member for Mr Harper: My hon. Friend has explained the purpose Linlithgow and East Falkirk was dismissive of the Bill of the declaration. The concept of a declaration of and of addressing the West Lothian question. The compatibility is something with which hon. Members Government do not agree with him about dismissing are familiar from looking at the declaration made on the West Lothian question. Hon. Members have explained legislation about the Human Rights Act 1998. A significant that their constituents, like mine, raise this issue unprompted difference, however, is that in that declaration clear legal on the doorstep, so it is important. However, the Bill is principles are set out in the European convention on not a step forward in tackling it, although it has allowed human rights, against which the legislation can be measured. us to debate these important issues on Second Reading Ministers look at that legislation carefully when making on the Floor of the House and in Committee. such a declaration. For the reasons that I outlined when we debated We will not dwell in this debate on a detailed discussion clause 1 and for the extra reasons that I have outlined of the European convention on human rights. That now, clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, and I would, of course, be out of order and you would take urge my hon. Friends to agree with me when the issue is me up on it, Mr Gale, if I strayed. However, there is put to a vote. extensive case law on what the convention means, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. when we discuss clause 4 I will explain why the declaration under discussion is more complicated. Because it is not The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 2. clearly defined, a Secretary of State would have a real Division No. 3] problem in making such a declaration because it is not clear what the Bill is being declared compatible with. AYES That is a real problem, but rather than anticipate the Baldwin, Harriett Stewart, Bob debate, I will go into the issue in more detail when we Gray, Mr James Stewart, Iain discuss clause 4. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose clause 3. NOES Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Harper, Mr Mark Hinds, Damian Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 2. Question accordingly agreed to. Division No. 4] Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. AYES Baldwin, Harriett Stewart, Bob Clause 3 Gray, Mr James Stewart, Iain

DECLARATION OF COMPATIBILITY NOES Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Harper, Mr Mark Hinds, Damian Bill. Question accordingly agreed to. Harriett Baldwin: The clause addresses a point that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. raised at the beginning of the debate. What would happen in the hypothetical situation that it was not Clause 4 possible to make the statement required in the Bill?

The declaration of compatibility provisions simply PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATIVE TERRITORIAL CLARITY say: Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the “The Secretary of State must, when publishing draft Bill. legislation…make a statement to the effect that in his or her view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the principles of legislative territorial clarity”. Harriett Baldwin: The clause outlines the principles However, it also says the Secretary of State must of legislative territorial clarity, which are that every “make a statement to the effect that although he or she is unable citizen of the United Kingdom has the right to see how to make a statement of compatibility the government nonetheless proposed changes to the law will affect them, and that wishes to proceed.” Members of this House have the right to see how The second part of the declaration of compatibility proposed changes to the law will affect their constituents. states: That strengthens and puts on a statutory basis new principles of legislative territorial clarity. I am delighted “The statement must be in writing, be published in such manner as the Secretary of State making it considers appropriate that on Second Reading, the Minister said he believed and be laid before each House of Parliament.” those to be sensible principles, and I am sure that it will The debate on this clause focuses on particular be hard for anyone to object to them in this debate. circumstances such as a situation where it is simply not possible to make the statements required by the legislation. Mr Harper: I fear that I may disappoint my hon. It gives the Secretary of State some leeway, but ensures Friend. Although the principles may be welcome, we that the House of Commons is made aware that the are talking about creating legislation that will put duties Secretary of State was unable to make that statement of on Ministers. There is a lack of clarity about what is compatibility, thereby opening the matter up to become meant. For example, it is not clear how far the Bill a debatable issue. would require the Secretary of State to go. In the case of 33 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 34

[Mr Harper] Mr Harper: Let me draw the distinction I am trying to make for my hon. Friend. In legislation we set out the a declaration of compatibility with the European changes to the law that we want to see. With the convention, which is the comparison we have used, the legislation we publish White Papers, which expand in convention exists and there is extensive case law so that more detail on why it is that we are bringing forward we know with what the Bill is compatible. All we have that legislation and what we hope to achieve. The principle here are the words in the Bill. and the detail of legislation are debated in the House, but we do not include all of that wider information in 10.45 am legislation. In legislation we stick to writing the law. We Would the Secretary of State, for example, be fulfilling do not include all of the surrounding information on the principles of legislative territorial clarity if he or she the effects that it will have. set out in legislation the legal and financial effect, as I am not clear, and I do not think that Ministers and required in clause 1 and interpreted in clause 2? If that officials drafting the legislation would be clear about is the case—if including the extent clauses detailing the what they had to do to comply with clauses 3 or 4, extent of the legal effect of legislation is required to which are linked, in order to make that particular fulfil the principles of legislative territorial clarity—clauses statement. Of course it is important that people know 3 and 4 are unnecessary. The Bill would do what it needs what effect the law will have, which is why we try to to do without them. If the clauses mean something else draft it in a very clear and straightforward way. Then we and the Minister has to go further, it is not clear what have extensive debate in Parliament so that people are the Secretary of State would have to do to comply with clear about what it does, but it is not as straightforward them. Would a Bill, for example, have to detail the effect as my hon. Friend thinks. That is why it is our business on citizens and on Members’ constituents, or would to debate legislation. that detail have to be in the explanatory notes? Much argument is made about the effect of legislation, The Bill applies only to draft legislation, which is we tease out the details and legislation is often changed almost always accompanied by a White Paper and is as it moves through the House. I do not think it is clear often subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.Those mechanisms, and straightforward. The burden put on Ministers is which are already used by the House, are useful for potentially quite a significant one, without the benefit providing extra detail on the impact of legislation such of citizens being any clearer than they are today about as why Ministers are bringing it forward and why the the effect that the legislation will have. That is why I Government think it is a good idea. I think those think the Committee should oppose clause 4. mechanisms are more effective than including many more words in legislation. Mr Gray: I am increasingly puzzled by the Minister’s It would be a significant change if, rather than a Bill stance. Leaving aside his broad concerns with the general only containing the wording of the provisions that thrust of the way that the Bill is drafted, the principles change the law, we started including descriptions of the behind clause 4 are incredibly straightforward. The effect that those changes would have. I am not clear—and Minister and the Government opposed the motion I am not sure that draftsmen, Ministers and Members proposed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that of Parliament are clear—about how people would comply the House should be sovereign. Similarly, they seem to with the requirements in clauses 3 and 4. That lack of be opposing something that is as plain as the nose on clarity might risk creating a new ground on which your face. Of course it is right that the citizens of the people could challenge primary legislation in the courts, United Kingdom have the right to see how proposed either on the basis that there had been no declaration or changes to the law will affect them, and that Members that a declaration was one that no reasonable Secretary of the House of Commons have the right to see how of State would make. proposed changes to the law will affect their constituents. The clause either does not add anything to the Bill or To deny or gainsay those two principles fundamentally it is not clear. After listening to my hon. Friend’s undermines the purpose of having a House of Commons. description I was not any clearer about what the Secretary Of course those things are right. of State would be certifying in his or her statement on a If the Minister chooses to vote against the clause, he Bill’s compatibility. I am not clear about the processes will be saying that every citizen of the United Kingdom and steps that officials and Ministers would have to does not have the right to see how proposed changes to take to be able to make such a declaration. When the law will affect them. Of course they do; obviously, Ministers make the existing declaration about compatibility they do. As a Member of Parliament, he must recognise with the Human Rights Act 1998 they make that statement that they do. His argument against the clause was that personally. The Minister has to take responsibility for he could not quite work out how the Secretary of State that, because it is legally challengeable. Ministers consider would conform to the terms of the clause. He said that it seriously before issuing such a certification. it would be very difficult: would they do it in a White Paper? Would they do it in the explanatory notes? No Harriett Baldwin: Will the Minister confirm that he doubt that can be sorted out down the road. Surely we continues to believe that it is a sensible principle, as he can find a way in which the Secretary of State could stated on Second Reading? I would have been interested comply? to see what amendments he would have proposed to the For the Minister to say that he is uncertain about wording, but in general does he agree that the principle how the Secretary of State will comply and that that is a of every citizen being able to see how they are affected good reason for voting against our constituents’ knowing by changes to the law and how proposed changes to the what is happening in this place is bizarre. I therefore law might affect the constituents of Members of Parliament challenge the Minister. He has made his overall opposition is a sensible one? to the Bill plain by voting against clauses and has been 35 Public Bill Committee27 APRIL 2011 Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 36 humiliatingly defeated on three separate occasions so lot of unclear complexity; it is uncertain how much far. Her Majesty’s Government have not taken such a extra burden it imposes. It is not clear that any benefits beating in recent times. Despite the Minister’s opposition will result. to other parts of the Bill, surely he can see that clause 4 Having considered the Bill in detail, I am not at all is about an absolutely straightforward and basic principle sure that at the end of the process—if it were to pass of democracy. I hope he will find it in his heart to through Parliament and become law—any extra information support what the hon. Lady has proposed. would be available to Members of Parliament or constituents that would make any clearer the extent to Mr Harper: I think that my hon. Friend is missing the which legislation passing through the House might point that I am making. Of course it is the case that affect them. I am no clearer having debated the matter. citizens need to know how the law will affect them. The job of Members of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation Harriett Baldwin: That goes to the crux of what we in detail, which is what we are doing. I am pointing out have been debating. Will the Minister confirm what the that it is not at all clear what the Secretary of State terms of reference will be for the West Lothian commission? would have to do to comply and to be able to make a statement of compatibility. Alternatively, the position is Mr Harper: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not not clear if they cannot make a statement of compatibility yet able to do so. Indeed, Mr Gale, seeing your expression, but they wish to proceed. 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 Mr Gray: In clause 4? the normal way. I ask my hon. Friend to be a little patient. Mr Harper: Clause 4 sets out what the Secretary of I made it clear on Second Reading and in Committee State has to do to be compatible with clause 3, so that the Government are committed to dealing with the clauses 3 and 4 are intimately combined. There are West Lothian question, but at a time when it is not the already processes that exist in this House when we are most burning issue, as we do not want it being decided publishing draft legislation—the White Paper and the in a political climate that is not particularly hospitable. I process of pre-legislative scrutiny—where the Government have given that clear assurance at each stage. We believe can set out exactly what they mean and the House can that this piece of legislation will not move us any then tease out, test and challenge Ministers on what further forward, which is why I urge my hon. Friend not they mean. But I am not clear about how to ensure to proceed with it. She obviously takes a different view, compliance. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said as she is entitled to, but I still urge the Committee not to that a way could be found for it to work. That may be support clause standing part. the case, but the Government do not want to create Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. significant burdens that will create extra work and extra cost for Government, particularly at a time when we are The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 2. trying to do Government more efficiently and at lower Division No. 5] cost, without a commensurate benefit. If the Government believed that the burden that the Bill imposed on Ministers AYES would lead to a significant improvement, and that it Baldwin, Harriett Stewart, Bob would result in Members of Parliament and citizens Gray, Mr James Stewart, Iain being much clearer about the effect of legislation, the Government might have taken a different view. However, NOES we believe that the burdens are potentially significant and unclear, and that they will not lead to any improvement Harper, Mr Mark Hinds, Damian in clarity for Members or citizens. That is why we oppose the Bill in principle and are opposing it in detail Question accordingly agreed to. as we work our way through it. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Harriett Baldwin: The Minister alluded earlier to the Clause 5 fact that he remains committed to establishing a commission this year to examine the West Lothian question. His SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT comments worry me. Will he confirm that the terms of Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the reference for that commission will allow recommendations Bill. that might increase some burdens on Government and allow some expense to make clearer to which parts of the United Kingdom legislation applies? Mr Harper: I wish to make two points. First, my hon. Friend’s intention is that the Bill will come into force automatically three months after Royal Assent. Given Mr Harper: The point that I was making to my hon. that I have set out a number of difficulties with the Bill Friend the Member for North Wiltshire is not that the as drafted, it would require some changes, perhaps Bill imposes burdens that may have some cost, but that significant changes, in the way the legislation is prepared. it is not certain. The scope of those extra burdens is not The Government would have to give proper thought to at all clear. As I said, on one reading the territorial guidance to ensure that the Bill could be complied with, extent of legislation is already there, so the Bill does not particularly if we were unable to deal with any lack of add anything. If that is not what it does, then it adds a clarity about what the Bill meant. The Government 37 Public Bill CommitteeHOUSE OF COMMONS Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill 38

[Mr Harper] opportunity to table amendments to the Bill, but in speaking to the clause stand part, I look forward to would much prefer the Bill to come into effect through some improvements in the subtlety of the wording a commencement order, rather than that happening when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. automatically. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 11 am Subsection (3), which explains the territorial extent, The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 2. is incompatible with the usual meaning of those words Division No. 6] in legislation. As normally used, they apply to the legal jurisdictions within which the Bill will have effect. England AYES and Wales is a single legal jurisdiction, and there is no Baldwin, Harriett Stewart, Bob separate Welsh legal jurisdiction or set of Welsh legislation, Gray, Mr James Stewart, Iain so, as drafted, it is not clear exactly what that means. I urge colleagues not to support clause 5 as drafted. NOES The Chair: I will call the hon. Lady to respond in a Harper, Mr Mark Hinds, Damian moment, but the Minister will appreciate that we must vote on the clause as it stands, not as anybody might Question accordingly agreed to. wish it to be. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Harriett Baldwin: The discussion has been helpful and wide-ranging, and it has illustrated that, on both The Chair: On behalf of the hon. Lady and hon. sides of the House, there are strong feelings on this Members, I take this opportunity to thank the staff of matter. We have heard a clear statement from the Minister the House for their assistance, without which our business that the concern that the Bill is intended to address is would be a lot harder. something that he agrees needs to be tackled at this time, while it is not a burning issue, and when it is not Bill to be reported, without amendment. on the front burner of constitutional challenges for the Government. 11.5 am I appreciate everything that the Government have Committee rose. stated today about some issues with the legislation. I am disappointed that the Government did not take the