To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs an urgent question on water shortages. [Interruption.]

rose—

Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly? The business of the House still continues.

The UK has seen below average rainfall for 19 months. In particular, the south-east has been much drier than during the notable drought of1974 to 1976. The Environment Agency believes that the droughtin the south-east has the potential to be the worst for 100 years. Water planning is based on the principle that each water company has a water resource plan looking ahead 25 years. Water companies also have a drought plan setting out how they will continue to meet their duties during a water shortage.

I recognise the public concern about leakage rates. Ofwat, the economic regulator, sets targets for leakage and over the past 10 years, leakage rates have reduced by 30 per cent. However, there is more to be done, particularly by some companies. Since privatisation, water companies have invested £55 billion in water and sewerage assets, and more than £3.5 billion in 2004-05 alone.

As the House will be aware, water companies in the south-east have introduced hosepipe and sprinkler bans to manage the drought situation. The recent decision to approve the Sutton and East Surrey Water drought order application is the next step beyond a hosepipe ban. I am considering the independent inspector's reports following the hearings on the drought order applications made by Southern Water and Mid Kent Water.

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his new post and by thanking him for that statement? The Opposition do not blame the Government for the weather, even though some of my colleagues would like us to. Many of us will remember the last Labour Minister for drought, who rapidly became the Minister for floods, so we accept that these things are indeed unpredictable, and we recognise that most of the water supply problems that we face, particularly in the south-east, are mainly the result of below average winter rainfall.

However, I remind the Minister of a statement that the Labour party made before the 1997 general election:

"Labour is determined to see significant improvements in the way the water industry serves local people, contributes to its communities and looks after the environment."

Nine years on, that looks like another failed ambition. Many people are bemused and angered by the fact that in Britain in the 21st century they face restrictions on their water use and the threat of standpipes.

Does the Minister agree that the task of urging people to use water wisely is not helped by the fact that the water industry loses more than 3.5 billion litres of water a day in leaks? Is he completely satisfied that all water companies are addressing the pressing issue of renewing our water supply infrastructure with the sense of urgency and the use of technology that people have a right to expect? Does he accept that it is reasonable for people to ask why they should do their bit, if the water companies do not seem to be doing theirs? Is he satisfied that a sufficiently robust sanctions regime is in place to prevent and control leaks, especially given that Thames Water has missed its target for fixing leaks for five years in a row now?

Does the Minister agree with Ken Livingstone, who yesterday said that compulsory metering was "inevitable"? If so, over what time frame does he think that those meters should be introduced? How does he square that with the statement made before the 1997 general election that

"Labour is opposed to forcing people to install water meters"?

Is that still Labour policy? If not, and the Government are considering compulsory water metering, what measures is he considering to ensure that poorer families and vulnerable groups are not penalised by a compulsory metering regime?

What is the Government's policy on the construction of new reservoirs in the south-east? Is it not the height of folly, and seriously irresponsible, for the Government to press ahead with plans for millions of new homes in the south-east, an area already suffering from water stress, without having first put in place the infrastructure to support them? We all accept the need for more affordable housing, but nobody—least of all the people who would move into the new homes—would thank the Government if they were subjected to regular restrictions on their water use. Will the Government therefore support the Bill introduced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), which would require an assessment of the adequacy of water supplies to be made before the construction of new homes or commercial developments?

What plans do the Government have in place to ensure that supply matches demand, if we have another dry winter next year? Do the Government have any plans in that regard? What action do the Government have in mind to support those businesses that are likely to suffer from the consequences of drought orders? What assessment has the Minister made of the number of businesses that may face closure as a result of the restrictions he has sanctioned? What discussions has he had with major sporting venues, such as Wimbledon, Lords, race courses and golf courses about the likely impact on them of the imposition of drought orders?

We do not blame the Government for the weather, but we and the public will certainly hold them to account if they fail to take all action necessary to avert the worst effects of water shortage this year and in the future.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I do indeed follow an illustrious predecessor in Denis Howell, who was the Member of Parliament for Small Heath. I am also responsible for floods, and if I am as successful in encouraging rainfall as he was, I will be delighted.

I welcome the realism shown by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). The situation is principally the result of below average rainfall for 19 months, so groundwater levels are very low. Although reservoir levels in the south-east are not that bad, more than70 per cent. of the area's water comes from groundwater, and the Environment Agency's recent report shows those levels to be very low.

The Government recognise that there are too many leaks and we also believe that some water companies need to up their game. However, Sutton and East Surrey Water has met its leakage targets and the headline figures for 2004-05 show a reduction in leakage rates from 2003-04. All but three water companies met their leakage targets.

I note what the hon. Gentleman said about compulsory metering, which is not Government policy but which clearly has environmental benefits. The evidence suggests that it reduces domestic consumption by about 10 per cent., so it is worth serious consideration. All of us have to do our bit, water companies and consumers in the south-east alike. We need to think about the simple things, such as ensuring that the tap is turned off when we brush out teeth and that washing machines are fully loaded. Collectively, simple measures like that can have a major effect.

The hon. Gentleman asked about new reservoirs. He will know that five new reservoirs are planned for the south-east, and that three others in the area are to be expanded. The region's particular geography means that, traditionally, it has relied on groundwater far more than other parts of the UK. Reservoirs can be part of the solution in the south-east, but they will never be the whole solution and especially not in the short term, as of course the normal planning procedures apply. That is why we have drought orders.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point to do with new housing developments in the south-east, and I shall explain how the system works. Water companies produce 25-year water resource plans that take account of future housing need, where that is clearly defined, and I am informed that the plans currently take account of 900,000 extra houses in the south-east. The regulator has to agree investment plans with the individual companies, based on the water resource forecasts. Those investment plans have been agreed up to 2010, but the next review of water prices and investment plans begins in 2009 and will take account of all housing development planned up to that year.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked various questions about the impact on businesses and sporting venues. I emphasise that so far we have granted one drought order, and we expect the company concerned to implement it proportionately and sensitively. We do not know how long the present situation will last, but it is in everyone's interest to take action now. If there is a message to people in the south-east, it is that they should use water wisely in the current circumstances.

This year, water and sewerage charges are up 5.5 per cent on last year. The Minister was reluctant to name poor performers, but will he have discussions with Ofwat about the performance of Thames Water, and of Severn Trent Water, the company that serves his constituency? Will he ensure that customers, who are paying substantially more this year, get a decent and improved service?

I shall certainly meet the regulator regularly, as it is important to ensure that customers get a fair a deal. That is what Ofwat is about. The fact that Thames Water has consistently missed its leakage targets for a long time is a serious problem that I intend to discuss with the company and the regulator.

As the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has already said, this is a weather issue so the Opposition would be ill-advised to hold the Government solely account for that. As the Minister said, there have been many months—he said 19; my information was 17—of below average rainfall in the south-east. Has he reached an assessment of whether that involves a change in the trend or is it in the normal run of weather events? The Department is responsible for assessing the impact of climate change, so in the light of possible climate change and of what appears to be a recurring pattern of extremely dry summers in the south-east, is it time to reassess the five extra reservoirs already planned for the area?

The hon. Member for East Surrey quoted from the Labour manifesto of 1997. Is the Minister happy that Ofwat has required adequate investment? In some companies, for example Southern Water, leakage is still running at 27 per cent. after nine years. That is unacceptable and requires rather greater urgency from the Government and the companies than seems so far to have been exhibited.

As many as 20 years ago plans for a national water grid were mooted. Are they being reconsidered in the context of current drought orders, hosepipe bans and water shortages? We know that water metering has a clear impact in reducing use. Not only has Ken Livingstone backed water metering, as the hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned, but a possibly even more authoritative body, the Consumer Council for Water, has backed compulsory metering in affected parts of the south-east. Will the Government consider, not a general plan for metering, but at least a plan for metering in affected areas?

The Minister mentioned the Government's commitment to extra house building in the south-east: 580,000 houses over the next 20 years. Is not it time to recognise that the infrastructural needs of that housing have not been put in place ahead of the new build? We have had new build and we are still suffering not merely water shortages but considerable problems with drainage and sewerage, which are another aspect of the water companies' responsibilities. Will the Minister tell us whether the Department will seriously consider putting a block on development in the most affected areas until it is clear that the infrastructure is in place? Finally, does the Minister agree with the Mayor of London's turning down a planning request for a desalination plant that would ease some of the difficulties in the area?

On climate change, I am informed by experts that droughts tend to go in cycles, but I do not think anybody knows what the full impact of climate change is likely to be on our environment and whether we are likely to see more sudden occurrences of drought or floods. We need to keep the situation under close review.

In the planning framework, water resource plans are based on looking at the worst drought scenario in 1993-94 and assuming that, with hosepipe and non-essential usage bans, a month's supply would be left. That equates to a one in a hundred years occurrence. Unfortunately, it seems that there is a prospect of such an occurrence this summer. We all hope that that will not be the case but we cannot guarantee it.

I have already answered the questions about leakage and metering, but I emphasise that more can be done about leakages. There is an economic leakage rate, but it is important that we set leakage targets and that they are met by water companies. Where they are not met we want to know why and, ultimately, the regulator will use the powers at his discretion.

There has been an increase in metering, which covers about 27 per cent. of the total household population. It has been rising in recent years and I expect that trend to continue, but we should not force meters on people—certainly not unless there is a water scarcity. There are clear environmental benefits from introducing water metering, and we as a Government need to look at how those benefits can be realised.

I have already commented on the infrastructure needs of housing development in the south-east. I believe that that is being taken into account in the 25-year planning process, but I will undertake to look into that again, just to ensure that I am personally assured that those plans adequately reflect new-build commitments. It is important we are joined up as a Government, and I will endeavour to ensure that that happens.

Lastly, the idea of a national water grid has been bandied around for at least 40 years. It is not a very environmentally friendly measure, given that water is a pretty bulky supply and the energy requirements needed to pump water around parts of the country, let alone the excavation costs that would be required, make its use prohibitive and a non-starter, but the idea resurfaces from time to time. I do not get any sense that water companies are planning on that basis, but they have done some significant work over the past 10 years to improve regional grids, so that they can co-operate and share scarce water resources, which has been very beneficial.

My constituency is not only subject to a hosepipe ban but is in the process of being subjected to compulsory water metering, so why will the Minister not recognise the facts and accept that the Labour party has now abandoned the pledge in respect of compulsory water metering that it gave prior to the 1997 election? Does he agree that more needs to be done to help those who are least well off to meet their water charges, particularly under a metering regime, both by introducing additional measures and by giving greater publicity to the water efficiency measures that are already in place?

I am certainly very aware of the fact that there is compulsory metering in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, because of the water scarcity there. Certainly, the water company believes that that is a win-win situation for the consumer: less water will be used overall, because people will be more careful in monitoring their water usage, and that will reduce customers' bills in turn as well. That is one way in which water can be more affordable, but a range of Government support measures are available at the moment, and we certainly want to ensure that he encourages his constituents to take advantage of them.

Could the Minister confirm that new house building accounts for only 1 per cent. of the housing stock and that, although we need to ensure that new houses are water efficient, it is much more effective to concentrate on the existing housing stock and to encourage its increased water efficiency? Will he look again at measures to encourage people to upgrade the water efficiency of their houses? Does he agree that it is perfectly possible to meet housing need in the south-east and still respect the need to improve water efficiency?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is absolutely right to say that the vast majority of the housing stock for 2030 is already in place in the United Kingdom and that new-build plans account for only a tiny fraction of the potential additional water usage in the future. We need to focus on water efficiency in households, just as we need to focus more on energy efficiency. There is a range of ways in which consumers can use water more wisely—for example, with dual-flush toilets. The simple fact is that new house development will be far more water and energy- efficient than the current housing stock. The more that we can do to bring the current housing stock up to the best environmental standards for both health and water efficiency reasons, the better for all concerned.

Even so, does the Minister accept that my constituents will find it inconceivable that the water companies can cope with the huge number of extra houses being foisted on the south-east when they cannot cope at all with the current drought? No one will believe him.

In that case, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can explain the situation better to his constituents, because there is a clear difference between a short-term drought and the long-term planning of water resources. We need to ensure that that long-term planning is effective and takes account of new housing development, but we also need to consider water saving measures as well and to use water wisely. His constituents need to use water wisely, but they need not be afraid that new housing development will cause them massive water problems in the future, because I am confident that the planning system can fully take into account future housing needs.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post.

Reports suggest that leakages in Britain are among the worst in Europe, and perhaps only two countries, one of which is Bulgaria, have a worse record. Is that not simply a consequence of a failure to invest by the water industry over a long period? Is it not a direct consequence of the Tories' privatisation of the water sector? Have not the private companies been simply sweating—I use that word advisedly—the assets built up over generations of public investment before they were privatised? Is it not time that the state again took a direct role in water supply, to guarantee sufficient and secure water provision for the future?

My hon. Friend and I must agree to disagree on some of that, but we do agree that there have been decades of under-investment in the water industry, stemming back way before privatisation, because the public sector was not that good at investing in long-term infrastructure in the water industry. One of the problems with the public sector is that there are always more pressing investment needs—whether schools or hospitals—than long-term improvements to sewerage pipes and the water supply. The simple fact is that, since privatisation, there has been £55 billion-worth of investment, primarily funded by the water companies, which has led to a major improvement. Most of the water companies have made significant reductions in leakage rates. More can be done, but we must still face the fact that we were one of the first countries in the world to introduce water and sewerage systems, so our system is older than anyone else's and it is still in need of repair and further investment, which will come from the water companies as part of their future investment plans.

Could the Minister confirm that he said that, if the current weather pattern continues, London and the south-east face standpipes in 100 days? In those circumstances, can he tell us what discussions he is already having with the water companies about ensuring that the vulnerable have access to water and that those people who live in the 24-hour economy can get water from standpipes whenever they need it?

No, I cannot confirm what the hon. Lady says, but I can quote the best assessment available from the Environment Agency:

"An exceptionally hot and dry summer like 1976 would give extremely low reservoir levels by the autumn, with a risk of standpipes in London. It should be possible for Thames Water to avoid standpipes, but much depends on the effectiveness of demand management measures".

That is the situation at the moment. We do not know what the weather patterns will be over the next few months. The Met Office forecasts pretty much average rainfall for this summer, but if we get a summer like 1976, there are likely to be difficulties. However, it would be unwise to say that we will have standpipes in a certain number of days, because that simply is not the case judged from where we stand today.

Does the Minister accept that there is widespread concern in my constituency, which is bang in the middle of the Sutton and East Surrey Water catchment area, over the imposition of a drought order? He says that he has asked the company to apply the order sensitively. Will he explain how one applies a drought order sensitively? Does he not accept that if, say, a car wash is still allowed to operate, people who drive past it will say, "Well, if that's operating, why on earth should I cut down on my consumption at home?"?

I appreciate the difficulties that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents may face as a result of the drought order. That is why I looked very carefully at the inspectors' report, talked to the Environment Agency and had a conversation with the company last week to convince myself that the order was absolutely necessary. I am afraid that it is. If we are to protect essential supplies to consumers, and particularly to vulnerable consumers, we need to allow the company to take action. However, we need to be clear—I have been clear in what I have said to the company—that we want to see the maximum water saving for the minimum impact on the consumer. That has got to be the objective and I am sure that that is how the company will want to apply the order in these circumstances.

I should declare an interest as a Sutton and East Surrey consumer. Does the Minister believe that customers should benefit from a discount in their Bills for the reduction in service?

No, I am afraid that I do not. Our water system is based specifically on ensuring that we have long-term plans, but those are not long-term plans to prevent there ever being a water shortage. Arranging for there never to be a water shortage would require such a huge capital investment that people's water bills would be enormous. We have to expect water shortages because of adverse weather conditions in certain circumstances. I am afraid that, although the situation is difficult for consumers who cannot water their gardens and who are being encouraged to be more water-efficient, it is right that they should look to take those measures and they should not really expect to see a reduction in their Bills as a result.

Exactly five years ago —[ Interruption. ]

Order. I will decide when the statement finishes. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) should not get impatient. The one thing that you need in Parliament is patience.

Exactly five years ago, TV images of the foot and mouth crisis had a negative impact on tourism in this country. If TV images of standpipes and people approaching them with buckets were to be beamed across the world, the likely effect on visitors to this country could be dire. What meetings has the Minister had with representatives of London and south-east tourism, and the conference and hotel industry in recent days?

I have not had any specific meetings with the tourism industry in London. I have been rather focused on other matters. In granting a drought order—other orders that have gone through the inspectors' inquiries are under consideration in the south-east—we are trying to take early action to prevent the possibility of having to use standpipes in the future if the drought conditions persist. It is surely right to take early, prompt action now. The message to consumers in the south-east to use water responsibly could make sure that we do not need to take more extreme measures at a later date.

South-West Bedfordshire, which currently has water restrictions, is due to have the largest number of houses built in it out of anywhere in the south-east. Anglian Water has told me—contrary to what the Minister has just said to the House—that funding for local water infrastructure will come only in 2010, but the new houses will be being built from 2009 onwards. Anglian Water needs to know that information now. Is that not a failure of joined-up government?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point seriously. My understanding of the situation is that the regulator has agreed investment plans with water companies up to 2010 at the moment. There are long-term water resource plans that go to 2030. Funding for 2010 onwards will be taken into account during the next price review. However, I undertake to look into the situation. I get the sense that the House has some concerns about whether planning is being effectively addressed in water resource plans. If I can make any further information available to comfort the House on this matter, I will certainly want to do so.

I welcome the Minister's late conversion to the benefits of privatisation, but my constituents and their gardens are going to be thirsty if they have to wait for action until a price review in 2009. He said, quite rightly, that consumers can do much to save water themselves. So, why is it that, on a water company's website, I can buy a large plastic tub with a lid on the top and a hole in the bottom, called a composter, at the heavily subsidised rate of £8.99, but on the same website a plastic tub with a lid on the top and a tap on the bottom, called a water butt, costs £34.99? Surely we should be doing more to promote the subsidised use of water butts in the current drought situation. The water companies claim that there is a national shortage of water butts. Can we get our priorities right and make sure that my constituents who want to save water have the means to do it at an affordable rate?

I have not seen the website that the hon. Gentleman referred to, but I am certainly aware that water butts in the south-east have been in short supply for a considerable time. The key message is that people need to save water and to use water sensibly. If that happens, I am sure that we can avoid the need for more extreme measures. Nobody wants to see standpipes in the streets. That is the purpose of the water order for Sutton and East Surrey. We will continue to look at further applications from water companies. As I said, the order of the day is early action now, more work on leakage from the companies, and more attention from consumers to the need to save water.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision in respect of the effect on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

I declare my interest in the Register of Members' Interests. One of the constantly recurring complaints from British business concerns EU regulations. Of course, most businesses greatly resent the very existence of many of those regulations, but most of all they condemn the peculiar British habit of gold-plating EU directives. Her Majesty's Government transpose the directives into our law so that they end up being tougher, more complicated and less business-friendly than elsewhere in the EU. The other big complaint is the open-ended lifespan of many of the directives. Time and again, business tells Members that what was relevant 10 years ago is now often out of date, yet the directives remain in place, so why not time limit the directives with sunset clauses?

That is why my Bill has two key aims: first, to outlaw gold-plating by giving businesses and individuals the right to launch a challenge in the courts, and, secondly, to ensure that directives can be challenged if they do not contain a sunset clause. I pay tribute to the entrepreneur, Sir Paul Judge, who has put a great deal of effort and work into the Bill, and also to my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster(Mr. Field) and for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), who introduced similar Bills in the last Parliament.

In a few minutes, I will outline to the House some further details about the Bill, but I just want to say a word or two about the current context that business is facing. Anyone listening to the Chancellor's recent Budget statement would have heard an upbeat assessment of UK plc. We heard a great deal about inflation, growth, interest rates and employment. However, whatever the Chancellor said in his Budget statement, dark storm clouds are gathering over the UK economy. The recent trade figures were atrocious. Indeed, trade in goods showed a quarterly deficit of £18.9 billion, which was the worst since records began in 1697. I am struggling to remember who was on the throne in 1697, although I sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will know—was it William of Orange? That was a long time ago and the figures are disgraceful.

Our competitive position is under threat. Indeed, in the World Economic Forum's competitiveness league tables, the UK has fallen from fourth in 1998 to 13th today. According to the CBI, we are experiencing the lowest level of business investment since records began. Spending on research and development is falling and there is a skills crisis, with 5 million people having no qualifications at all.

The phenomenon of falling productivity growth is one of the key reasons behind our worsening competitive position. Our productivity grew at an annual average rate of 2.5 per cent. between 1992 and 1997, but has now slowed to 1.6 per cent. over the past six years, which is in line with the rate in the eurozone, but way below that of America and many other economies.

One of the main drivers for the dark set of clouds that is gathering is excessive regulation. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce has a burdens barometer. When I last looked at it, the combined total cost of regulation since 1997, excluding the minimum wage, came to £50.27 billion. Much of that regulation comes from the EU. Indeed, Her Majesty's Government's Better Regulation Task Force estimated that the EU was responsible for roughly 40 per cent. of all regulations affecting business. The relentless tide of EU regulations is getting worse, and despite what the Chancellor says and despite the Lisbon agenda, the situation is bleak.

I entirely accept that there are other drivers of regulation that affects business, including the Government's policy agenda. We have administrative creep in this country and government is growing larger by the week and the compensation culture is exploding. However, the biggest driver of all is gold-plating, although it is the most avoidable of all, too. As I mentioned briefly, gold-plating occurs when implementation in this country goes beyond the minimum necessary to comply with an EU directive. It can involve extending the scope of a directive by adding to its substantive requirements, or substituting wider UK legal terms for those in the directive. It can involve not taking advantage of derogations, or providing for sanctions, enforcement mechanisms and matters that go beyond the minimum needed, such as the burden of proof. Such things happen time and time again.

Let me give two quick examples. The Government implemented the EU part-time workers directive through the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. The EU directive stated that part-time workers must have the same rights as full-time workers, but left member states to decide how to implement the requirement. The UK regulations include a provision that UK firms must issue part-time workers who query their terms and conditions with a written statement setting out all reasons within 14 days. The British Chambers of Commerce argued that that was a classic example of gold-plating.

A further such example was discussed the other day. The artists' resale rights directive or, to give its French title, the droit de suite regulations, give living artists—it will eventually cover dead artists as well—a right to a percentage of revenue when their works are sold. The British Government said that they would oppose it, but unfortunately, the regulations got into the hands of an especially weak Department of Trade and Industry Minister in another place. The Minister spectacularly over-regulated, and instead of implementing the directive to the letter and sticking to what it strictly required, he ensured that the threshold for a work of art was not €3,000, but €1,000, thus drawing into the net huge numbers of extra businesses and items and completely contradicting the Prime Minister's and the Government's earlier campaign in Brussels to try to get the directive rejected.

Such gold-plating happens all the time, so what can be done about it? A Bill could be introduced to challenge gold-plating itself. My Bill would achieve that by introducing a right for businesses, individuals and public bodies to seek a declaration by the courts that UK regulations enacted under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 were ineffective to the extent that their provisions went beyond the basic minimum requirement under Community law. That would apply if the UK regulations contained extra and burdensome clauses beyond the requirements of Community law. Secondly, it would apply if other member states had not implemented certain provisions, and, thirdly, if other member states had implemented such provisions in a less burdensome way. Additionally, and importantly, similar legal challenges could be made under the Bill if the EU directive did not contain a sunset clause or specific cut-off date.

My Bill would force policy makers and civil servants to monitor closely what was happening in other member states. Above all else, it would help to change the whole culture of Whitehall and make that much more business-friendly. Rather than the UK habitually being the toughest and most pedantic implementer of EU regulations, we would thus actually move at the pace of the most dynamic and least regulated UK economy. That explains why the Bill is needed. It is not some back-of-an-envelope, here-today-gone-tomorrow, kite-flying ten-minute Bill, but a measure that is vital to the health and future of UK businesses.

The Bill has third-party endorsement. The Federation of Small Businesses says:

"This constructive Bill carries the support of the Federation of Small Businesses."

The Bill has the support of the British Chambers of Commerce, which says:

"The BCC believes that the measures contained in this Bill will go some way towards improving the regulatory culture in the UK".

It has the support of the Forum of Private Business, which says:

"This Bill will allow gold-plated regulations to be challenged and overturned ... This is fantastic news for smaller businesses".

The Bill also has all-party support and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry Bellingham, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Adam Afriyie, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Philip Dunne, Mr. Mark Field, Mr. Nick Hurd, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Shailesh Vara, Angela Watkinson and Mr. Tim Yeo.

European Communities (Deregulation)

Mr. Henry Bellingham accordingly presented a Bill to make provision in respect of the effect on persons and businesses of regulations made under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 October, and to be printed [Bill 183].

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 1.

I hope that the new clause and amendment will find favour in the House because they will establish a statutory duty for sustainable development on public authorities in Northern Ireland. They will ensure that public authorities act in a manner that best contributes to the objectives of sustainable development. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that on 9 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched the Northern Ireland sustainable development strategy, which in itself establishes a framework and focus for tackling the challenges that lie ahead on sustainable development and environmental protection, to provide a better future for future generations in Northern Ireland.

It is self-evident that global warming is a continuing problem, and the Government and the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom need to support measures that tackle the problem and make our communities more sustainable. There are certainly measures that we can take which will help to achieve those objectives and aims. Without a doubt, we need to look not only at our own lives, but at our public bodies and institutions to see how we can deliver a strategy to help us make more responsible choices on sustainable development. We need to take account of long-term sustainability. The Government are committed to that, and we need to ensure that we take a lead on that in government so that we meet sustainable objectives and set a framework to encourage others, particularly public bodies, to do so as well.

The new clause gives a power to the Secretary of State to put a statutory duty on public authorities. It sends a strong signal from the Government that we are serious about tackling global warming, encouraging sustainable development and making those objectives a reality, not just in government, but in other public bodies in Northern Ireland. The policy will allow for the transfer from the Department of the Environment to the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister the ability to set sustainable targets. I shortly expect to consult further on what those targets and objectives should be.

The Minister will be well aware that, in his home nation of Wales, the National Assembly has a statutory duty to promote sustainable development. Given that he has referred to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Assembly having the power to designate other public authorities, and in the light of his good wishes for the re-establishment—one hopes—of the real Northern Ireland Assembly, why is there no provision for the Assembly to have the duty that there is in Wales to promote sustainable development?

The hon. Lady is accurate. The National Assembly for Wales has a statutory duty on that basis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown, from the Government's perspective, that we wish to promote sustainable development. Subsection (3) allows for "public authority" to mean

"any other person designated for the purposes of this section by order made by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister."

The Northern Ireland Assembly can consider that. The Government have tried to set down objectives for local authorities and other public bodies. We have left open the opportunity for other persons to be designated. If the Assembly wants to have a statutory authority, it can examine those matters and discuss them with the Northern Ireland team.

I commend the new clause and hope that it receives the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I offer a broad welcome to the new clause. There is strong support in the community for the active commitment that the Secretary of State in particular is showing to moving the sustainable development agenda forward. It is clear that the new clause spins out of the sustainable development strategy launched last week. The Government are moving quickly to translate their commitments into legislation. That is welcome. I note that that contrasts with the Government's long-standing commitment to consider issues such as the powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. They are still reluctant to address such things in the Bill, yet something new can quickly spin into it. Perhaps the Minister will address that.

Some of the details could be fine-tuned, in particular when it comes to putting things into practice. Hon. Members might know from what I have said before that I am not sure that putting sustainable development and its co-ordination into the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is the best way of ensuring that the necessary co-ordination takes place. There is already a clutter of responsibilities in that Department that are not easy to manage in terms of co-ordination and liaison. This could add to the difficulties.

My experience of the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister working with other Departments is that things can be cross-cutting, but they do not achieve the benefits of cross-cutting co-ordination. I hope that there is enough room for us to revisit that so that the Assembly and a restored Executive can make the best, most competent and most appropriate provisions for a rigorous approach to sustainable development by Government and non-governmental bodies.

I agree with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Generally speaking, the new clause is uncontentious and will be broadly welcomed, but I want to tease out some details.

Sustainable development is new to the Bill and was not discussed on Second Reading or in Committee. One of the difficulties of a miscellaneous provisions Bill is that we might have to deal with things that come almost out of nowhere and at any stage, whether it is in Committee or on Report. Nevertheless, sustainable development and the aims for public authorities are laudable.

Subsection (1) states:

"A public authority must, in exercising its functions, act in the way it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development...except to the extent"—

this is what concerns me—

"that it considers that any such action is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case."

As we know, a get-out clause is always written in for such matters. What examples does the Minister have in mind? What circumstances could a public authority use as a means of avoiding action that it might otherwise take?

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The new clause is a framework clause to give the Secretary of State the power to set guidance for local authorities. It is the intention of the Secretary of State, via the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and myself, as the Minister responsible, to consult on a range of things to do with the implementation of the new clause in due course. There will be an opportunity for the specific targets and responsibilities of local authorities, and for the Secretary of State's relationship, to be determined.

I am grateful to the Minister. He refers to something that I was going to explore: the purpose of the new clause. He talks of giving the Secretary of State certain powers. Perhaps he can clarify that. Is it not the case that, under the terms of the new clause, public authorities, whether they are Northern Ireland Departments or district councils, will immediately be subject to the duty? It does not require a further order by the Secretary of State. The powers that he is taking relate to introducing an Order in Council to allow the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to designate other bodies. That is significant because, when the new clause passes into law and receives Royal Assent, Northern Ireland Departments and local authorities will be subject to its provisions from that time forward, without the need for any further action. That is a major innovation .

We certainly support new clause 1 and amendment No. 1. Sustainable development is clearly an important aim for public authorities and we support the Government placing a duty on public authorities to achieve sustainable development. I want to raise a similar issue. Are the Government considering placing a duty on public bodies to promote the shared future agenda? It is now over a year since the Government published their framework document, "A Shared Future". Although that document was strong on vision and principles, it was light on policy specifics. At that time, the Government made commitments to publish the first in a series of shared future action plans in the autumn of 2005. That is now well overdue. Although the Government have freely used the concept of the shared future in speeches, there seems to be a lack of specifics. Surely that should be a priority for public bodies in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister can explain what the Government's intentions are on the shared future agenda.

I am grateful for the broad welcome for the measure from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As I said, on 9 May, the Secretary of State outlined his vision of a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland. That backs up the Government's £59 million package of measures to help to support a range of initiatives on sustainable development in Northern Ireland. The principle today is that we give the Secretary of State a power to place that duty on local councils.

As I indicated in an intervention, I inherited the post of Deputy First Minister and First Minister a week ago following the internal reshuffle in Northern Ireland. It is our intention to look at how we can consult onthe issues that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned—the practicalities and what the duty means in practice. We want to ensure that we encourage local authorities and other public bodies to act in a sustainable way. That will include looking at recycling, energy conservation and a range of issues to help to build a sustainable Northern Ireland. I accept fully that there may in due course be cost implications. In due course, duties may be placed. It is my intention and that of colleagues, following the Secretary of State's announcement, to look at the issue of guidance and what the provision means in practice, and to issue that for consultation with local authorities as part of examining the matter in more detail.

Can the Minister clarify subsection (1) of new clause 1, which states "A public authority must"—there is an imperative—

"in exercising its functions, act in the way it considers best calculated to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development".

There is a must and then there is a broad brush. They can do little, they can do much. It is as they believe best. Is that what this is about?

That is a similar point to the one that was made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. I intend in broad terms today to get the support of the House for a sustainable development strategy for Northern Ireland and for the measure to place a duty on local authorities to contribute to that. Having inherited this post some seven days ago, I want to consult on how that duty will operate in practice, what the relationship is and what the targets are. I want to examine that in detail so that we can get collective ownership of those targets, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

I hope that it will be of help to the hon. Gentleman when I say that the Northern Ireland Local Government Association has been an active stakeholder and participant in helping to draw up the strategy that the Secretary of State launched on 9 May. The councils' living more sustainably working group has also been involved in the consultations to get us where we are. However, more guidance is needed. Today, I hope that the House will support the principle of sustainable development generally.

The Government take the whole question of the shared future programme and the "A Shared Future" document extremely seriously. I hope that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) knows that the Secretary of State in the past fortnight has relaunched that document. It is our intention, while we hold office in the direct rule Administration, to ensure not only that are we advocates for a shared future in Northern Ireland as a whole but that we look in detail at how to implement "A Shared Future" in government in Northern Ireland.

With the mini re-shuffle in Northern Ireland, I assumed responsibility for "A Shared Future" some eight days ago. I intend as part of the ministerial team to look at how, in what I hope will be the short time I hold this post in the Assembly, to drive forward that agenda to meet our objectives. We may disagree on this, but I believe that we cannot legislate for "A Shared Future" in that way but that we need to examine how we can put it into practice in due course. I will look at the strategy and take that on board. I am happy to discuss with the hon. Gentleman outside this place his party's views on that matter, as I am with any others, but the whole ministerial team is committed to ensuring that "A Shared Future" operates in practice.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is right that Wales has Executive power vested in the National Assembly. As I have said, the new clause will allow for further public authorities to be designated for the purposes of the duty. I reconfirm that it is open to the Northern Ireland Assembly in due course to make those requests accordingly. I hope that the Assembly has an early opportunity to do that. I hope that hon. Members can support the new clause. I take on board the points that have been made, but hope that hon. Members will support it and await the guidance in due course.

I congratulate the Minister on his elevation to the post of First Minister. I hope that he brings the poise, charm and personality that he has shown in the past 12 months to that office, too.

Like my colleagues, I welcome the commitment to sustainable development but the biggest difficulty for me is the deep concern at the measure coming suddenly at us and perhaps us not having time to think it through. The biggest offenders in opposing or obstructing sustainable development in Northern Ireland are Government Departments, particularly the old Department of the Environment, which is now split up into the department of environment, the department of regional development and the department of social development. Will this legislation do anything to ensure that Government Departments, particularly the department of regional development, will use recycled building materials in Government contracts? Until now, Government have refused to allow recycled materials in Government contracts.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments. I think that that is the nicest thing he has said to me all year and it is only the fifth month of the year, so we are doing quite well. From my perspective and that of the Government, the key objective of the Secretary of State in requesting this power and in promoting sustainable development is to examine the issues in terms of not just public bodies outside central Government but central Government themselves.

My hon. Friend made a suggestion with regard to recycled building materials. I am sure that such issues can be examined by Government Departments. We intend simply to put at the heart of government the question of sustainable development, including a range of measures on which central Government will work on over the next few weeks and months until the Assembly, I hope, takes on such responsibilities. We will use guidance and examination to encourage other public bodies to undertake such activity. Without commenting on specific proposals, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) that there is a central Government drive to create sustainability in central Government and other public bodies. We are open to suggestions as to how we achieve that, but it is imperative that we undertake such a drive. For the reasons that I have outlined, I commend the new clause and amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 — Conditions for devolving policing and justice matters

'(1) Amend section 4 of the 1998 Act (transferred, excepted and reserved matters) as follows.

(2) In subsection (2), for "subsection (3)" substitute "subsections (2A) and (3)".

(3) After subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) The Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament under subsection (2) the draft of an Order amending Schedule 3 so that a devolved policing and justice matter ceases to be a reserved matter unless—

(a) a motion for a resolution praying that the matter should cease to be a reserved matter is tabled by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly; and

(b) the resolution is passed by the Assembly with the support of a majority of the members voting on the motion, a majority of the designated Nationalists voting and a majority of the designated Unionists voting."

(4) In subsection (3), for "the draft of an Order before Parliament under subsection (2)" substitute "before Parliament under subsection (2) the draft of any other Order".

(5) After subsection (5) insert—

"(6) In this section "devolved policing and justice matter" means a matter falling within a description specified in—

(a) any of paragraphs 9 to 12, 14A to 15A and 17 of Schedule 3; or

(b) any other provision of that Schedule designated for this purpose by an order made by the Secretary of State."

(6) In this Part "the 1998 Act" means the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47).'. — [Mr. Hanson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 2 to 8.

Amendment No. 24, in schedule 2, page 23, line 32 at end insert

'provided that they have first secured the consent of the nominating officer of the political party to which each member belongs.'.

Amendment No. 14, in page 23, line 34 leave out from 'passed' to end of line 38 and insert 'with cross-community support'.

Amendment No. 26, in page 23, line 39 at end insert—

'(5) Standing orders may make further provision for the nomination and election referred to in subsections (3) and (4).'.

Amendment No. 27, in page 24, line 19 at end insert—

'or

'(d) he is dismissed by the nominating officer whose consent was required for his nomination under subsection (3) (or that officer's successor) and the Presiding Officer is notified of his dismissal.'.

Amendment No. 30, in page 24, line 25 at end insert—

'(10A) Where—

(a) relevant Ministerial offices have been filled by applying sub-paragraph 10(b); and

(b) a relevant Ministerial office is filled by a member of a different political party

all Northern Ireland Ministers shall cease to hold office and their Ministerial offices shall be filled by applying subsections (2) to (6) of section 18 within a period specified by standing orders.

(12) But where—

(a) a relevant minister was dismissed by the nominating officer who nominated him (or his successor); and

(b) the nominating officer of that party refuses to consent to the nomination by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of every member of his party within a period specified in standing orders,

sub-paragraph (10A) shall not apply.'.

Government amendment No. 9

Amendment No. 15, in page 26, line 29 leave out from 'passed' to end of line 33 and insert 'with cross-community support'.

Government amendments Nos. 10 to 12.

The Government new clause and amendments were tabled after our helpful discussions in Committee and on Second Reading and they deal with issues relating to the devolution of policing and justice functions. I shall speak first to new clause 3, then consider Government amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8,9 and 11, which make related and consequential changes.

It has always been the Government's position that policing and justice can be devolved on a sustainable basis only with broad cross-community support. We have put in place a triple lock, as the Assembly must wish to have devolution, the Secretary of State must wish to agree it on behalf of the Government, and the House of Commons must approve it. Consistent with that position, it is our view that the support of the majority of sections of the community in Northern Ireland is essential if the devolution of policing and justice is to succeed. The amendments give legal effect to that position. New subsection (2A) inserted into section 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by new clause 3(3) accordingly provides that the Secretary of State shall not introduce an order to devolve policing and justice unless a number of caveats are in place.

First, the Assembly motion asking the Secretary of State to do that must be tabled by the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. Secondly, that motion should receive support in the Assembly from a majority of designated Unionists and a majority of designated nationalists. Having listened to the discussion, it is self-evident that unless the Assembly has that support it is not worth considering forcing devolution on it. The fact that under the amendments the First and Deputy First Ministers would have to introduce a proposal shows that a majority of community support is necessary. We want a majority of nationalists and designated Unionists to support it, too. New clause 5 (5) introduces a drafting change to that effect.

On Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made it clear during the passage of the Bill that it is the Government's intention to ensure that the Assembly has the greatest possible flexibility to determine the departmental models to oversee policing and justice.

Will the Minister clarify what precisely is meant by the triple lock? He referred to a cross-community vote in the Assembly, agreement by the Secretary of State and approval by Parliament. However, new clause 3 imposes another triple lock: the First and Deputy First Ministers act jointly, then a resolution is passed by the Assembly with cross-community support, then an order is laid before the House. What is the Secretary of State's role in that arrangement? Is it part of the triple lock or is it redefined, so that he is substituted by the First and Deputy First Ministers?

If the hon. Lady wishes to be pedantic, perhaps it is a quadruple lock. The Secretary of State and I seek a situation in which devolution of policing and criminal justice takes place following a cross-community vote among nationalists and Unionists in the Assembly in support of the proposal, which is then considered by my right hon. Friend or his successor, who agrees to recommend it as Government policy to the House of Commons, which must support it before it can take place. That is a triple lock. The hon. Lady wishes to make it a quadruple lock because there is a two-part assessment when the Assembly reaches its decision. However, I put it in the following terms: the Assembly; the Secretary of State; the House of Commons.

What happens if a designated Unionist does a back flip? Is he redesignated as another sort of Unionist, or does he remain a designated Unionist with his original label? I refer to current events.

Current events are obviously extremely important and my esteemed colleague Eileen Bell, the Speaker of the Assembly, has sought legal advice on the matter. Lest I confuse any lawyers who are looking at the issue, it is best to allow that legal advice to be given so that Eileen Bell can make her judgment in due course.

The Minister will know that I have long been concerned about triple and quadruple locks because they can be manipulated, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) suggested. The Minister assured us in previous proceedings on the Bill that he would consult the parties about their preferred mechanism of election. Has he done so?

Again, the purpose of the measure is quite simple. However we describe it, it is a simple process. The Assembly must submit a request to the Secretary of State asking for the devolution of policing. The Secretary of State must agree—presumably, that will involve discussion with Cabinet colleagues because he must make an assessment or political judgment as to whether he wishes to recommend it—and he must make a recommendation at the Dispatch Box to the House of Commons, which must support it before it can take place. That is a simple, straightforward process, as the Assembly, the Secretary of State and the House of Commons must secure approval for the proposal. I am certainly happy with our position, which I discussed with individuals when considering whether to table the amendments. I have tried to facilitate a procedure so that, should the Assembly wish to do so, it can advance the proposal in due course.

Does the Minister accept that talk of triple and quadruple locks involves double-speak? In the past, whenever the Democratic Unionist party referred to the triple lock that it says that it achieved in the comprehensive agreement, it meant that it could control whether or not there was movement on the devolution of justice and policing. It would be able to control the form of the Department and the appointment of Ministers. That triple lock is different from the triple lock outlined by the Minister.

I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we are at a stage where the Assembly does not formally constitute an Executive. There will not necessarily be movement towards that framework in the foreseeable future, so we will put in place such a framework. Neither he nor I know whether any movement towards devolved criminal justice and policing will take place before or after a further Assembly election. I cannot even envisage a situation in which I know who will be the First and Deputy First Ministers or which will be the majority parties in the Assembly when a decision is made to effect the devolution of criminal justice and policing.

Does that mean that further legislation on the matter might be needed?

No. I am trying to put in place a framework so that when the Assembly wishes to do so, it can request devolution of criminal justice and policing. With due respect to my hon. Friend, he is over-complicating matters that are simple. I hope that, as ever, he will trust my judgment and relax.

May I convey to the Minister a point of reference? His colleague, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, gave evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee almost exactly a week ago, in which he referred to the triple lock on the devolution of policing and justice. He stated:

"It requires across community votes in the Assembly"—

that is precisely what he said. He went on to say that

"it then requires a Secretary of State to agree it, and Parliament to approve the necessary legislation."

At no stage was there any reference to the First and Deputy First Ministers acting jointly. [Interruption.] With great respect to those who are making comments from a sedentary position, they will get their opportunity later. Will the Minister elaborate? Did the Secretary of State know last week, when he gave evidence live to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that there was a fourth element, or has the definition been changed within the week? As usual, the Northern Ireland Office moves with great speed on these matters.

The hon. Lady will know that there was discussion of these matters in Committee and the Government have reflected on that. The new clause to allow the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to propose that change is important, but it does not change the balance of the argument. It would be strange if the Assembly voted to devolve criminal justice and policing, but the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were against it, as they will presumably be the leaders of the largest parties in the Assembly.

We have tabled the amendments and new clauses to support the wish of the Assembly for such devolution. I say again to all hon. Members that the Assembly must decide, the Secretary of State must agree and the House of Commons must support that process. That may happen at some point when the Assembly forms its Executive.

I shall make progress. During the passage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have made clear the Government's intention to make possible a range of departmental models for devolution of policing and criminal justice. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7 and 10 support that objective. We discussed the Northern Ireland Act 1998 in detail in Committee and we considered a range of models in the Act for the devolution of policing and criminal justice. Section 16 of the 1998 Act permits the Assembly to create various forms of departmental responsibility. We have sought to broaden that choice through consultation on the Bill.

As hon. Members may recall, during the debate in the Committee of the whole House on 20 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) suggested that, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, there was at least one further model that had not been considered—a department of policing and justice that might be in the charge of a single Minister elected on a cross-community resolution of the Assembly, rather than appointed under the d'Hondt process.

I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that his words of wisdom have been listened to by the Government and we have tabled an amendment which, I hope, meets the objectives that he set in the debate on 20 April. He will know, therefore, that on occasion the Government act in a comradely fashion with his party. I cannot help him on every occasion, but when I can I am pleased to do so, and I will labour the point to keep him on his toes. Amendment No. 3 provides for the new model. Amendments Nos. 2, 10 and 7 reflect that addition.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 were tabled by the Liberal Democrats. In Committee, I undertook to reflect on the points made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) at the time. The Government's view is that a department of policing and justice with joint or rotating Ministers would bear a strong similarity to the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and correspondingly the requirement for cross-community support for those Ministers, set out in the Bill, reflects that for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

On reflection, I have concerns that that is a move away from the requirement for parallel consent from both sides of the community. Having considered the matter in detail, I have concluded that that support for any nomination for ministerial appointment to a department with devolved policing and justice functions that makes use of one of the models provided for in the Bill should continue to be required to secure parallel consent. This may disappoint the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), but it is important that we keep to the original principles.

As drafted, the Bill requires Ministers under the alternative models for the department of policing and justice to be nominated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and for their nomination to be approved by the Assembly with the support of a majority of Members. The amendments give effect to that, on the basis of the 50:50:50 model.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle would remove the responsibility for nomination and subsequent dismissal from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and put it in the hands of party nominating officers. I do not believe that to be workable or consistent. I am sorry that I cannot help my hon. Friend on this occasion and I ask him to withdraw the amendments, given that I have been able to help him in other respects during consideration of the Bill.

I hope that Members in all parts of the House will recognise that the amendments are the result of amendments tabled but not debated, discussion in Committee and representations made to me from all parts of the House relating to the devolution of criminal justice and policing. I commend the Government new clauses and amendments to the House and ask Liberal Democrat and Social Democratic and Labour party Members to recognise that I have moved some way and to withdraw their amendments accordingly.

I listened with interest to the Minister and accept that he has provided us with a clear exposition of where he stands. He rightly highlighted the issues that we address in our amendments Nos. 14 and 15. The amendments were tabled in Committee, and in his reply the Minister said that he would reflect on them and discuss with political parties whether they wanted some flexibility in the voting arrangements. We appreciate that there has not been much time between Committee and Report for such discussions, but we re-tabled the amendments to give the Minister an opportunity to update the House. He has given his view, but I infer that he has not explicitly spoken with the parties.

I remind the Minister of his words. He said in Committee:

"I am reasonably flexible in the matter. Although 50:50:50 was our original choice, the amendment would mean that there were two methods."

He is right about that. He continued:

"I have not discussed the election of a criminal justice Minister with any of the parties in Northern Ireland to take their views about what would be acceptable to the Assembly, but I am reasonably content to look into that possibility."—[Official Report, 20 April 2006; Vol. 445, c. 297.]

It is a small gripe, but I believe that, the Government having imposed the timetable on us, the Minister was obliged to undertake some consultation, and I am disappointed that he has not done so.

We have been in discussion with parties on various issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is a range of issues before political parties in Northern Ireland. The Bill is not necessarily at the forefront of everyone's mind, given the issues relating to the restoration of the Assembly. I am happy to discuss the matter with the parties, as I have said before. We have had some general consultations, I have reflected seriously on the matter and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my good faith.

We differ on the judgment about the electoral system, but I shall not repeat the argument because the Minister has made it clear that he will not accept our suggestions, which is fair enough. We will not push our amendment to a vote on that issue, which simply involves a difference of view. My point concerns the process. The Minister knows about the frustrations when the Government impose and do not consult. Without being too heavy on him, I wish that the Government would be more assiduous in going through the consultation process after they have inferred in this Chamber that they will do so. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board, notwithstanding the difference of view on specific amendments.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Assembly has full flexibility to determine which model it uses. All I am trying to do is provide the broadest possible menu, to which I have added one additional option with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle.

The Minister's intervention is helpful, because the record will show that those amendments do not prohibit the setting up of separate departments for policing and for justice, if that is what the Assembly wants to do. I have no reason to think that the Assembly wants to do that, but it would be in keeping with the spirit of giving the Assembly the right to organise its devolved processes not to preclude that option. I thank the Minister for that clarification.

The SDLP amendments seem to make sense. One might think that it goes without saying that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would not nominate a person for ministerial office if that person's political party did not want them to take up that position. Given the history of politics in Northern Ireland, however, we know that anything is possible. I look forward to further clarification from the SDLP spokesman, whoever he may be, but I am sympathetic to the common-sense position adopted in the amendments because, as we all know from painful experience, when it comes to some matters relating to Northern Ireland legislation, sense is not common.

I will raise our concerns about new clause 3 and some of the Government amendments and our support for some of the other Government amendments, but first I shall speak in favour of our amendments Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 30. Furthermore, we will lend our support to Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 14 and 15, at least in terms of this debate.

Our amendments aim to address a fundamental unfairness in the legislation. The starting point for understanding our amendments is the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which implemented the d'Hondt system in the Good Friday agreement. Under the 1998 Act, the nominating officer of each party, who is usually the party leader, appoints Ministers, and they have the power to fire those Ministers, unless, of course, the Assembly chooses to exclude Ministers from office for particular reasons.

By contrast, under the system in the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would choose the justice Ministers. If they wanted to do so, they could nominate a member of another party, perhaps even against the wishes of that party's leader, which happens from time to time in politics. In southern Irish politics, there is the famous example of Charlie Haughey appointing a member of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party to be European Commissioner to force a by-election to convenience himself.

There was also the Speaker in the previous Assembly.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, that also happened in the previous Assembly with the post of Speaker, when issues went on inside a particular party. On that occasion, Caesar did in Brutus, but such events have occurred for calculated reasons.

We must remember that the Bill provides that a ministerial appointment will count against the party whose member is appointed a Minister for the purposes of the d'Hondt system. The parties would therefore be denied their own legitimate and proper choice under the d'Hondt system by virtue of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister perhaps selecting somebody from another party without the agreement of that party or that party's leader through the use of the parallel consent mechanism. That is fundamentally unfair, and it goes against the grain of the Good Friday agreement in terms of inclusion and the choices that rest with parties. It is a return to the principle of parties not being able to vet or veto each other's appointments.

Amendment No. 24 seeks to address that matter by stating that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister may nominate a person for the justice portfolio only with the consent of that party's nominating officer. So, contrary to what the Minister has said, we are not in the business of denying the First Minister and Deputy First Minister any role in the matter. We say that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister should only be able to nominate for the police and justice portfolio with the consent of a party's nominating officer, given that that party's d'Hondt quota will be affected and that its ranking of choice under d'Hondt will be materially affected.

Amendments Nos. 24, 26, 27 and 30 apply only to joint Ministers, as they are currently drafted. However, I contend that the same approach should logically apply to rotating Ministers, for which the Bill provides, or, indeed, to a Minister elected with parallel consent, which is covered by the Government amendment that the Minister discussed earlier.

Amendment No. 26 makes a consequential amendment to allow the standing orders to permit the nomination and election of joint justice Ministers. That would be helpful to ensure clarity on procedure in the same way as the standing orders for the Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 2006 provide helpful procedural clarity on, for instance, how to manage if two sets of people are proposed as joint Ministers.

Amendments Nos. 27 and 30 address the dismissal of a Minister. As has been said, Ministers appointed under the d'Hondt system are appointed by, and may be dismissed by, the leader of their party—the Assembly may also choose to exclude them. Under the Bill, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have the sole power of dismissal, although holding ministerial office counts towards a party's d'Hondt entitlements. Even more significantly, the Bill is wide open for abuse, because it specifies that holding office as a junior Minister counts towards a party's entitlements under d'Hondt.

The First Minister and Deputy First Minister could appoint a member of another party, using the votes of their own parties under parallel consent to secure that appointment, only to dismiss them and vote in a member of one of their own parties instead after the d'Hondt system had been run for other ministerial offices.

I am trying very hard to follow the hon. Gentleman's reasoning, which involves a lot of hypotheticals. As the hon. Gentleman deals with the minutiae of the mechanics of the appointment of a possible Minister, will he accept that the situation is surreal, because the prospect of the community having any confidence in the devolution of policing and justice powers in Northern Ireland is remote? We should consider the matter in that context.

The hon. Gentleman makes his point. That may well be so, but the fact is that we are faced with this Bill, which is asking us to arrange the furniture in what may be castles in the air. That is the nature of the legislative exercise that we are undertaking. The Minister has indicated on several occasions that some of this goes back to previous discussions—perhaps more of that anon.

Under the Bill as it stands, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who would clearly be fromSinn Fein and the DUP on current numbers, can appoint somebody from another party. They can vote that person into office using their own votes under parallel consent against the wishes of that party, thereby altering its d'Hondt entitlements. They can then subsequently fire that Minister or those Ministers and replace them with somebody from their own party, and the party that originally lost out under d'Hondt still loses out. It gets fewer Ministers than it is entitled to under d'Hondt by virtue of the First and Deputy First Ministers using the power that the Bill gives them. That is fundamentally unfair. The problem with the Bill is that control is given solely to the parties of the First and Deputy First Ministers, not to the Assembly or to anybody else.

Let me try to clarify something. I understood the hon. Gentleman to have said that if the First and Deputy First Ministers were to appoint a member of another party without the approval of that party, that would use up one of their d'Hondt entitlements. Where does he see that?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the schedules, he will see the various permutations that are offered for joint Ministers, rotating Ministers or any other types of Minister, all of whom have to be appointed before d'Hondt can be run. Schedule 2 provides that the d'Hondt arithmetic will already count the holding of a justice ministerial office as the holding of a ministerial office. Under the M plus one formula, when d'Hondt is run, M will include a justice ministerial office already held whether under rotating junior and senior or joint ministerial offices. That means that if Sinn Fein and the DUP appoint their own party members as joint justice Ministers, they will lose their first entitlement under d'Hondt. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that. I remember that when he asked the Minister on Second Reading whether it would count towards d'Hondt, the Minister was unable to provide the answer, but the schedules make it clear that it does.

It could well be that Sinn Fein and the DUP do not want to use up their first entitlements under d'Hondt by appointing members of their own parties to be joint or rotating justice Ministers. They may pull the stroke of trying to appoint people from other parties tothose Ministries in order to preserve their own d'Hondt entitlements and reduce the d'Hondt ranking preferences of other parties, and then, at a subsequent date, use the powers in the Bill to dismiss those Ministers from other parties and replace them with members of their own parties, thereby securing more than their own d'Hondt entitlements and denying other parties their entitlements. That abuse is wide open and available under the Bill as it stands.

Like other hon. Members, I have endeavoured to follow the hon. Gentleman's logic. Is it not all predicated upon a Member who has been nominated by the nominating officer of another party voluntarily indicating that he or she wishes to be nominated? That was not the position that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) took whenever he was nominated by his party leader but declined. If someone declined, the situation would not materialise.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong about that. Under the Bill as it stands, even with the new Government amendments, no consent whatsoever is required from the nominating officer of the party.

I said consent from the Member nominated.

Indeed—the consent of the Member nominated. That applies on a standard basis under d'Hondt. The First and Deputy First Ministers from Sinn Fein and the DUP might well hope that they can inveigle Members from other parties to take such posts against the wishes and advice of their own parties. They can vote them into post, even against the votes of their own party, and still deny that party its entitlements under d'Hondt.