§ 33. Mr. Stokesasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the names of the three persons whose continued detention under Regulation 18B was referred to in the report dated 24th December, 1940, whose release had been recommended by the Advisory Committee?
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)The reports of the Advisory Committees are confidential documents, and I regret that I cannot undertake to disclose what was the nature of their recommendation in individual cases.
§ Mr. StokesIs the Under-Secretary aware that quite a number of people who are still detained have gone away from the Advisory Committees with the impression that they were to be released, and would it not clear their minds if it were specifically known in which cases the recommendations were not accepted?
§ Mr. PeakeI think the House will see that it would be unfair to the Advisory Committees for us to make known the nature of their recommendations in individual cases. The Home Secretary must take full responsibility in the matter.
§ Sir William DavisonCan my hon. Friend say whether an applicant is informed or not, as I have had a letter saying the Advisory Committee had recommended a person's release but that the recommendation had not been acted upon?
§ Mr. PeakeApplicants often seem to get the impression that the Advisory Committees recommend their release, and in some cases they are mistaken in the impression which they gather.
§ Sir Irving AlberyMay I ask my hon. Friend whether the Home Secretary, in differing from the decision of the Advisory Committee in these cases, did so because he disagreed with their decision or because he had available to him certain information which had not been made available to the Committee?
§ Mr. PeakeI wish to make it perfectly clear that if any new information comes to us after a Committee have made their report, the case is always referred back to them for further consideration.
§ Sir I. AlberyThen we can take it from that that the Home Secretary disagrees with the conclusions to which the Committee have come?
§ Mr. PeakeYes, Sir. In a certain proportion of cases the Home Secretary does disagree with the recommendations of the Committees. The responsibilty for securing public safety rests upon my right hon. Friend, and he has to discharge his duty.
§ 44. Mr. Muffasked the Home Secretary whether he has come to any decision with regard to the detention in Leeds Prison of Mr. Frantisek Schwarz, a Member of Parliament for Prague, also with regard to Mr. G. B. Mancini, who is detained in the same prison?
§ Mr. PeakeBoth these cases have been referred to the appropriate Advisory Committee. As soon as the reports of the Committees have been received, my right hon. Friend will take these cases into consideration and will communicate his decision to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MuffIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the Italian, Mancini, appealed in June, and is it not about time that a decision was come to, and also that the Czech Member of Parliament was interned in Leeds prison for a cure for rheumatism and is now cured?
62. Captain Shawasked the Home Secretary how many detainees appealing to the Advisory Committee set up to deal with people detained under Defence Regulation 18B have been allowed legal representation before the Committee; whether his Department invariably produces witnesses, or sworn evidence, before the Committee to justify detention; how long before they have to appear before the Committee are the reasons for detention sent to the applicants; whether the Committee give the applicants reasons 1499 for the continuation of detention; and whether a shorthand note of proceedings before the Committee is given to the detained person or to his legal adviser?
§ Mr. PeakeIn reply to the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 19th December. In some cases witnesses may be available, in others not; and where witnesses are available it is for the Committee to decide whether the attendance of witnesses is necessary. Evidence given before the Committee is not on oath. It is the practice of the Committee to send a notice to the applicant giving particulars of the grounds for his detention at least three days before the case is heard. The Committee takes all care to ensure that an applicant has every opportunity to deal with any matter that is raised. A shorthand note of the proceedings is taken for purposes of record, but this is not made available to the detained person or to his legal adviser. The question whether the detention should be continued is one for my right hon. Friend to decide in the light of all the available information. If the decision is that it would not be consistent with the interests of public security to revoke the detention order, that decision is communicated to the applicant, but there is no further information which could advantageously be communicated to him at that stage.
Captain ShawDoes the hon. Gentleman not agree that the proceedings before the Committee are more in the nature of a third degree?
§ Mr. PeakeNo, Sir. I have examined many hundreds of cases before the Committee, and in almost every case the applicant expresses complete satisfaction with the fairness of the hearing before the Committee.
Captain ShawIs the hon. Gentleman aware that applicants are invariably asked whether they are satisfied with the hearing, before they know what the result will be, so that naturally in every case the answer is in the affirmative?
§ 63. Mr. Silvermanasked the Home Secretary in how many cases in all he has 1500 now refused to accept the advice of an Advisory Committee to release persons detained under Regulation 18B; and in how many such cases his refusal was based upon a secret police report?
§ Mr. PeakeI would refer my hon. Friend to the reports submitted to Parliament in pursuance of paragraph (6) of Regulation 18B, which covers the period up to 31st December last. The report for the month of January is now in preparation and will, I hope, be available shortly. After the Advisory Committee has reported on a case, my right hon. Friend carefully considers the report and all the information available and, whether his decision does or does not accord with the recommendation of the Committee, the responsibility for the decision rests on him. In many of these cases the information considered by the Committee and by the Home Secretary is necessarily of a confidential character, but if the suggestion is that the Home Secretary may come to a decision on some secret report which is not known to the Committee that suggestion is unfounded. The practice is to place before the Committee all the information available to the Home Secretary.
§ Mr. SilvermanIs the hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered the Question on the Paper, and will he be good enough to do so? The Question on the Paper is not how many cases—.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no need for the hon. Member to repeat his Question.
§ Mr. SilvermanWould the hon. Member say whether the Home Secretary is advised by the security authorities in cases where the recommendation of the Advisory Committee for the release of an internee is not accepted?
§ Mr. PeakeWhere my right hon. Friend disagreed with the report of the Advisory Committee, the case would always be referred back to the Committee if there were any new information available from any quarter.
§ Mr. SilvermanIs the hon. Member aware—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member's question has been answered.
§ Mr. SilvermanOn a point of Order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.