| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing a debate on such an important issue--one with which all hon. Members feel sympathy. It is an indication of the interest in it that the attendance is rather larger than one would expect, even at 7 pm on a Thursday.
I should apologise to the House as I am wearing an old pair of glasses and find it difficult to see the brief, which is slightly too far away from me.
Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North):
My hon. Friend needs a good optician.
Dr. Moonie:
Indeed I do. I also need not to sit on my glasses.
The question of compensation for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war is one in which a number of Departments are concerned and my reply today covers issues that also fall within the responsibility of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
Just over 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, many after the fall of Hong Kong and the subsequent fall of Singapore in late 1941 and early 1942. Commonwealth service men fighting with them were also captured. For example, the Canadians had more than 1,600 men captured in Hong Kong and the Australians more than 18,000 in Malaya, Singapore, Java and Sumatra.
The treatment of prisoners of war was governed at the time by the 1929 Geneva convention. Japan had not ratified it, but said that it would, in general, recognise its provisions. However, as we know, it did not do so.
The prisoners of war were held in camps throughout the far east, and while conditions and the availability of the relief supplies that we sent varied considerably between those camps, even the best were harsh. The work that the prisoners had to undertake, together with poor nutrition, and the sometimes brutal ill-treatment, which was so graphically described by the hon. Gentleman, all combined to take their toll of the prisoners, some 25 per cent. of whom did not survive their captivity.
As a safeguard to the prisoners of war, the Japanese should have permitted inspection visits by the protecting power and the Red Cross. In many areas that was refused and even where, with considerable obstructions, visits were permitted, little could be achieved. That avenue, which in Europe produced improvements in the conditions and treatment of prisoners of war in a number of cases, achieved little for those held in the far east.
The British Government were, however, able to make the point strongly that the ill-treatment of the POWs was unacceptable. That was done by means of war crimes trials and, through the Tokyo trials, a number of those held responsible for the ill-treatment of POWs were brought to justice for their crimes.
Uniquely among British POWs, the far east POWs received some compensation after the war for their ill-treatment. They received it from their captors under the terms of the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. They also received the money that the British Government received under the treaty and that they decided to distribute to the POWs and to British civilian internees. The question has been raised many times of the possibility of reopening the peace treaty to seek a higher level of compensation. That is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I will say that the Government, having examined the position most carefully, accept the legal advice that the peace treaty is closed and cannot now be reopened.
There have also been calls for an inquiry to be set up into the perceived failure of the then Conservative Government to invoke article 26 of the treaty and seek more compensation on the grounds that other countries had signed more favourable agreements. However, the records, which have been publicly available for many years, show that that decision was not taken solely because of the weak position of the Japanese economy at that time and the wish, which was in Britain's interest,
to see it recover. It was also very much influenced by the fact that it was extremely difficult to ascertain what, if any, additional benefits this country would in practice be entitled to and what their worth might be. It is by no means clear, had the treaty been re-opened, that the British Government would have received any additional funds with which to provide compensation. Furthermore, there is no basis on which to reopen the issue of compensation for the far east POWs, because Japan signed no subsequent agreements conferring greater benefits upon the POWs of other countries than those awarded under the treaty.
The Government are very much aware of the depth of feeling that the ill-treatment of the far east POWs continues to evoke and we continue to raise the issue with the Japanese Government and to seek ways to build reconciliation as a means of helping to overcome the past.
At the end of the war, the pressure and support for compensation for the far east POWs was strong. The then Government suggested that the funds likely to be realised under the treaty should be shared on the basis of giving most to those who had suffered most. However, the representatives of the far east POWs wanted a simple per capita distribution, accepting that that might mean only small individual payments.
Those speaking on behalf of the POWs made it clear in the House that in establishing the principle of compensation from the captor, they made no claim of any sort on the British taxpayer. Brigadier Smythe, a leading champion for the cause of the POWs in the House said that on no account would they accept money from the British taxpayer. He went on:
It is a policy of long standing that British Governments do not make compensation payments to those who have been prisoners of war on account of their imprisonment. There are many risks implicit for those engaged in conflict and the risk of being captured is sadly one of them. It is unrealistic to suppose that Governments could effectively insure individuals against that risk. Terrible through the conditions suffered by the far east POWs were, it is unrealistic to think that it would be possible to ring-fence just that one group of POWs.
Mr. Bell:
I wonder if the Minister actually believes what he is reading.
Dr. Moonie:
Yes--otherwise I would not be reading it.
Objective decisions about degrees of suffering many years ago are impossible, and many thousands of other former prisoners of war who also suffered harsh conditions will be watching the outcome of the Royal British Legion's campaign with much interest.
The arguments that have been put forward in support of the claim have of course been considered, and considered with sympathy and care. We are well aware of
the payments, for example, that the Canadian Government have decided to make to that country's far eastern prisoners of war, which amount to some £10,000 for each individual. Many comparisons are made with the treatment of prisoners of war elsewhere, and with money received by other groups; we do not accept that that alters our position.
British forces served throughout the world in the 20th century in two world wars, and in many other conflicts. Of course, they are still serving. For all of them, that service has involved risk and, for many--whether captured or not--it has involved difficult, dangerous and harsh conditions. Some have given their lives; others have received wounds and suffered illness.
The sufferings and needs of all those who are disabled as a result of their service--including any period of captivity--are addressed primarily through the provision by the Department of Social Security of war pensions. The dependants of those who died during their service, or whose subsequent deaths can be linked to their service, are supported through war pensions.
The service men themselves, in some cases, have received war pensions since the time of their leaving the forces; in other cases, where their disabilities have become apparent or worsened later in life, they have received war pensions or increased benefits at that stage. It is our aim in this country to target the resources available to help those whose service-related disabilities are the greatest, awarding pensions in proportion to those disabilities.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West):
On behalf of the House, may I say that we recognise that the Minister replying to these debates does not necessarily give his personal view, but states what the Government have so far not agreed to do? Will he consider what the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has said in terms of giving recognition, rather than compensation? How is the Government's view different from that of Canada? Did the Canadian Government say that there was something unique about the experience, or did they say that they would have to take this action everywhere? If other Governments do not have to do so everywhere, this Government might do what the previous Government failed to do, which is to provide that recognition.
The important thing about this claim is its moral principle. The Far Eastern prisoners of war do not mind so much about the money side as they do that the principle should be established that no nation shall treat the nationals of another when they have them in captivity as the Japanese treated our men.--[Official Report, 10 May 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2226.]
It is clear from the views now being expressed on behalf of the far east POWs and their widows that that belief has now changed. They are seeking what is termed an "ex-gratia gratuity" from the British Government, and thus the British taxpayer. In essence, such a gratuity would be compensation.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |