HC Deb 22 March 1990 vol 169 cc1225-8
9. Mr. Harry Barnes

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Birmingham city council on the Birmingham pub bombings.

10. Mr. Mullin

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the new evidence in the Birmingham pub bombings case.

Mr. Waddington

I am not aware of recent representations from Birmingham city council about the Birmingham pub bombings case. I have not sought the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice on the Birmingham pub bombings case.

Mr. Barnes

I am a little surprised by that answer, because I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had received a delegation from Birmingham. What is the purpose of this further, fifth and, I hope, final police inquiry, when it is understood by the Home Office, whole sections of the police force and the judiciary, that there will be eventual freedom for the Birmingham Six? In those circumstances, is not it disturbing that the Birmingham Six should remain imprisoned and branded as guilty when procedures are being set in motion for, I hope, their release?

Mr. Waddington

Justice demands that innocent men should go free; it also demands that guilty men should stay in gaol. Claims have been made, and the object of the exercise is to determine whether there is any substance to them. I have asked the chief constable of the West Midlands police to report on a number of specific points that were put to me recently, and he has decided to ask the Devon and Cornwall police to consider those matters. The basic question is still whether the representations made to me constitute new evidence relevant to the safety of the convictions.

Mr. Mullin

Will the Home Secretary confirm that one of the principal obstacles to the case being referred back to the Court of Appeal is the implacable hostility of the Lord Chief Justice? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the resignation or the early retirement of the Lord Chief Justice would be a small price to pay for justice being achieved in this case?

Mr. Waddington

That is one of the most preposterous and irresponsible statements that I have ever heard in the House. Incidentally, I am amazed by the sheer irresponsibility of the hon. Gentleman who, while protesting his concern for the Birmingham Six, has steadfastly refused to reveal material that he claims would prove their innocence. Must we wait for another novel from him?

Mr. Alexander

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the thanks of many Conservative Members for the open-minded way in which he accepted the new evidence presented to him before Christmas? Is he aware that the fact that someone else will be investigating the matter with an open mind is largely welcome? If something sinister appears, will he reconsider asking the Court of Appeal to examine the case again, once the Devon and Cornwall police have finished their inquiries?

Mr. Waddington

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend put his question. As I said, the basic question is whether the matters that have been put to me constitute new evidence that casts doubt on the safety of the convictions. If, as a result of those inquiries, matters are put to me that convince me that new evidence casts doubt on the convictions, I shall take appropriate action.

Mr. Gow

Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House the nature of the fresh evidence that has been provided and upon which he has asked the police to report? Can he assure the House that the police will conduct the further inquiry as rapidly as possible, consistent with examining the evidence thoroughly?

Mr. Waddington

I wish that I could help my hon. Friend on his first point, but I do not think that it would be proper for me publicly to disclose all the matters that I have asked the chief constable of the West Midlands to consider. However, I take my hon. Friend's second point—these are important matters that should be dealt with as quickly as possible, and I am sure that the police realise that.

Mr. Mallon

Given the various disturbing factors that have come to light since the original jury trial of the Birmingham Six, will the Home Secretary say whether, in his professional experience and judgment, the new evidence leads him to believe that if it had been given to the original jury they would have found differently? Will he be guided by the informed opinion of Lords Scarman and Devlin and concede that there may well have been a miscarriage of justice in this case?

Mr. Waddington

I think that I have already answered that question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the difficult task that I have to perform when material is put before me is to come to a conclusion about whether it constitutes new evidence which casts doubt on the safety of the convictions. That is the task which I am trying to perform to the best of my ability.

Mr. Dickens

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a simple answer to all this? If the Birmingham Six are innocent, and I say "if" because I have no way of judging, would not the simple answer be for those who are campaigning for them to be released—the IRA—to supply us with the names of those who did the bombing?

Mr. Waddington

One does not have to go as far as the IRA—one can ask the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He says that he knows all about these matters, but he has steadfastly and irresponsibly refused to give the authorities the information that he says will help.

Mr. Hattersley

First. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the decision that he announced yesterday—not least because there is a general wish throughout the country, particularly in Birmingham, for the men or women who were genuinely responsible for the pub bombings to be convicted and imprisoned, rather than those whom it is increasingly believed are not guilty. Does he understand that having set out on that course—I repeat my congratulations on that—there can be no going back and that having begun with a limited inquiry he now cannot avoid a comprehensive and complete inquiry? He should understand that his impartiality on this matter will be better understood and appreciated if he attempts to answer questions from Opposition Members in a way that is appropriate to a Home Secretary.

Mr. Waddington

I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman's last reference had nothing to do with the Birmingham Six, but was a reference to my reply about neighbourhood watch schemes—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] If it referred to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I certainly do not need to defend myself about that—it is time that the hon. Member recognised his responsibility as a Member of this House. I should have thought the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would also know that.

Mr. Cryer

The Home Secretary should sit down—he does not own the place.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We often hear things in the House with which we do not agree.

Mr. Waddington

I shall address myself now to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, which might have been better if he had not gone on to subsequent matters. The issue is a simple one: material has been put before me and I must determine whether it constitutes new evidence that casts doubt on the convictions. I am entitled to seek what advice I can in order to come to a proper conclusion about the matter. That is what I was about when I addressed certain questions to the chief constable of the West Midlands. One should not conclude from that that it is necessary to have another inquiry.