HC Deb 20 October 1975 vol 898 cc45-6
Mr. Christopher Price

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely, the need for an immediate investigation by the Home Secretary into the interview procedures of the Metropolitan Polic. I submit that the matter is specific in that it was outlined in detail by Lord Justice Scarman in his decision on Friday in the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions of three young constituents of mine who had been convicted of murder, manslaughter and arson three years ago.

The learned judge made it clear that it was for his court to decide how the confessions, on which alone the convictions were based and which have now been shown to have no relationship whatsoever to the truth, ever came to be made. The clear implication of this judgment is that it is for this House and the Home Secretary to make an immediate investigation.

The matter is important in that public confidence in the administration of justice and the police procedures which underpin it can be sustained only if the authorities are willing fearlessly to investigate and rigorously to act upon abuse wherever it is found.

It deserves urgent consideration because the disquiet that this case has raised will erode this public confidence daily unless the Home Secretary is given the opportunity by this House to make an immediate statement on the way in which he intends to proceed in investigating this matter.

I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that this application fulfils the three criteria of specificity, importance and urgency demanded by Standing Order No. 9, and I hope that you will be willing to adjourn the House for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I think I already know what this is about because the hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me notice of his intention to make this application.

I do not at all dispute the importance of the matter. I have only to decide whether it should be discussed under Standing Order No. 9 or not, and I am afraid that the answer is, "No".