Clause 11 - Approval of proposals relating to inquiries
Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
4:15 pm
Ms Jane Kennedy (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office; Liverpool, Wavertree, Labour)
In that case, I shall go into greater detail about the intentions of the amendments. I shall first explain the purpose of clause 11, while recognising that we will have a further opportunity to discuss it when we debate amendments Nos. 63 and 34. The clause will reduce the threshold of board members that is required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 of the 2000 Act from 10 to eight, provided that that is a majority of those present and voting.
The Government made a commitment in the revised implementation plan of August 2001 to bring forward such a change in response to concerns expressed by several quarters that the existing arrangements under the 2000 Act set too high a threshold. Some were
worried that, in effect, that gave a veto to groups that were in the majority on the board. I recognise that the issue is sensitive, and that it echoes a debate running throughout politics in Northern Ireland about the checks and balances between majorities and minorities in many contexts. I believe, however, that the amended threshold, taken with the various safeguards that accompany it, strikes the right balance.
It has been suggested that the reduction would pave the way for minority groups within the board to force through inquiries against the wishes of the majority of members of the board. That is not so. I shall spell out the safeguards. For a start, a proposal to initiate an inquiry cannot come out of the blue. The board must commission a report from the Chief Constable under section 59 of the Act. It is only when that report has been received that an inquiry can be contemplated. It is inconceivable that a proposal for an inquiry would take a board member by surprise.
However, even at that point, there are several safeguards under paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act. First, a request for the board to consider a case for an inquiry must be made in writing to the chairman by at least three members of the board. Secondly, the chairman is required to call a meeting within three working days of receiving such a request and to notify each member of the board of the date and purpose of the meeting. That means that all members of the board will be aware of the meeting and of the proposal that will be before them at that meeting.
Thirdly, there must be a gap between the chairman convening the meeting and it taking place. Those of us who remember the Labour party in the bad old days of the 1980s will remember how important such rules are when making sure that issues are not bounced through by groups.
Amendment No. 79 would amend paragraph 18(3) of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act to put beyond doubt that a minimum of six working days must elapse between the board chairman calling a meeting to discuss a proposal to set up an inquiry and the meeting taking place. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 are consequential changes. At present, the provision is ambiguous. It could be read either in the way that I have described—which is appropriate—or it could be said that the effect of the reference to ''that day'' in paragraph 18(3) is that the six-day period starts from the day on which the chairman receives the request to call a meeting. I recognise that that is an important safeguard in enabling all board members to attend such a meeting. It is important that there should be no ambiguity on the time scales. I hope that my explanation has satisfied the hon. Gentleman. It may even mean that his contribution to the debate will not be necessary.