In regard to this Bill the Minister decided that a committee should be set up under the chairmanship of Judge Frank Martin. He has not yet spelled out the terms of reference of the committee but it is a step in the right direction.
The point was made yesterday evening that the knowledge and experience gained vis-á-vis the outcome of the Guildford Four case obviously caused people to wonder what should be done and whether there was an urgent need in that regard. I said that there should not be a knee jerk reaction in this country as we do not want to imply that we are concerned about decisions of our courts or the abilities or equity exercised by the Garda in bringing cases to court. However, we should look at the situation in great detail.
Safeguards are very necessary and in need of upgrading. This was supposed to have been done in the United Kingdom and yet we had the dreadful happenings in court cases there. We must realise that the two ghastly and tragic bombings which brought death and destruction to two cities in the UK caused a ferocious backlash of British public opinion. There was great pressure on the British police with the result that they over-reacted even though there was lack of evidence and that which was brought forward led to convictions which were false.
There is still the unfinished business of the Birmingham Six case where everybody is of the opinion that they are innocent. As a result of public opinion in the UK, tremendous goodwill and meticulous work by the solicitors and lawyers representing the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six, their cases were brought to the notice of various key people in the community, resulting in a half-successful outcome. In this country many people expressed their concern about these cases but we must give credit to Members in this House and people throughout the community who formed various action committees to ensure that the miscarriage of justice would be rectified. However, we must not have an excessive reaction to these cases. The Minister last week outlined his concern that we should be seen to do the right thing. He appointed a chairman with experience, expertise and knowledge to head a committee, the membership of which would be drawn from a broad spectrum of society with the necessary back-up to ensure that we get a workmanlike report as soon as possible.
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe was concerned that the Minister had not spelled out in adequate detail the workings of the committee, the terms of reference, when they would be appointed and when they would be expected to report. I hope the Minister will avail of the opportunity later, when addressing the House, to outline in some detail his intentions in regard to the workings of this committee. Other areas of the law can be looked at while the committee are in session. Therefore, I urge the Minister to make the terms of reference reasonably broad and to ensure that there will be an opportunity to look at cases in which there is a doubt as to a person's guilt. Friends and relatives of convicted persons may wish to make a case in regard to their innocence. With that in mind, the Labour Party should take stock of the situation. I appreciate that Deputy Spring was fast off the block and brought forward a Bill but it is a cumbersome, direct copy of UK legislation which does not adequately cover the circumstances.
There are a number of unique aspects in our circumstances which are probably not applicable to the workings of the Labour Party Bill. I urge the House to reach a consensus on this matter and I hope there will be an acceptance across the floor that the Minister intends to ensure that the committee will report speedily to him. I am sure he will introduce the necessary legislation in this regard. The subject needs attention and there is universal agreement that there should be action. However, the Minister's way is the most pragmatic course to follow.
I hope the Minister will designate the middle of 1990 as the deadline by which the committee should report. The action, determination, goodwill and the drive on behalf of the Birmingham Six should be escalated as far as possible to ensure that the whole situation is reviewed. Deputy Andrews, in addressing the House last evening, made a number of very pertinent suggestions about the Birmingham Six case which would get the Home Secretary off the hook in relation to it. He should accept, as Deputy Andrews suggested, that these unfortunate people should at least be given bail which would enable them to spearhead a campaign in relation to their defence. They should have the opportunity to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they were innocent of the crime and that they have been very badly and wrongly treated.
The Home Secretary said he would not reopen their case unless new evidence was uncovered. Surely, since the Court of Appeal ruled on the Birmingham Six case, the outcome of the Guildford Four case is new evidence? The Foreign Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, made some comments recently about the possibility that within the framework of the investigation into how the Guildford Four case was handled and processed, there might be a dimensional angle which would cover the Birmingham Six. In that way there might be some form of understanding that new evidence had arisen which would lead to a re-opening or renewed hearing of the case. The pragmatic proposal that the Birmingham Six should be released on bail, pending the outcome of the investigation of the Guildford Four case, and the likely continuing need to scrutinise those cases, would appear to be an acceptable solution, particularly bearing in mind the length of time these unfortunate people have spent in prison, now running to 15 years. There is need for a magnanimous gesture on the part of the British Government to rectify the lack of credit now reflecting on their system of justice.
Probably I should have said at the outset I intended sharing my time with my colleague, Deputy Flood. I should like now to allocate him the remainder of time available to me.