To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Attorney-General when he expects a date to be set for the appeal of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

The Court of Appeal has fixed 25 February 1991 for the commencement of the substantive hearing. It also proposes to hold a further preliminary hearing in early February. I will not make a statement; the case is sub judice.

Who authorised the suppression of documents relating to forensic tests carried out on passengers on a ferry between Liverpool and Belfast on 21 November?

Order. The whole House has heard what the Attorney-General said about the matter. The case has been set down for trial, and it is sub judice.

And why were those documents not available at the original trial, or at the appeal—

Order. The whole House knows the rules that apply to such matters.

It is not sub judice. It is a matter of record.

Order. I call Mr. Tony Banks.

Is the Attorney-General aware of newspaper reports to the effect that the Director of Public Prosecutions said at his new year party that the forensic evidence was to be dropped? Is that so? And if it is so, why have defence counsel not been told about it?

I am not aware of any of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As for the stance that the Director of Public Prosecutions takes on the hearing of the substantive appeal, that must rest with the Director—who, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is the holder of an independent statutory office. I can add nothing more to that.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this whole unhappy affair, which stretches back some years and in which so many innocent people were killed, should be settled once and for all? Her Majesty's Government have served the sense of justice well —there have been two trials already. When the appeal comes up, however, can we settle the whole matter once and for all? The Birmingham people do not seek vengeance; they seek justice. Someone, somewhere was guilty—and the least guilty people are not just those in prison but the many who suffered and died on that dreadful night.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the desirability of the matter's being settled, as he puts it, once and for all. Perhaps the House will permit me to cite what was said by Lord Justice Lloyd at the preliminary hearing on 17 December: We have to balance the imperative need for expedition in this appeal which we wholeheartedly accept with the equally imperative need that on this occasion the decision of the court should be taken on the basis not only of the material now available but also on such further material as will become available when the inquiry of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary has been completed.

Like the whole House, I wish to avoid any infringement of the sub judice rule. Therefore, I couch my question in this form: once the appeal is heard, will the Attorney-General lay before the House a full statement, in the form of a paper, on the general implementation of the Attorney-General's guidelines on the disclosure of unused material in prosecutions, the extent to which they have not been implemented in prosecutions in recent years, and whether any requests for the full disclosure of documents have been turned down when inquiries have been made by other police forces?

I shall, of course, consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's request, but I do not give any commitment.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that six of the 10 questions to him on the Order Paper today are about the Birmingham Six and that they are identical?

You do not care.

The hon. Gentleman says that I do not care, but am I being mischievous in suggesting that this has more to do with the large Irish vote in those Members' constituencies and less to do with the sincerity of their case?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

What is it?

The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) questions the sincerity of hon. Members. Normally, that is unacceptable. I would certainly suggest—

Order. I do not think that the integrity of hon. Members is in question.

It is.

Such comments do not help us, but I do not think that that particular question was out of order.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I happen to be one of those hon. Members who tabled a question. I tabled it because of my considerable concern about a miscarriage of justice. It has nothing to do with my own constituents or their backgrounds. It seems to me, therefore, that you should require the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth to withdraw what he said.

I have heard many rougher things said in the House.

rose—

No, No!

I was going to withdraw what I said, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman had better get up and do it, then.

In order to assist the Chair and any hon. Members whom I might have offended, I withdraw my remark about their sincerity.

Very well. Let us move on.