Select Committee on Public Administration Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 19 January 2006