---

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): The right hon. Gentleman represented a Scottish constituency for many years in the House. The Scots prisoners who have gone into this are in Scottish law, and Tom McGowran and others, who have been very active in this matter, have come to the same conclusion.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of international law and Scottish law and of the way in which he campaigns for his constituents, but the 1951 treaty is clear and precise on the issue of general compensation and a general statement. It is important that we accept that and admit it.

The third point that we should make abundantly clear to the Japanese is that Britain is not always convinced about hypocrisy of words. We heard, for example, from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who introduced this debate, about the massive concessions, words and sympathy issued by the German Government, but we should also be aware that the situation there was rather different. Germany was exterminating millions of Jews and gipsies in its pursuit of European integration without democracy.

Hypocritical words do not in any way resolve problems. Because I have respect for Japan and its people, making some concession and gesture would be the appropriate way to resolve the problem. So long as it is unresolved, the firm relations and friendship between our two countries will not be confirmed. I hope, therefore, that the House, on the basis of friendship and respect for Japan, not on the basis of claiming legal entitlements, will simply say that we hope that the Japanese authorities will be able to do what is appropriate for those who suffered so appallingly during the war.

10.17 am

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley): I shall be brief. I have not spoken about this subject in public before, but I do so in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whom I congratulate on choosing this subject for debate.

My uncle died in a Japanese prisoner of war camp. He was a young man, the only son of a farmer, who did not have to go to war. He could have stayed, because sons of

4 Dec 1996 : Column 964

farmers were exempt at that time. He was flown from West Kirby into Singapore after Singapore had already fallen to the Japanese. He survived in a Japanese prisoner of war camp until about three months before the end of the war. I cannot imagine what happened to him during that time. He was a very fit young man; he had been captain of his local football team in a small town in mid Wales. I do not think that he had ever been out of the area, so to go from there into the area in which he was captured must have been a terrible experience.

I understand from people who were with him that my uncle was very brave and stood up to the Japanese. Clearly, he stood up for quite a long time to survive until about three months before the end of the war. Both his parents died within two years of his death. I believe that they died from grief. Nothing could compensate them or the family for that death.

Those who survived were the victims of awful physical and psychological torture. We cannot bear to think about such horrors and when we hear about them, as we have in the debate, we want to cast them out of our minds. As victims of torture, those people still suffer many years later. Some of them have never recovered.

I met some Japanese people not long ago when I visited my uncle's grave in Jakarta in Indonesia. Every time I meet Japanese people I tell them how I feel and that I have some difficulty putting what happened to my uncle out of my mind. I am obviously not anti-Japanese because as an internationalist I could not possibly be anti any nation.

For those who survived the very least that we can expect is some kind of recognition of their suffering and some compensation. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and by other hon. Members.

10.20 am

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): As hon. Members have said, this is a short debate, so I shall be brief. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), not simply because of his kind remarks about a speech that I made in the House some time ago, but because he has brought the subject back to the House at a timely moment.

In the speech that I made last year, I said that the impetus of the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war had one good effect: that the Japanese had apologised. Although I accept that that was not wide ranging enough to satisfy those whom we represent, in their terms it was a marked departure from anything that they might have contemplated.

The Japanese had been brought to that pass in two ways. First, they apologised because the approach of the 50th anniversary had put an international spotlight on the way in which Japan had behaved in the last war. Secondly, they apologised because the Prime Minister had made it his business to make it clear to the Japanese Government that, although the long-standing position of the British Government--that there was no legal way in which the Japanese could be pursued--would continue, there was a continuing moral obligation. The Prime Minister's interest, even by way of moral representations, was a departure from anything that had been done by any Government of either political complexion since the war, and it had a marked effect.

4 Dec 1996 : Column 965

The difficulty is that, when the 50th anniversary had passed, the issue went off the boil. The hon. Member for Rotherham has performed a valuable service by bringing it back to the House. I hope that the issue will once again be highlighted. At the weekend, someone said to me that people in Japan do not listen to our debates. However, I was heartened and surprised to hear after I made my speech last year, in a Chamber that was not as well attended as it is today, that it had received a great deal of publicity in Japan. There is not the slightest doubt that the Japanese public will be aware that the debate is taking place. I hope that the shortness of the speeches will help them to see that the case that we are presenting is in no sense a condemnation of the Japanese of today.

The language may be slightly different from that which the hon. Member for Rotherham used, but it can be said that today's Japanese have no guilt. However, they have a responsibility, because a country can never shake off its responsibility for actions carried out in its name by its people's predecessors. Responsibility remains, but guilt is an entirely different matter.

What would we like to see emerge from the debate? It has already been said that the former soldiers and civilians--it is important to emphasise that civilians suffered too--are not primarily concerned with compensation. Any lawyer knows that compensation is worked out on the basis of the sum that would put the parties in the position they were in before the event if that event had not happened. One has only to state the classic principle of compensation to realise that no possible sum could ever compensate the people we are discussing. Compensation has its role, but to a limited extent.

The National Association of Ex-Prisoners of War, to which I pay tribute, recently asked me to become its unremunerated parliamentary representative. From my conversations, I have noted the continuing anger at the indignity inflicted on those ex-prisoners of war. If the Japanese Government could bring themselves, even now, to make an unequivocal statement of sincere regret for the indignity that was forced on those people, it would go a long way. How can that be taken forward? There are two actions that the Minister might feel able to take.

Until fairly recently, I had taken the view that the Government were entirely right to say that the 1951 treaty made legal redress a closed book. But--it is an important but--the hon. Member for Rotherham graphically reminded us that, in a sense, international law is about never saying never. Increasingly, it is becoming an instrument for delivering what the international civilised community of nations wants. I say without levity that I do not always approve of the way in which international law applies in some sovereign countries, but that is a different point.

It might have been tenable five or 10 years ago, or even two years ago, to say that international law has made this issue a closed book, but that is no longer true. It is bizarre, but the Minister's briefing from officials will probably say, "This matter is basically at an end as far as legal redress is concerned." If, in the light of the debate, the Minister felt able to go to the Foreign Office and say positively that he wants a root and branch reconsideration of whether the present state of international law is such that the aspects of morality that we are debating might even now be brought within some legal process, that would be a marked step forward.

4 Dec 1996 : Column 966

In terms of practical politics, if the Japanese Government realised that there was, after all, a forum before which even now they might be called to account, it might begin to concentrate their minds. However, there is no such international forum. I hope that the Minister will ask for that study to begin.

The hon. Member for Rotherham and other hon. Members have been fair in drawing attention to the Prime Minister's efforts to make to the Japanese Government a case that was more than a mere formal expression of opinion. In the light of the debate, I hope that the Minister will say that the Government will again go to the Japanese and say that this matter will not go away, that it is not a matter for a 25th or a 50th anniversary but a continuing irritant, an inhibition to the proper establishment of relations between our two countries.

Some people may say that such matters are all in the past and that we have completely re-established our relationship with Japan. They may say that this is just a debate between a few Members which takes place once a year or from time to time. But the world is getting smaller, and if Japan wants finally to be taken into the full community of civilised nations it will not be enough for it simply to export goods to us and be friendly towards us.

It is certainly not a question of asking the Japanese people or their representatives to say that they are guilty because of what happened in the past. One of the ties that binds civilised people is the admission that sometimes responsibility continues long after guilt has expired. Until the end of time, Japan will bear a responsibility for acts that were carried out in its name, and it now has to set about discharging that responsibility.

---