Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1985

Vol. 361 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Birmingham Bombings.

Mr. D. Andrews

In the time available to me I hope I will not diminish my case. I should like once more to condemn the atrocities which were committed in the name of some strange philosophy in Birmingham in 1974 in which 21 people died and over 160 were injured. However, I should like to raise three issues in the short time available. First, the Birmingham bombings in 1974. The second is a matter which I have already raised in this forum, the Annie Maguire case. I am glad to say that she will be visiting the Dáil around 18 November and I know that an all party committee will be there to greet her and to listen to her. The third point I wish to make deals with the allegations made by Father Denis Faul, that courageous priest from Dungannon, about the treatment he and a number of fellow clerics received from an Irish official in Washington in late 1974.

When I raised the case of Annie Maguire previously, the Minister gave a rather soothing undertaking that he would do something about it vis-à-vis the embassy in London or by whichever route he intended taking. Unfortunately, the Annie Maguire case is further than ever down the road. In relation to the Birmingham Six, the Minister has already said that he contacted the British Government, and I quote from The Irish Press of today.

A Foreign Affairs spokesman confirmed last night that on Mr. Barry's instructions the Irish embassy in London had contacted the British authorities "regarding the position" of the convicted men.

I submit that is not good enough. I think that this and the Annie Maguire case deserve to be dealt with at a higher level. I say this with no disrespect to those whom the Minister instructed to trot along to the British Home Office to raise the issue there. The British will only listen when the people concerned are at ministerial level or at the level of Prime Minister or Taoiseach in this case. Instead of having one of his officials call to the British Home Office the Minister should ask the Irish Ambassador in London to invite the British Home Secretary to meet with the Minister to discuss the matter. It is as important as that.

The "World in Action" programme was recorded some evenings ago on British television. Fair play to the British: they are not afraid of self-exposure in that regard. There is no doubt that the six individuals received beatings from the police and confessions were forced out of them. As in the Annie Maguire case, the forensic evidence was flawed. The IRA, for what that is worth, suggested they were not members of their organisation and the people concerned have protested that they are not members of the IRA. As was revealed in that programme, they have consistently pleaded their innocence. I ask the Minister to take up this case and the Annie Maguire case with the Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd. That is needed.

In addition to the television programme one of the leading articles in The Guardian of today's date has the following heading, “Six beaten Irishmen”. This leading article is most fair-minded. It condemns, as I have done, the atrocity in 1974 of two bombings in Birmingham that were committed in the name of some perverted philosophy. The article makes the following comment:

Though it is undisputed that the men were beaten up, nobody has ever been convicted of the crime. And when the six tried to sue the police for assault, Lord Denning ——

—— that legal luminary ——

— dismissed the move on the basis that their success would open up an "appalling vista" of wrongful conviction.

The article suggests they were beaten up but the second and most damning point in the leading article is with regard to the forensic test and how flawed it was in this instance.

In the light of these revelations the Minister should act himself in the matter. It is not good enough in this or the Annie Maguire case to leave it at diplomatic or official Civil Service level. This is not a matter for the bureaucrats: it is a matter for this House. For the time being the Minister represents us and he has an obligation to represent the country. I have been in the Department of Foreign Affairs and I have never found them wanting in the service of the State. This is no criticism of the officials, but I am saying that the Minister has an obligation to represent us himself in direct discussions with the British Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd.

A former British Home Secretary has indicated his disquiet and concern at what has happened. It is suggested that Mr. Jenkins, a former British Home Secretary, backs a new lobby on the bombing verdict. Another friend of Ireland, a British Conservative MP and a man whom I know relatively well, has also indicated his concern about what has happened which was brought to attention in the television programme. Formerly John Farr, he is now Sir John Farr.

Before I conclude I should like to refer to Father Faul. I ask the Minister to deal with the Birmingham bombings case and also the Annie Maguire case. In addition, will he explain why an Irish official hampered the campaign for the Birmingham Six when Father Faul visited Washington in late 1979.

I hope I have not diminished my case by the rather rushed fashion in which I had to present it. This was due to the short time available to me.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to when he said that Father Faul was hampered in 1979 by, I presume, an official of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I was not Minister then. If he had asked to raise that matter on the Adjournment I would have had some information on it but I am afraid that I have no such information.

With regard to the Annie Maguire case, I share the concern of the Deputy in this matter. I told the House on a previous occasion what I have done about it. I intend to continue on that road.

Tonight I shall talk about the Birmingham Six, as they are known. The Deputy should not be under any misapprehension. The Department of Foreign Affairs do not have a separate existence from that of the Minister. When an official makes a case he does not do so in his own right but on behalf of the Minister, the Government and this House and it is treated as seriously as that. If an official of the British Embassy here makes a case on behalf of his Government he is taken seriously. There is no question of our saying to him that he is unworthy to make representations on behalf of his Government. We would not say that we wanted Mr. Hurd or somebody else to come over and make the case personally. It is a nonsensical suggestion by Deputy Andrews and I am surprised he made it.

I am glad to have this opportunity on the Adjournment to reply to the Deputy's statement on the case of the Birmingham bombings. I appreciate the Deputy's unease about this case which has been the subject of renewed attention both in Britain and Ireland since the "World in Action" programme shown on ITV television on Monday evening. That programme has prompted demands for a referral of the case to the Appeal Court in Britain and for the exoneration of those convicted. The case has been the subject of previous approaches by the Government to the British authorities.

On 6 June last, I informed the House that I fully appreciated the concern expressed about the convictions of the Birmingham Six. I said then that the decision about whether there was a basis for a retrial was a matter for the British Home Secretary. I said I was aware that such decisions were taken by the British Home Secretary when significant new evidence became available. I also said that, if such evidence became available, I would examine it closely with a view to making an appropriate approach to the British authorities.

I want to repeat what Deputy Andrews said about last Monday's programme which, to my mind, contained new evidence. There were three main areas in which the programme made a significant contribution to our knowledge of this case. The first is the question of the confessions made and retracted by the six accused; the second is the question of the forensic evidence; and the third is the circumstantial evidence.

On the question of the confessions, there is evidence that the men were beaten up but it was unclear at the trial where they were beaten up. The judge said they had been assaulted while in prison and he exonerated the police. It was clear from the evidence presented last Monday evening that they had sustained these injuries before they went into prison and doubts were cast in the Annie Maguire case and this case about the forensic evidence. This is another matter for concern which should be reexamined. The third question deals with the circumstantial evidence. In her evidence in court a barmaid at the railway station said she had recognised two of the men, but in Monday night's programme she said that, because of the nature of the bar in which she was serving, with travellers passing through, it would not be possible for her to be sure she had seen the men in that bar. The programme also pointed out that there was an element of guilt by association in the evidence presented at the trial and proceeded to challenge this association with subversive groups and other important matters.

As I said, in my view the evidence presented by the "World in Action" programme warranted a new approach to the British authorities. I instructed an officer of my Department at the embassy in London to make representations about the case on the morning following the programme. These representations have been made and I am awaiting a response from the British authorities. I believe that was the correct course of action.

Mr. D. Andrews

The Minister should go there himself.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31 October 1985.