The Amendment is straightforward. It would ensure that any reports or inquiries by the board were initiated by a Majority of the board's members. The Clause amends paragraph 18 of schedule 1 to the 2000 Act on the number of members of the board required to initiate an inquiry under section 60 following a report by the Chief Constable. Currently, no such inquiry can be held unless the required number of members of the board who are present and voting approve it. Under paragraph 18(6), that number is 10, which is a majority, as the board consists of 19 members. Under clause 11(2) and (3), however, that number is reduced from 10 to eight, so long as that is a majority of members present and voting.

We believe that the existing arrangements should remain unchanged, but that when the board consists of 19 members, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that the required number of members present and voting to initiate an inquiry is 10. The Government's proposal is an unwarranted concession aimed at making it easier for the board to initiate inquiries following the Chief Constable's report. It makes it easier for those with excessive political zeal, or those who wish the police no good, to make the life of the Chief Constable intolerable. It scarcely needs me to point out that that is a particular worry if and when Sinn Fein members take up positions on the board. That, and the reductions of the grounds on which the Chief Constable can refer such inquiries to the Secretary of State, should be opposed. That is not only our argument, but appears to be the view, if I read his comments correctly, of a previous Secretary of State who served under this Government; the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the architect of the 2000 Act, whose words on the Act have already been quoted extensively in our debates. On Second Reading of the Bill, he said:

''If one considers police authorities in most parts of the United Kingdom, most people would think it extraordinary that it would take only eight members of a board to bring about the instigation of what could be a very major and expensive inquiry with major long-term implications for the police. I recall that there was huge pressure to agree to the paltry figure of eight in the original Bill, and the Government believed that the figure of 10 was very much on the low side. We made it absolutely clear that, if we conceded to an ever-lower figure, that would risk exposing the police to unreasonable political pressure that would reduce the credibility of any such decision by the board. After all, it is a major step to set up an inquiry and, if it can be agreed by eight out of 18 or 19 members, that is bound to reduce the credibility of the decision. If the power was unreasonably or

improperly used, it could lead to an unravelling of confidence by the police and the public in the PSNI's governance. I have heard the reassurances offered by Ministers on that point, but I have yet to be fully convinced that this particular change is necessary or desirable.''—[Official Report, 10 February 2003; Vol. 399, c. 684–5.]

Those were the words of a former Secretary of State. I hope that the Minister and Government Back Benchers give them their full weight. They should ask themselves seriously what the right hon. Member for Hartlepool would do if he were sitting as a Back-Bench Committee member and voting on the Bill, the clause and, perhaps, the amendment. However, it is not only the right hon. Member for Hartlepool who supports our position. The Committee on the Administration of Justice, which is not an organisation that is always associated with the pronouncements of Conservative politicians, said in its submission to the Northern Ireland Select Committee:

''We believe that while the holding of inquiries is an important power, there is no reason to lay down such weighted voted procedures in legislation and we would recommend that decisions to hold inquiries should be taken by a simple majority.''

As with other aspects of the Bill, the Government have not even sought to justify the change with regard to the efficiency of the board or the operational effectiveness of the police. They have not to date shown any deficiencies in the current legislation that warrant it. We believe that that is because the change was driven purely by politics and the Government's desire to accommodate Sinn Fein and the SDLP at Weston Park in July 2001. The change proposed by the Government is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. Our amendment would restore common sense and basic fairness to the Bill. It would also take us back to the position that was outlined so eloquently and sensibly by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, on Second Reading. We trust that the Government will listen to his wise words and that they will also display some common sense and accept this modest amendment.