(CB): I think
we have established a very clear structure for the independence
of the Director of Service Prosecutions and the three
distinguished holders of that office, , Andrew Cayley and , the current DSP, have
ensured that it happens. Now, how do we deal with the
independence of the police? It seems to me very important to look
at the problems with the independence of an investigation. Many
us will have forgotten—or were not alive at the time—when there
were serious problems in the civilian police, particularly with
watch committees and other mechanisms that were meant to ensure
that the police were accountable and independent. It did not
work. Various things were tried and eventually we came up with
the Police and Crime
Commissioners as Sir Richard notes in his
report.
Looking at independence, and having had to fight for the
independence of the judiciary from time to time, I can assure
noble Lords that what you need is a structure behind you—someone
independent to go to on whom you can rely. In the case of the
judiciary, one can obviously come to Parliament. That is
ultimately what is provided for. That is why, it seems to me, the
independent strategic board proposed is absolutely the key part
of this. There should be an absolute duty for an independent
investigation, which should not be qualified in any way, but you
need an institutional structure.
What I wholly fail to understand from the Minister’s observations
is why that cannot now be put in place and, in the way
that Police and Crime
Commissioners have been made part of the statutory
mechanism that looks to the police, why we cannot have a
statutory mechanism for the Armed Forces. Surely they are
entitled to the same sort of protection as ordinary civilians—as
us all. I do not understand why we always expect the Armed Forces
to have second best. There can be no reason why these issues have
not been fully considered and why the Government cannot go
forward...
To read the complete debate, CLICK HERE
