The Scope of the Scheme
30. The MoD's difficulties appear to have been caused
by the failure to consider how the scheme should be applied to
former civilian internees from the outset. It was clear that at
least some ex PoWs would have their eligibility determined by
whether they were compensated in 1951 (see paragraph 8 above);
there is no such clarity about civilian internees.
31. In his statement on 12 December, Mr Touhig said:
The scheme was intended for those British civilian
internees who had a close link to the United Kingdom at the time
and for whom the UK might therefore be regarded as being responsible.[26]
The MoD' s response to the Ombudsman refers to the
birth link criterion as "widening the scheme" and claims
that the first criterion was to be whether internees were born
in the UK, or, in the case of children, those whose parents were
born here.[27] The implication
must be that that the 1950s scheme was used as a first validation
of eligibility because it conformed to these rules. We are puzzled
by this claim, and can find no documentary evidence to support
the suggestion that clear eligibility rules for civilians had
been established at the outset, before being "widened"
by the introduction of the birth link criterion. In essence, the
Ombudsman's report suggests that the reason the first claims paid
were to those who had been compensated in the 1950s and their
descendants was because such claims were easiest to process.[28]
32. Mr Bridge of ABCIFER told us:
A meeting was called on 15 November 2000 to discuss
the detailed implementation of the scheme.
I asked what the Government meant by the term "British".
The answer was not immediately forthcoming but the meeting was
told that an answer would be obtained. The DSS Policy Branch communicated
with the then ABCIFER chairman ten days later that British meant
" British" by the regulations in force at the time,
and that it did not matter where they now lived or what their
nationality now was.
A month later it became evident that HMG had little
if any records of British Civilians who had been interned. The
WPA advised that they were going to use the list of beneficiaries
of those who had received the £48.10s.0d Japanese Assets
payment in the 1950s as authority.[29]
In answer to a written question from Mr Peter Bradley
MP, Dr Moonie said: "While there is no specific record of
contact with the Association of British Civilian Internees Far
East Region on 24 November 2000, the advice being given at that
time was that to be eligible for the ex-gratia payment civilian
claimants must have been British at the time of internment".[30]
33. There is further documentary evidence to support
the contention that the 1950s scheme was used for convenience
rather than as a matter of principle. On 15 November the
Chief Executive of the WPA wrote to Mr Bridge as follows:
I am very grateful for your offer of assistance and
I welcome any help which would enable claims to be finalised as
quickly as possible. We are keen to pursue all avenues to establish
eligibility and we do not currently have the civilian lists prepared
in some camps in 1944 which you mention. I would be grateful if
we could arrange to have copies of any records you have which
may help to establish eligibility.[31]
34. As the Ombudsman's report notes, the paper submitted
to Ministers referred to "surviving civilians who are
UK nationals (my emphasis) and who were interned by the Japanese
in the Far East during the Second World War".[32]
The 1950s scheme could never have been the sole basis for payment
to civilians, since Dr Moonie made it clear on 7 November
that those who had been interned as children would be compensated,
and the scheme applied only to those over 21, and those who had
been habitually resident in the United Kingdom before the war.
35. There is, on the other hand, a wealth of evidence
to suggest that the Government simply had not thought through
the potential problems that would arise from the diverse origins
of the civilian internees:
- when he announced the scheme
to Parliament, Dr Moonie said, without qualification, those eligible
would be "British civilians who were interned";[33]
- while there is considerable qualification about
the position of former PoWs, the application form simply notes
that "you may be eligible for an ex gratia award if you are
a surviving British civilian who was interned by the Japanese
in the Far East during the Second World War"; it does not
ask about place of birth;[34]
- as the Ombudsman's Report notes, a meeting of
officials on 22 November 2000 "decided that UK nationals
should be defined as 'those civilian internees who were British
at the time of their incarceration, those who became British citizens
only subsequently would not be eligible for payment'".[35]
There was no reference to the 1950s scheme, or to any requirement
for a "close link" with the UK;
- a minute of the meeting between officials and
survivors' associations of 15 November 2000, supplied by
Mr Bridge, notes "nationality—what constitutes 'British'
and what is the impact of any change in nationality since imprisonment"
as one of a number of issues concerning entitlement raised: if
officials were aware that eligibility was to be determined by
a "close link" as defined in the 1951 scheme it is surprising
they did not make this clear, either at the meeting or when they
later contacted the Chairman of ABCIFER.[36]
36. It is also clear that once the blood link criterion
had been decided, the War Pensions Agency, which was responsible
for administering the scheme, had doubts about its value. On 10
April 2001 Alan Burnham, the then Acting Chief Executive, wrote
to the Cabinet Office. He noted:
… the expectation was that the proposed definition
of eligibility would allow the bulk of outstanding cases to be
paid. It now appears that if we apply the eligibility criteria
we will be left with some 800 which do not qualify.
Not only will this result in a much larger number
of rejections than expected but the individual circumstances of
many of these cases will be hard to defend. Many of the individuals,
now "fully naturalised British citizens" have lived
in the UK for over 50 years and would be deemed by the general
public to be wholly "British". Most importantly for
presentational purposes, they were interned solely because the
Japanese deemed them to be British.
Despite previous concerns at expansion of the eligibility
we are now firmly of the belief that the evidence of individual
cases suggests that the present stance will be impossible to defend
on grounds of fairness and logic. It does not seem that the rejection
of these cases will be in keeping with the original intent and
spirit of the scheme.[37]
We particularly note the warning that "It does
not seem that the rejection of these cases will be in keeping
with the original intent and spirit of the scheme". Mr Burnham
wrote to the Cabinet Office again on 4 May 2001, stating "The
concerns I expressed [in the note of 10 April] are continually
confirmed by the receipt of further information submitted in support
of applications for the ex gratia payment".[38]
The Minister told us that "this will figure in part of my
better understanding in the work I have commissioned as to why,
in this particular case, the matter was raised and no action taken".[39]
37. There
is ample evidence to support the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration.
If it had always been intended to make a payment only to those
civilians with close links to the United Kingdom at the time of
internment, regardless of their subsequent history, there appears
to be no clear indication of it in any contemporary papers, and
no Minister was asked to decide the matter until long after the
first payment had been made.
38. In evidence,
Mr Iremonger suggested that extending the criteria for civilian
internees would necessarily mean extending it for former PoWs
and "hundreds of millions of pounds is at stake".[40]
We do not see why there would be automatic correlation between
the criteria for former PoWs and for former civilian internees.
If the MoD contends that is so, we expect it to explain the case
far more fully than it has either in its response to the Ombudsman
or to us.
Reconsideration of the Position
of Professor Hayward
39. In December the Minister told the House:
It is … too early to say what effect our findings
might have on the scheme's eligibility criteria. I can, however,
again confirm that there is no question of seeking to recover
payments already made to claimants who would not have met the
birth-link criterion. I can also assure the House that no claimant
will be disadvantaged if he or she would have qualified under
the criteria based on the Japanese asset scheme but failed because
the claim was considered under the birth-link criterion.[41]
40. This undertaking does not meet the case. Professor
Hayward and others will still be excluded. The MoD's response
to the Ombudsman says:
22. … the scheme is not designed to recognise
links or contributions to the UK made since the War; it is the
link at the time of internment which counts and to include people
because of a link now would be to change the basis of the scheme
and destroy its coherence, which change could effect (sic) many
more than a few hundred people.[42]
41. The link at the time of internment was simple:
civilians were interned because they were British, regardless
of the nature of their links with the United Kingdom. But by the
time of the Peace Treaty in 1951 many former British subjects
were citizens of other countries.
42. As Mrs Moxley, a former internee, told us:
… the British consul in Shanghai gave the Japanese
the lists of people who were Britons. They were interned as enemy
nationals. To turn round now and say, "Well, actually they
weren't really enemy nationals", because something happened
subsequently—I do not know what—that took their British
nationality away—if it did—what the heck has that
got to do with whether they should be reimbursed or not? I am
lucky: I was reimbursed. I can show my grandparents' birth certificates
back to about 1500, because I happen to be interested in genealogy.
Does that make me more valuable therefore as a Brit?[43]
43. The Government's refusal to acknowledge this
has outraged those who returned here after the war, and, until
the introduction of this unfortunate scheme, considered themselves
(as they are) fully British. As Professor Hayward said:
I have felt anger and outrage at the central question
that it seems to me has come up in this matter and which is of
cardinal importance. It is the question of what it means to be
British and what it means to have an identity as someone who is
British. I happen to regard it as having inestimable value
for me personally. People who apparently do not have that view
have decided that they can discriminate between different categories
of the British.… I do not want to go round, showing wounds
and bruises. That, to me, is not the central question. The central
question is why the British Government is repudiating and casting
a slur on some of its fellow citizens who were at the time British;
who are now British; who feel British; may not be biologically
British. The Japanese, as has been repeated on a number of occasions
in this affair, did not enquire of my family, myself, and others
like me what our blood links were with the United Kingdom.[44]
It is clear that the Government has come to an eventual
definition of "Britishness" which, rightly, causes grave
offence to former internees, whether or not they received the
ex gratia payment.
17 'A Debt of Honour', para 186 Back
18
Ibid., Annex, para 19 Back
19
Ibid., Annex, para 20 Back
20
Qq 70-75 Back
21
Q 71 Back
22
'A Debt of Honour', para 8 Back
23
Letter from Don Touhig MP to Tony Wright MP, Ev 26 Back
24
Q 38 Back
25
HC Deb, 12 December 2005, col. 1119-1120 Back
26
Ibid., col. 1122 Back
27
'A Debt of Honour', Annex, paras 18-19 Back
28
Ibid., para 96 Back
29
DH 02, Ev 22 Back
30
HC Deb, 31 October 2001, col. 741W Back
31
Letter from War Pensions Agency to Ron Bridge, Ev 36 Back
32
'A Debt of Honour', para
81 Back
33
HC Deb, 7 November 2000, col. 160 Back
34
Not printed Back
35
'A Debt of Honour', para 92 Back
36
Not printed; see Ev 22 Back
37
'A Debt of Honour', para 109. See also Appendix
1 Back
38
Appendix 2 Back
39
Q 49 Back
40
Q 97. See also Qq 101-103 Back
41
HC Deb, 12 December 2005, col. 1120 Back
42
'A Debt of Honour', Annex, para 22 Back
43
Q 21 Back
44
Q 19 Back
