---

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): I appreciate that the proposal probably looks quite logical on paper, but does my right hon. Friend think it wise to abolish Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons? Under its existing management, it is extremely well regarded. At a time when our prisons are fuller than they have ever been and when there is a need for constant external pressure to ensure that we obtain value for money, is it wise to dilute those powers and subsume this effective organisation into one that is larger and blander?

Mr. Clarke: First, there is no question of diluting the powers. That would be a mistake, and I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's suggestion in that regard. Secondly, I certainly do not believe that the new inspectorate will be blander than the existing one. The interrelationship between prisons, probation, prosecution, police and others is an important one. I know that, from my hon. Friend's experience as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, among other things, he understands how the discontinuities in the Home Office agencies have often given rise to problems. One purpose of the unified inspection regime is to deal with that.

My hon. Friend's point is serious and it reflects concerns raised by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. I pay particular tribute to Anne Owers and her team for the work they have done in making clear and creative statements about how detention takes place, and indeed to her predecessors, but I believe that the joint inspectorate will be capable of dealing effectively with precisely those concerns. I give the commitment, as I have to others, that if this matter wants to be debated further in Committee, it can be. I do not think that the fears my hon. Friend expresses are well founded, although I respect his experience in relation to what he says.

David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): With regard to the new powers to give directions to police forces and authorities, does the Home Secretary accept that there is something new here, because the requirement for a negative inspection report is to be removed? Does he not accept that, without that necessary buffer between him and police forces and authorities, he is, in effect, taking responsibility for the whole of policing in England and Wales—both its successes and its failures?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we are widening the sources that might provoke an intervention. That is because, for the sake of argument, something such as the Bichard review of the tragedies at Soham and what happened thereafter is not a "negative inspection report", but a serious examination, which it would be quite appropriate for the Home Secretary of the day to take into account. That is why it is right to widen the basis of impulses that cause the Home Secretary of the day, at whatever time, to be able to look at what is happening. It is widening, as the hon. Gentleman says, but for good reason.
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 617
 

Martin Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the advent of the Metropolitan Police Authority has done a great deal for relations between police and the public in London? While successive Home Secretaries and commissioners, as well as the advent of neighbourhood policing, have had a lot to do with that, establishing a police authority with a democratic basis has turned policing in London from something imposed from outside into a service that is not only of and for Londoners, but, increasingly, provided by Londoners.

Mr. Clarke: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. That is one aspect of the Government's record in relation to policing of which we can be most proud. This is not historic: the Metropolitan police will establish the neighbourhood policing teams in London up to more than a year ahead of the national target precisely because of the encouragement of the Metropolitan Police Authority, as well as the personal commitment of the commissioner and his senior leadership. That relationship of positive encouragement towards protective policing is an example of accountability of the kind that the Bill is intended to strengthen.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is bound to cause some concern? The Home Secretary has praised the current chief inspector of prisons, but her predecessors, like her, trod on a number of sensitive toes and did excellent work over many years. There is a fear that the new post, despite what my right hon. Friend has just said, might dilute the excellent work being undertaken. I hope he will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Clarke: First, it has been drawn to my attention by my Front-Bench colleagues that I did not pay appropriate tribute to the Mayor of London for his contribution to the improvement in policing in London, so I shall fill that gap by dutifully so doing.

On the matter raised by my hon. Friend, the key point for me is the independence of the inspectorate, which must be spiky, particularly when considering the conditions of detention and the circumstances that can arise there. That is a fundamental issue, even compared with performance management more generally.

I know my hon. Friend heard me pay tribute to the current chief inspector of prisons, but I also paid tribute to her predecessors in the role, and I do so again now. I have met them and discussed some of those issues with them as well. It is critical that that integrity of inspection of prisons, and indeed places of detention generally, is maintained, and I believe that our arrangements will do that.

I know the concern that my hon. Friend is expressing—I understand it—and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the former Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, it is an appropriate matter to take further in Committee as we take it forward centrally.

Perhaps I shall end comment on this point by saying that it would be a great shame not to acknowledge the very tight interrelationship, particularly on our agenda
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 618
 
to reduce reoffending, between what goes on in prison, what goes on in probation and what goes on in the rest of the criminal justice system, including the courts.

We have missed the opportunity of trying to achieve coherence for decades, and may have missed it for ever. That includes important subjects such as information technology and data on various people. A single inspectorate may help us to achieve that coherence, but I take my hon. Friend's point about the independence and prickliness—if that is the right word—of an inspector.

It is important to consider the role of all the national organisations. We have already legislated to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which from this April will take the lead in tackling national and international drug-smuggling and people-trafficking, but there is a complex web of national support agencies. We have the Police Information Technology Organisation, the National Centre for Policing Excellence, Centrex, the Police Standards Unit, the Association of Chief Police Officers, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and the Home Office—a range of forces providing an array of services from the development of good practice to procurement, training and operational support.

There is wide agreement, especially among the police, that the present configuration of overlapping support agencies is an obstacle to the promotion of improvement in the service, and that it needs to be simplified and clarified. That is what the Bill sets out to do. Following proposals from ACPO, it will establish the national policing improvement agency. The agency will drive improvement in policing. It will create a rationalised and more dynamic national landscape, and will give the police service capacity to deliver on the critical priorities set out in the national community safety plan, including the roll-out of neighbourhood policing.

The existing organisations Centrex and PITO will be abolished, and some of their functions will be transferred to the NPIA. A number of the Home Office's policy development and operational support activities will also be transferred to the new agency, along with some of ACPO's policy functions. Its work will not, however, focus on the provision of day-to-day services, important though that may be. It will focus on the longer term, by helping to embed a culture of self-improvement in terms of performance, and of identifying and responding to the opportunities and challenges that the service will face over five or 10 years.

We must recognise that in an increasingly interdependent world, work with international partners to tackle terrorism and serious organised crime will be increasingly important. We have therefore included a number of measures to strengthen policing at international level. Computer misuse—the continued threat posed by computer hacking and denial-of-service attacks—is one of the growing new threats that can be tackled only through extensive international co-operation. To that end, the Bill takes up a private Member's Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris) to amend the Computer Misuse Act 1990. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initiative.
 
6 Mar 2006 : Column 619
 

The Bill provides a suitable opportunity for review of the Extradition Act 2003. As many Members will recall, the Act carried a complete overhaul of extradition law, some of which dated back to the 19th century. It also implemented the European arrest warrant. Following such a major reform of complex law, minor lacunae and operating difficulties have emerged in the first year of operation. The amendments in the Bill are intended to clarify and correct, and are essentially technical.

---