Memorandum by Mr Ron Bridge (DH 02)
I, Ronald William Bridge, Chairman of the Association
of British Civilian Internees Far East Region, make the following
Statement to the Parliamentary Administration Select Committee
on 1 December 2005.
I was elected to the Committee of ABCIFER in
May 1995 and became Chairman in May 2001. I have been closely
involved with War Pensions throughout those ten years. With the
previous Chairman Keith Martin, I had trawled the Foreign Office
Records at Kew in 1997 and found documents which showed that the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office had not done its best for British
subjects in the 1950s and that HMG still had the right to reopen
the Peace Treaty under Article 26 because Japan had granted better
reparations to other countries. This document was escalated through
the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, to the Prime Minister Tony
Blair. With a request that HMG assist former PoWs and Internees
to get more equitable reparations from Japan. HMG apparently felt
that this would upset Japan. In the late summer of 2000, I was
asked for an estimate of the number of British civilian internees.
The HMG and/or the MoD apparently knew the number of military
PoWs and military widows. I believe these were both expected to
be around 7,200. The latter was grossly in error as I understand
that over 14,000 claims have been paid. ( There were 57,000 British
Military PoWs of Japan.)
At that time I had the detailed nominal roll
of three civilian camps with inmates ages, through the good offices
of a leading firm of Actuaries I asked what percentage of these
could now be expected to be alive and was given a global figure
of about 15% of those alive in 1945. No adjustment was possible
for the effects of Japanese deprivations. These were known for
PoWs and this would seem to reduce the expected number to 12½%.
Depending on the source document, the total number of British
civilians in custody varied from 15,012 to 20,000. The variation
could be attributed to merchant seaman being counted as civilians
by Japan and Colonial Volunteer Forces as civilians by the UK
War Office. Taking the highest figure 20,000 and applying the
actuarial attrition I passed a figure of between 2,500 and 3,000
British civilians still alive to the Prime Minister's private
office, the Ministry of Defence then, as now, being reluctant
to communicate with civilians.
The Prime Minister announced the scheme now
called the "ex gratia" to the nation in the National
Army Museum on 6 November 2000 and Dr Lewis Moonie simultaneously
announced the scheme in Parliament. This stated that one of the
beneficiary groups was "surviving British civilians who were
interned by the Japanese" without caveat.
From my detailed experience of War Pensions
and dealing with the then DSS and WPA I realised that the definition
of British was often very loose and that the authorities were
adept at avoiding paying war pensions on the flimsiest of excuses,
dredging obscure letters out. I was also aware that the then War
Pensions policy for British civilians required any recipients
to have been born in the UK, a policy which excluded a large percentage
of British civilians still alive who were interned by Japan and
suffering from that deprivation with medical conditions that were
only just manifesting themselves. Furthermore, I knew that the
1950s disposal of Japanese assets required beneficiaries to be
resident in the UK and to have been over the age of 21 on 8 December
1941. A meeting was called on 15 November 2000 to discuss the
detailed implementation of the scheme, citing these examples,
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 10 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. (These payments required UK
residency at the time of payment and capture by Japan in 1941-42
thus included diplomatic personnel and others who had never been
interned but had been repatriated.) I offered to assist in verifying
internment, as by that time I had built up a list of some 15,000
internees not all of whom were British. (Currently I hold 45,000
names.) After fears about the Data Protection Act and WPA confidentiality
had been assuaged by saying that I could identify by full name
and date of birth, I was not interested on a persons present whereabouts.
I was sent initially over 700 names for verification, some I could
do immediately but others had been given with current surnames.
This was resolved and it was agreed that I would sign a simple
certificate that I was satisfied that xxx had been detained by
the Japanese during World War 2 in yyyy camp from evidence that
I had found in one or more of the following sources and listed
the entire sources that I had consulted. The WPA list contained
people who I knew from the evidence to hand, had not been interned
or who were not British at the time of their internment and the
WPA were so advised, nevertheless I now know that some of these
received payment.
In April 2001, I attended a meeting with the
WPA management in which reference was made to the questionnaire
that the WPA had sent out requesting detailed genealogical information.
An assurance was given that "bloodlink" would not exclude
and that in any case any major change in the scheme would entail
detailed discussions with ABCIFER. ( This promise was broken by
the MoD.)
In May 2001 I took over as Chairman of ABCIFER
and shortly after realised that HMG were intending to use lack
of a "bloodlink" to exclude, and to ignore the British
Nationality and Aliens Registration Act 1914, the legislation
in force when the British were incarcerated. Accordingly I wrote
a short policy paper on the 19 June 2001 and sent it to the MoD
as I was aware that they had taken over responsibility for the
WPA and from my "war pensions" experience knew that
policy always emanated from Whitehall. The response I got was
an acknowledgement from the WPA that the MoD had passed it to
them and I could expect an answer in 28 days. I immediately wrote
to the Minister, Dr Lewis Moonie, stating that I thought he was
responsible for policy and could I have a response to my paper,
I am still waiting, I am now aware that they had changed the rules
in May 2001 a month earlier, and presumably MoD did not want to
revisit a decision even though that decision was taken without
knowledge of the facts. Subsequently MoD communicate platitudes
and avoid the issues. I was particularly concerned that British
civilians had been refused unless proving a "bloodlink"
despite holding a UK Consular Birth Certificates or a UK Military
Birth Certificates. That evidence of being British inadequate
yet the originals are held at the UK General Register Office,
Southport, Lancashire. (This precedent has enormous repercussions
even under the present British nationality legislation.) Attempts
at getting responses through the Prime Minister's office and by
MPs have been met with the same type of response, "our minds
are made up, do not confuse us with facts".
On a number of occasions, in writing and in
person, to Dr Lewis Moonie and Ivor Caplin (at annual WPA/VA Christmas
receptions). Both of whom told me to stop wasting time as there
was no way I could win against the MoD. I have offered to assuage
their fears on the numbers that were held and thus the maximum
number that could benefit from the "ex gratia".
Similarly, Andrew Dismore MP, Chairman of the All Party Group
on the matter has asked for a meeting between the MoD and ABCIFER
but the MoD have refused entertain the suggestion.
The position is therefore that about one quarter
of those British civilians who were interned by Japan because
they held British passports and were considered a threat to Japan's
Greater South East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere have been effectively
disowned by HMG. Those affected fall into the following general
categories: being of the Roman Catholic or Jewish religions, with
a foreign born parent, women who married Britons and those who
took out British naturalisation prior to WW2.
November 2005
|