§ 3. Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the principle and practice on which he at present proceeds in assessing and awarding out of public moneysex gratiapayments to persons wrongly detained in custody or sentenced are unsatisfactory in that such payments are not publicly heard and determined in a judicial manner on evidence and argument adduced by the persons concerned; and if he will take steps to improve the procedure accordingly.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerNo, Sir. The procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes would be inappropriate where no question of legal liability arises and payments are made purely as of grace, I have, however, decided that in future where a decision is taken to make an ex gratiapayment out of public funds to a person who has been detained in custody as the result of an error not involving legal liability the advice of an independent person of standing should be sought on the amount to be paid.
§ Mr. HughesWhile thanking the Home Secretary for that part of his Answer, which is favourable to my idea, may I ask whether he will go a little further by giving accused persons an opportunity of adducing evidence and by changing what is now an ex gratiagrant into something of the nature of ocmpensation which would bear a direct relation to the wrong which the acquitted person had suffered?
§ Mr. ButlerThat is going too wide. We must be content with small mercies as we get them.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanCan the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in obtaining the opinion of an independent adviser—a decision about which I think all hon. Members would like to thank and congratulate the Home Secretary—the person involved would have any opportunity of being heard on the point by such an inquiry?
§ Mr. ButlerI would like notice of the question. In general, I would say that the answer would be "No, Sir." The only question to be settled by the outside assessor is the amount of compensation.