Examination of Witnesses (Questions 37-39)
MR DON
TOUHIG AND
MR JONATHAN
IREMONGER
1 DECEMBER 2005
Q37 Chairman: May I welcome Don Touhig,
Veterans Minister at the MoD and Jonathan Iremonger, Head of Veterans
Policy at the MoD. We had hoped to see Mr Burnham, the Chief Executive
of the Veterans Agency. We thought until yesterday that we were
going to see him. Do you know why he has not been able to come?
Mr Touhig: May I explain that
when I make my opening statement?
Q38 Chairman: I invite you to make
your statement now.
Mr Touhig: You have already introduced
Jonathan Iremonger, sitting beside me. As you know, he is Director
of the Veterans Policy Unit and took over responsibility for the
Far East Prisoner of War Scheme some three months ago. I would
like to say at the outset that the Government fully recognises
the very strong feelings and the disappointment of those who were
led by the terms of our initial announcement of the scheme to
think they were eligible for compensation but were subsequently
denied an award under the scheme. As I said in my statement to
the House on 13 July, there was no intention to cause distress
but we accept that that distress was real. The fact that it occurred
is profoundly regretted. I would like to take the opportunity
to apologise for it and I renew that apology this morning. It
is well known that the conditions under which prisoners of war
and civilian internees were held by the Japanese during the Second
World War were appalling and their treatment was cruel. The Government
felt that the suffering of those with a close link to the United
Kingdom had for too long been overlooked and that we owed a debt
to those who had endured so much in such dreadful conditions.
The scheme was intended as a tangible recognition of the extreme
and the unique circumstances of those held captive in the Far
East during this period. Despite the criticisms which have been
directed at the way the scheme has been administered, I do not
think we should lose sight of the fact that nearly 25,000 payments
have been made, payments of £10,000 each; a total sum of
£250 million has been paid, and no financial constraints
were placed on the current arrangements. As you will be aware,
Chairman, there is a matter before the courts at the present time
and, because of that, the civilian part of the scheme is currently
suspended. However, we intend to pay out on all valid claims.
We have exceeded the budget originally set aside for this scheme.
With any scheme of this nature, there must be rules. Whenever
these are set, those outside them will feel that they have not
been properly recognised. The Government has set what were felt
to be reasonable and fair boundaries for the scheme, taking account
of people's links with the United Kingdom at the time and the
way in which these should translate into the responsibility of
our country today. You will be aware, Chairman, of course, and
your colleagues too, that you and I had a conversation on Tuesday
of this week when I did request that you might postpone this session
this morning. I fully understand the reasons you gave, and perfectly
proper reasons, and I have no complaint whatsoever about being
here this morning. But, as the Committee would expect, I gave
this very careful consideration before contacting you personally
and making that request. The reason for my request is this. While
preparing evidence for this session, a provisional analysis of
the eligibility rules applied before and after the introduction
of the birth link criteria has suggested that the two may not
have been entirely consistent. If that is the case, it conflicts
with my understanding of the situation that we have been discussing.
As a result, I have set in train an urgent investigation. We are
working hard to bottom-out the implications of this information
which, as I say, only came to my attention on Monday of this week.
However, I recognise that the issues may be relevant to certain
concerns raised by the Ombudsman and by others about the administration
of the scheme. As I have said, I have set work in hand to clarify
the position, but the Committee will appreciate that there is
a substantial amount of documentation which needs to be re-examined,
not least to understand why, if the problems are confirmed, they
have only now been exposed. I should explain, though, that some
of the problems that we have faced are as a result of the speed
of implementation of the scheme. Decisions relating to the eligibility
rules and how these were interpreted were sometimes taken and
transmitted orally, with the result that in some cases we do not
have a clear written audit trail. We therefore have had to rely
on the recollections of those involved regarding what they were
doing at the time. I would also point out that while I recognise
the importance of resolving quickly this recently exposed matter,
I want to ensure that it is investigated properly, without placing
artificial time limits on those involved. It was the understandable
rush to introduce the scheme which, to some considerable extent,
I believe, led to the situation we are in today. It is my firm
intention to allow sufficient time to clarify the position to
ensure that these findings are properly arrived at and carefully
considered. As a result of this, I hope that you and your colleagues
will understand that I may not be in a position to answer all
the questions you would like to put to me this morning. As I have
said, I recognise that all of those with an interest in this scheme
will expect the department to conduct this examination as quickly
as possible. This is particularly an issue for those who do not
currently qualify under the birth link criterion. I believe that
this exercise can be completed over the coming two to three weeks,
at least to the point of allowing us to give, with reasonable
confidence, some initial conclusions. I would therefore expect
a statement to be made to Parliament before Parliament rises for
the Christmas recess. When I am in possession of all the facts
relating to this investigation that I have set in train, I will
of course come back to the committee and answer questions on any
matters you want to put to me again, if that would be helpful.
It was with the best of intentions that all parties involved sought
to introduce the scheme as quickly as possible, due to the age
of the potential claimants. A considerable amount of work has
been undertaken on scoping some aspects of a possible scheme before
its inception and I accept that it was announced before the criteria
governing eligibility were fully and properly developed. This
is very much regretted and has led to a great deal of concern
and distress. I unreservedly apologise to all concerned for the
consequences of that action. I think, Chairman, I should leave
it there. I will happily now seek to respond to any questions
you may have.
Q39 Chairman: I am very grateful
for that and I hope I am encouraged by it, too. I hope you will
understand why we felt it was important that you came along and
said what you have just said because it says publicly what is
happening. One question I would immediately ask is on what you
have just said. In your letter to me you say, "While preparing
evidence for this session, my officials have brought to my attention
certain matters previously unknown to me and which may be central
to the issue under scrutiny". I think what would be perplexing,
though, is, given the fact that this issue has been crawled over
so extensively for so long, why did it take the prospect of an
appearance before a select committee for new evidence suddenly
to be discovered?
Mr Touhig: Forgive me, I did not
answer your question at the beginning on why Alan Burnham is not
present. I have asked Alan, as the Chief Executive of the VA,
actually to stay at his post and conduct this inquiry as quickly
as possible. He is at the heart of getting this information. That
is why I asked him to stay there and not come down this morning.
On the point of your last question, this new information came
to light on Monday, lunchtime-ish, as my officials were preparing
papers to come in to brief me for this session, and it was having
the whole team at a session and discussing what they were going
to advise me and tell me that this apparent discrepancy was fully
exposed.
|
