Police and Justice Bill

I agree that the local community should have a greater sense of control. The regionalisation debate is framed by the fact that local people feel powerless when it comes to influencing the direction and emphasis of local policing. My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I look forward to developing that thought process on ensuring that local communities have a greater say and a greater involvement in how local policing is undertaken in their areas. The Bill is a missed opportunity to promote, debate, discuss and emphasise such approaches. My second point concerns the creation of the new chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody. I know that that process has been driven to some extent by the Gershon savings that the Chancellor has sought to impose to make the inspectorates more efficient, but my concern is that the inspectorates should not become less effective. I know that the loss of the chief inspector of prisons has rung alarm bells at a time when standards in prisons and, in particular, standards in young people’s secure accommodation are at the forefront, given the Carlile inquiry on children in secure accommodation. I note that the Bill contains specific provisions on how the inspection of prisons is undertaken, but the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers,"““remains concerned that, over time and in practice, the sharp focus and robustly independent voice of the Prisons Inspectorate may be lost or muffled within a larger whole.””" Juliet Lyon of the Prison Reform Trust has also emphasised that view:"““The sharp focus on the treatment of prisoners and prison conditions, and the immense authority carried by a succession of post holders and admired across the world cannot but be diluted by these new suggested arrangements.””" That concern is clearly significant, and I note that the Home Secretary referred to it in his initial comments. When a combination of all the inspectorates is brought to bear, it is important that the standards, knowledge and ability that allow proper inspections to take place are maintained. My final point builds on the strong comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) on the opportunity to review the Extradition Act 2003. Although the Bill includes some amendments to the 2003 Act, I am disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken to address the manifestly unjust and unfair arrangements that have sprung up as a result of the 2003 Act, which are shown most acutely in the current relationship between the United States and this country. The Prime Minister has said that the Bill is intended to address issues of terrorism, and there is a broad consensus on the need to be able to deal with those suspected of terrorism efficiently and effectively, but the operation of the 2003 Act has not been limited to such cases. I do not intend to stray into commenting on individual cases, but it seems strange that there appears to be no direct reciprocity between the US and the UK. The situation is imbalanced, because the UK must make out some form of prima facie case in seeking to extradite people from the United States to this country, yet that does not happen in reverse. The fact that we must make a basic case, whereas the US does not, strikes me as iniquitous and grossly unfair. Whatever the rights or wrongs of any specific case, it is clear that the current arrangements with the US could lead to significant miscarriages of justice and that the Government have failed to stand up for the interests of the citizens of this country. The Home Office has the opportunity to do something about that in this Bill, and for the sake of justice I urge it to seize the opportunity to address the serious imbalance in the extradition arrangements between the US and the UK.