§ Mr. Jack Ashley (Stoke-on-Trent, South)I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the case of Mr. John Preece.This issue is specific because it deals with the delay by the Home Office in dealing with the case of Mr. Preece, who was wrongly imprisoned for murder. It is also specific because it deals with the handling by various departments of the Home Office with requests from convicted prisoners to have their cases reopened. It is, further, specific because it deals with the role and integrity of the forensic science service.
It is important because it deals with freedom from unjustified imprisonment, and that freedom is the most valued possession of our democratic life. A complaint that a conviction is unjustified merits very careful examination, as careful as in any court of law. But we now know that the Home Office does not examine evidence in that way. The Home Office departments, according to the Parliamentary Commissioner, have made ill-advised judgments on incomplete knowledge, even when the case for re-examination was as overwhelming as it was in the Preece case.
I hope that in debate we shall be able to question what is happening in all other cases, because the Home Office has failed in its fundamental duty to protect the innocent citizen, and it is essential that this matter be debated by the House, which bears the ultimate responsibility.
This matter is urgent because the Home Office and its forensic science service has been discredited by the Parliamentary Commissioner's report to the House, with its meticulous analysis and trenchant criticsm. The Home Office has been exposed as a failure in its role as the guardian of individual liberties. Its disastrously negative response to the discovery that one of its leading forensic scientists was professionally incompetent, made unjustified conclusions and gave meaningless evidence means that innocent men and women may still now be in gaol.
Accordingly, the Home Secretary should give an urgent and detailed explanation of the disasterous failures that have occurred and should listen to the criticism and proposals for reform in a debate in the House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on the case of Mr. John Preece.The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to a very serious matter. He will understand that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give it precedence over the orders set down for today or, perhaps, for Monday.I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.