| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
COMPANIES (AUDIT INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.
COMPANIES (AUDIT INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE) BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
(a) provisions enabling a levy to be imposed on bodies or persons specified, or of a description specified, in regulations for the purpose of meeting expenses incurred (or treated as incurred) by a grant-aided body within the meaning of those provisions, and
(b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Joan Ryan.]
Question agreed to.
COMPANIES (AUDIT, INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE ) BILL [LORDS]
Ordered,
That, during proceedings on the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Joan Ryan.]
HEALTH
Ordered,
That Mr Paul Burstow be discharged from the Health Committee and Mrs Patsy Calton be added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]
PETITIONS
Antennae
8.24 pm
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con):
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from debates, petitions and late nights, I have been campaigning for more controls on mobile phone and other masts for some years. The
7 Sept 2004 : Column 685
rights of communication companies to put masts where they want with total impunity with respect to the views of residents must end. We must listen to local people's views and need a policy that empowers local people to control and protect their own environment. We must take the precautionary approach to the possible health impact of antennae.
To add yet another six antennae to a mast in a residential area that already has 30 or so would be lunacy until we are sure that the cumulative effect of all that radiation from those masts going into people's homes will not harm them and their children. I encourage Castle Point borough council to throw out the application in the way that the petition requests.
To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The humble petition of Mr. and Mrs. Pownall, Jeff Stanley and concerned residents of Castle Point sheweth
That there is strong opposition to the proposed installation of the six antennae, six equipment cabins and a feeder gantry to the existing mast at the NTL transmitting station, EDF Energy Substation at Rayleigh Road Thundersley as this will adversely affect the character of the area and street scene and, most importantly, will increase the serious potential health risks to residents and especially to children, particularly since there is no firm evidence that such equipment does not pose an increased health risk and that therefore the long term health risks are unknown.
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Castle Point Borough Council to reject the planning application CPT/572/04/FUL.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
Scottish Regiments
8.26 pm
Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (Con): The future of my constituency's local regiment is close to the hearts of the people of Dumfries and Galloway. For its future to be in doubt is simply unbelievable. The King's Own Scottish Borderers have served with valour across the globe for generations while providing a local source of opportunity for our region's young people. For the Government to suggest massive cuts in our armed forces now is sheer folly. These are the same troops who are ready to serve in the dispute and conflict zones across the world and who provided a vital resource during the foot and mouth outbreak.
To the House of Commons
The Petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway and others,
Declares that the distinct and historic Scottish regiments, including the King's Own Scottish Borderers, have served with distinction over generations; and that any change to the structure of the regiments would severely weaken their valuable links with the local community.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its plans to abolish the Scottish regiments.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.
7 Sept 2004 : Column 686
Wartime Civilian Prisoners (Far East)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
8.27 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): This debate's full title is "Compensation for former civilian prisoners of the Japanese in the Second World War". Perhaps a better title would have referred to lack of compensation for former civilian prisoners, because that is really the theme of the debate.
I became involved in this issue at the instigation of some constituents—two families in particular—to whom I shall refer later. Little did I know when I began to put their cases forward that I would end up as chair of the far east prisoners of war all-party group, and to some degree spearheading a campaign that I know has support from all quarters of the House.
The historical background is pretty well known. After the attack on Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941, the Japanese invaded east and south-east Asia and many British nationals were captured: 50,000 members of the British armed forces were taken prisoner and an unknown number of civilians interned. The conditions in which they were held were appalling; their treatment was utterly cruel. One in four prisoners of war died in captivity at the hands of the Japanese. Of course, many films and television dramas have been produced and many books written, but none can accurately or fairly reflect the absolute horror experienced by our fellow citizens over 60 years ago.
In 1951, a peace treaty with the Japanese was concluded at San Francisco, which made arrangements, among other things, to pay compensation. A pittance was made available—£76 10s, in old money, for military prisoners of war and £48 10s for civilian internees. To qualify for that scheme, one had to be a British national over the age of 21 on 8 December 1941, normally resident in the United Kingdom before internment, and to have returned to the UK before an application for compensation was made. Approximately 8,500 civilians received compensation under those arrangements.
Of course, many more were left out, and subsequently efforts were made to persuade the Japanese to provide additional compensation—so far, and I think for the foreseeable future, fruitlessly. The Japanese simply would not reopen the issue; they claimed that the matter had been settled under the 1951 treaty. The attitude of the Japanese can be compared very unfavourably with that of Germany, which has for example reopened the issue of compensation to holocaust survivors. A significant effort has been made to provide proper restitution in respect of assets seized from families who died in the holocaust and to provide compensation as a result.
Over the years, successive Governments here have been lobbied on the issue by the Royal British Legion and, more recently, on behalf of the Association of British Civilian Internees, Far East Region—commonly known as ABCIFER. I pay tribute to the efforts of its chairman, Ron Bridge AFC, and his predecessor, Keith Martin, for their persistency and consistency in putting forward their case.
7 Sept 2004 : Column 687
After so many years, this Labour Government acted. On 6 November 2000, a scheme was announced. A statement was made to the House on 7 November by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), then Minister for Veterans, who said that the Prime Minister
"initiated a reconsideration of the long-standing policy . . . towards . . . far eastern prisoners . . . as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. In cases in which a person who would have been entitled to the payment has died, the surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead."
"We estimate that up to 16,700 people may be eligible for the ex gratia payments, which will accordingly cost up to £167 million to make."
"the country owes a debt of honour to them. I hope that I am speaking for everyone . . . "
"when I say that today something concrete has been done to recognise that debt."—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 159–60.]
I thought, on behalf of my constituents, that we had finally cracked it and got a result. I was very pleased by the announcement and I even issued a press release for my local newspaper:
"This is something on which I have campaigned since I was elected to Parliament. I am delighted that Labour has put right this longstanding injustice . . . It is a timely reminder in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday of the suffering endured by those held in captivity in Japan under the most brutal of conditions. I hope this payment will go some way to making life a little easier for the survivors."
Hindsight shows that I spoke a little too soon, although that is not to say that the scheme has not been successful. It has been very successful. There have been 8,430 payments to former prisoners of war, 1,882 payments to former internees and 12,973 payments to spouses of deceased prisoners or internees, which is a total of 23,285 awards. However, that is 6,500 more than originally expected.
The original estimate was based on figures from the Royal British Legion of 6,500 POWs and 6,500 widows of POWs, and from ABCIFER, on behalf of the civilian internees, of 2,500, which provided for a range of 2,100 to 3,000 survivors. It did not make an estimate of the number of widows.
ABCIFER's figure was actuarially calculated, based on the original Japanese statistics relating to the numbers they held, and it has proved remarkably accurate in that there were 2,922 claims on behalf of the civilians, taking into account those that were rejected for reasons other than that for which we are here tonight. Unfortunately, that for service personnel was significantly underestimated. That is why I say that the scheme has not been an unqualified success. Initially, the Gurkhas were excluded, but in November 2003, they were accepted after they brought a case to the courts, over race discrimination, on the basis that they should
7 Sept 2004 : Column 688
have been paid out. I am pleased to say that the Government accepted the findings of the court and agreed to include them.
My main concern relates to the excluded civilian internees, whose suspicion is that the rules were changed when, owing to the number of cases, the cost turned out to be higher than expected. That is the real issue at the heart of this debate: the introduction, it appears ex post facto, of the qualification known as the blood link.
The original claim form, published in November 2000, came out soon after the announcement. I have a copy of it with me, along with the explanatory notes. It states:
"This leaflet describes the new scheme that will be administered by the War Pensions Agency . . . and explains how to make a claim. Who can claim the ex-gratia payment? . . . (d)—
I will not list those categories that are not relevant—
"surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War; and (e) the surviving widow or widower of a person who would otherwise have been entitled . . . providing they were still married at the time of death."
There is no reference in the explanatory notes, or on the claim form, to the place of birth of the claimant, the claimant's parents, or the claimant's grandparents. On the face of it, there is no reason why there should be, because the assumption, based on the original statement in the House, was that if one was British enough to be interned by the Japanese in those appalling conditions, one was British enough to receive compensation.
The nationality rules at the time of the second world war were that a person inhabiting a colony or dominion of the Crown was British, independent of whether they or their parents or grandparents had been born in the United Kingdom. They became a British subject when the colony was annexed, or having moved there and become naturalised, or having been born there. That is under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. There was a single and equal status of British subject throughout the United Kingdom and dominions. Such persons were entitled to a passport issued by the Crown describing them as British subjects. They owed an allegiance to the Crown. They had the right of abode in the United Kingdom and throughout the Crown colonies.
Claims were being processed pretty rapidly after that initial announcement in November 2000. By 1 February 2001, some 14,000 payments had been made. By March 2001, however, ABCIFER started to realise that some claims were being unexpectedly rejected, and it took that up with the Government. On 21 March 2001, the interdepartmental working group, which had been involved in producing the scheme, decided to restrict the scheme to claimants born in the United Kingdom or to those who had a parent or grandparent who was born in the United Kingdom. The Government say that there has been no change in the rules, and that that was what was always intended. I have no reason to suggest to the Minister that that is not necessarily true. Whether or not it is true, however, bearing in mind that that expectation was raised, the effect has been to create both a feeling of unfairness and a series of anomalies when the new rules are combined with the way in which the system is administered. I will refer to some of those anomalies shortly.
ABCIFER has been tenacious in challenging this ruling. It has referred the matter to the ombudsman, whose report we are still awaiting, and the matter is in
7 Sept 2004 : Column 689
the hands of the Commission for Racial Equality, because the rule discriminates unfairly against certain ethnic groups. ABCIFER also took a legal action in the courts for judicial review. Unfortunately, however, that case failed, not on the substantive issue but on relatively narrow points of law. It is worth while quoting not the ratio of the Court of Appeal's conclusions, which were on those narrow points of law—judicial review is difficult to achieve in relation to an ex gratia scheme, as the court said—but the overall conclusion:
"Naturally, we feel very great sympathy for all those who suffered appalling ill-treatment at the hands of the Japanese during their captivity. We also well understand that many civilians had their hopes of receiving compensation raised by Dr. Moonie's announcement of 7 November 2000, and that they have been extremely disappointed, and indeed angered, by what they see as a subsequent and unfair change of heart on the part of the Government. But anyone who seeks to challenge as unlawful the content of a non-statutory ex-gratia compensation scheme faces an uphill struggle. We do not think that the introduction of this scheme was well handled by the Government."
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |