§ 52. Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether persons detained under Regulation i8b, who appealed to be heard before an Advisory Committee, and were then released months after the date of their 159 detention without going before an Advisory Committee, will receive compensation for wrongful detention?
§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)Persons detained under this Regulation are detained as a preventive measure, and every person so detained has a right of making representations both to the Secretary of State and to the Advisory Committee appointed for the purposes of the Regulation. The fact that my right hon. Friend has felt justified in certain cases in authorising release before the persons detained have had their cases reviewed by the. Advisory Committee does not imply that the original order for detention was unjustified, and does not give rise to any claim for compensation.
§ Mr. StokesIs the Under-Secretary aware that some of these people have been detained for as much as six months, and that, on release, they have found themselves destitute? In view of the fact that in some cases it is quite clear that they have been detained by mistake, should not something be done to set them on their feet again?
§ Mr. PeakeMy right hon. Friend has taken the final responsibility in some cases of authorising the release of a man without waiting for him to go before an Advisory Committee, and, as a result of the action taken by my right hon. Friend in these cases, a number of persons have been released very much sooner than they would have been had they gone before the Advisory Committee.
§ Mr. SilvermanIs the hon. Member aware that no one is complaining of the Secretary of State releasing people whom he has detained; that, in fact, hon. Members would rather encourage such action when he is satisfied that the detention ought not to continue? The argument is that when a mistake has been made the whole burden of the mistake ought not to rest upon the unfortunate victim, and something should be done for him.
§ Mr. PeakePerhaps my hon. Friend would produce an individual case where he alleges that a mistake has, in fact, been made.
Mr. Graham WhiteIs it not a fact that the Advisory Committee has now disposed of all these cases; and is there any 160 reason why cases should not be settled at once, one way or the other?
§ Mr. PeakeYes, Sir, all the cases have had the opportunity of going before an Advisory Committee. In a number of cases the committee's finding has only recently been received by my right hon. Friend, and those cases will be decided very shortly.
§ 53. Mr. Stokesasked the Home Secretary when the hon. Member for Ipswich may expect to receive a reply to his letters of 17th and 20th February dealing with conditions in York racecourse camp; the reasons for detention and lack of information supplied to detained persons prior to their appearance before the Advisory Committee; and observations regarding certain individual cases?
§ Mr. PeakeMy hon. Friend's letter raised a number of points, which are being examined, and I hope shortly to be in a position to let him have a reply.
§ Mr. StokesCan the hon. Member give some indication of what he means by "shortly"? It is now a month since I wrote to him.
§ Mr. PeakeI think hon. Members generally will testify that answers to letters which they have sent to the Home Office are now being received by them more expeditiously than in the past. At the same time, my hon. Friend's letters are not quite like those of the average hon. Member, in that they raise a large number of points, both of principle and of detail.