Birmingham Pub Bombings (Hansard, 1 February 1988)

§ Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the refusal by the Home Secretary to recommend the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy in the case of the six innocent men still standing convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings. I do so not because these men seek mercy, but because they seek justice. There is widespread concern about the case in many parts of the world and on both sides of the House. It does not matter whether one is Left or Right, Unionist or Republican; one merely has to have an elementary ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

My case is that these people are entirely innocent, that they were not involved in those or any other bombings and that they were not members of the IRA. If I thought otherwise, I should not have wasted one moment of my time pursuing this case over the past two years.

As you will know, Mr. Speaker, you ruled this case sub judice in January 1987. We were therefore not able to discuss it for 13 months. There is the possibility of an appeal to the House of Lords in the next few days and you may rule —I hope that you will not — that we then cannot discuss it until the House of Lords has dealt with it. That would mean — this is the nub of the case for allowing the House to discuss it now—that a period of two years could elapse in which we have not been able to discuss a matter that it has been open to the rest of the nation and the rest of the world to discuss over a long period. It would be quite wrong for the House to be denied the opportunity to discuss this subject.

Let me list the relevant issues. Such a debate would provide hon. Members with an opportunity to test my assertion—which I repeat—that the men responsible for these bombings are alive and well and living in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] Let us discuss that when we get to the debate. It would enable us to discuss the state of the forensic service in the light of the relevation that the main prosecution witness in this case took early retirement at the grand old age of 51 on the grounds of limited effectiveness.

It would enable us to discuss why none of the proposals of a Select Committee on miscarriages of justice, which reported to this House some years ago, have been implemented; to discuss why convictions based on uncorroborated confessions are still permitted; and to discuss the extreme difficulty of persuading British judges to admit to a mistake.

This case will not go away; it will haunt our judges and politicians until they face the fact that a tragic mistake has been made. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House the opportunity to debate this matter.