Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'or conduct matter'.

It is necessary to make this drafting amendment to the clause to ensure both consistency in the Bill and that the Government's intentions are clear. In its current form, the clause excludes from the ambit of the new system any part of a complaint or conduct matter that relates to the direction and control of a police force. However, the Bill defines conduct matters as matters that relate to conduct, which could give rise to criminal or disciplinary proceedings. In contrast, direction and control refers to operational matters that relate to the deployment and administration of policing. There is no question of disciplinary or criminal misconduct if no question of disciplinary or criminal misconduct arises. Therefore, any matter that could give rise to criminal or disciplinary proceedings would not be a legitimate direction and control issue and should not be excluded from the remit of the new system. The amendment accordingly removes conduct matters from the scope of the clause.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I was slightly puzzled, because the Under-Secretary seemed to be saying that the provision should never have been in the Bill in the first place. Was there simply a drafting error that was realised when someone came to look at the clause? It seemed clear that the Under-Secretary was firm that conduct matters should not be in schedule 3, so I wonder how the provision came to be in Bill. I do not know whether he can shed any light on that, as I am sure that it was not down to him personally. I do not have a problem with the amendment.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

To be honest, I cannot shed light on the origin of the provision. The arguments for removing it are fairly straightforward, and I ask for the hon. Gentleman's support in doing so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 9, at end insert—

'(4) All police authorities, in carrying out their duties with respect to the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force, and all inspectors of constabulary, in carrying out their duties with respect to the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces, shall keep themselves informed as to the working of this section.'.

As we have heard, the clause is about handling complaints relating to direction and control matters, which are of course outside the scope of the IPCC. Section 77 of the Police Act 1996 requires police authorities as part of their duty to maintain

''an efficient and effective police force'',

and says that they should

''keep themselves informed as to the working''

of complaints procedures. That, of course, will be repealed along with the rest of the 1996 Act's complaints provisions, and will be replaced with part 2.

Although the clause contains a similar provision to section 77 of the 1996 Act, it does not go far enough in tying police authority oversight of complaints to efficiency and effectiveness, and it therefore gives

those authorities insufficient scope to act if things go wrong. The purpose of the amendment is to try to get the Government to recognise that. Issues relating to complaints and direction and control go to the heart of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Police authorities have responsibilities in those regards.

The Under-Secretary will be aware that the issue was raised in the House of Lords. I have looked at the Hansard of that debate; my colleagues in the other place were not happy with the response that was given, and we are therefore having a second bite of the cherry by raising the matter again this afternoon. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to accept the spirit of the amendment. He may well feel that there is an alternative way of dealing with the matter, but the point about tying in police authorities to that aspect is important, and needs greater clarification than that provided in the Bill.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

As the hon. Member for Lewes says, the matter was raised in another place. Given that such duties were included under the 1996 Act, it would be helpful to have the words in the amendment in the Bill, or at least something along those lines. The hon. Gentleman has reasonably said that there might be other ways of dealing with the matter, and he and I will be equally interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say on whether there is any good reason why we the Bill should not have something equivalent to what was in the 1996 Act.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Lewes is seriously trying to persuade me to go along with his argument, otherwise he would have said that it was a probing amendment and his intentions would have been clear. That joke was not worth making, was it?

The amendment would place an obligation on the police authorities and inspectors of constabulary to keep themselves informed about the working of the clause. In relation to the operation of the complaints system, police authorities, inspectors of constabulary and, indeed, chief officers are already placed under such an obligation by clause 14(1) and (2). I understand that the concern is to enable police authorities to get information about complaints-related matters. That would help police authorities with their wider functions, one of which is the function to maintain an efficient and effective police force under section 6 of the Police Act 1996.

However, the wider duties imposed on police authorities already necessarily imply incidental powers to see relevant documents and materials. It is for police authorities and chief officers to agree arrangements for the provision of such information to police authorities under the powers. It is important that police authorities hold their chief officers to account for the direction and control of the force, and information on complaints might be an important tool in doing that.

However, I see no reason to single out information about complaints, and I am not persuaded that there is a gap in the police authority's ability to call for information that must be plugged. We have not been presented with evidence of the problem raised by the

hon. Gentleman, and an amendment that referred to a police authority's duties on the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force would limit the obligation on police authorities. Police authorities have other duties—those on best value, for example. The amendment would impose no obligation on a police authority to keep itself informed about the workings of clause 13 when carrying out such other duties. That is why clause 14 refers simply to a police authority maintaining a police force.

The amendment is unnecessary and would not add anything to the Bill. Although I agree with what I perceive to be its spirit, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can see that the point is already provided for and that the amendment could narrow the remit. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Norman Baker (Lewes, Liberal Democrat)

The Under-Secretary is illogical. First he says that police authorities have incidental powers and the amendment is therefore not required. Then he says that because the amendment refers to only the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force, police authorities cannot deal with best value. He cannot have it both ways—either they have the general powers or not. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that the requirement on police authorities is not weakened from the standard in the Police Act 1996, which is my fear. The Under-Secretary failed to deal with that point, but it is almost 5 o'clock and no doubt their Lordships will wish to reflect on the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.