There are five amendments standing in my name. I do not wish to pursue the matters covered by amendments Nos. 16 and 17, so I shall not speak to them. I hope that amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 can be disposed of relatively quickly.

Amendment No. 18 relates to section 28(5) of the 2000 Act, which describes various aspects of the performance plan. Subsection (5)(c) states that it shall

''include a summary of the Board's assessment of'',

essentially, the performance during the year—I am abbreviating a subsection that goes on in some detail. At present, the 2000 Act says that the performance plan shall include an assessment of the past. Amendment No. 18 would delete a change introduced by the Bill that says that, instead of including a summary in the performance plan, there shall be a separate performance summary. I understand the logic of that provision, but I wonder why the Government think that it is necessary to make such a pedantic change.

When I spot a pedantic change, I always wonder what it is really about, because I cannot believe that anyone would waste their time making such a change simply to make the legislation look tidier. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary told us what motivated the change made in the Clause. Amendment No. 18, which would delete that part of the clause, is intended to focus the Committee's attention on the matter.

Section 28(2) of the 2000 Act states:

''The arrangements shall require the Board to conduct, at intervals specified in the arrangements, reviews of the way in which its functions are exercised.''

I agree with that very sensible provision. There is no problem with it at all, except that it does not say how often the review shall be carried out. Amendment No. 19 would require that the review be carried out annually. I have no wish to go to the stake for an annual review; I simply use it to make my point. The Under-Secretary might wish to specify a review every two years or every six months. I really do not mind

how often it happens, but if there is a requirement to carry out a review, we should make it clear how often, at a minimum, we expect it to happen.

Amendment No. 20 is more substantial than amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Section 28 of the 2000 Act states that

''The Board shall, in making arrangements which relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, involve him in the making of those arrangements.''

It worries me if all that is needed is the involvement of the Chief Constable. The amendment suggests that, when making arrangements that relate to the functions of the Chief Constable, the board should not only involve him in making those arrangements, but should obtain his agreement to them. If he does not agree to them, we have further undermined the independence of the Chief Constable of a United Kingdom police force, which would be regrettable.

I shall listen with care to the Government's reasons. They might want to make my day by accepting my amendment, and they should accept it, but I do not have much hope that they will. Let them prove me wrong, and I shall be the first to apologise.