HC Deb 09 March 1998 vol 308 cc6-7
4. Mr. Gibb

If he will make a statement on the process by which the complaints of officer ex-prisoners of war and protected personnel regarding pay deducted during incarceration were investigated. [31406]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)

In response to a number of submissions from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, the previous Government established a thorough review to examine the deductions, the pay policy and its implementation. Following the general election, those submissions and the report of the review were presented to me. I considered them with great care and announced my conclusions on 24 July last year. I am satisfied that the process followed was sound. The report is available in the Library, and I commend it to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gibb

Is the Minister aware that one of the leading campaigners on the issue—my constituent, Group Captain Ingle—fought for this country in the Battle of Britain, and was three times shot down and twice wounded in action before becoming a prisoner of war? Why does the Ministry continue to deny the requests of those incarcerated in Germany and Italy in the second world war to be heard and to contribute their first-hand knowledge of the facts of the case?

Mr. Spellar

No one takes away one iota from the record of both Group Captain Ingle and the many other officer personnel who were prisoners of war. Many submitted their views to the Ministry of Defence, and those were considered in the review. The report shows that the facts do not bear out their case. That view was taken by previous Governments. I examined the case with considerable care, and the conclusion was that it did not stand up. It gave me no great pleasure to draw that conclusion, but those were the facts of the matter.

Mr. Rendel

The Minister has told us that he does not agree that the written statements made out the case, but surely the question—to which I should still like an answer—was why those statements, apparently showing that pay that was withheld should now be disbursed, were not, according to those who submitted them, given sufficient weight in the investigation. Would it not have been better to allow the witnesses to give oral evidence, so that they could at least feel that their case had been made directly to the Minister? Perhaps his decision, which is disappointing at best, could thereby have been changed.

Mr. Spellar

A number of representations were made, as well as further follow-up representations. They have been deeply examined, especially in the light of contemporary evidence and the decisions that were taken at the time. Following representations made at the time, those matters were considered by Ministers in the immediate post-war Government, who were much closer to the issue. When we looked back in our review, it appeared that their reasons were sound. That has been the view of successive Governments of different political complexions.

Mr. Winnick

I do not remember many protests from Tory Members in the previous Parliament, or at any time in the past 18 years. That said, is my hon. Friend aware that some Government Members are unhappy—I certainly am—because we are not sure that the right decision was made? Bearing in mind the services of the ex-officers and their bravery in the most just war that this country has ever been engaged in—a war that has been over for 53 years—the matter should be re-examined.

Mr. Spellar

Not only the prisoners of war, but all those who served in the armed forces in the war, deserve our enormous and unending gratitude. We had to consider the facts concerning the deductions of pay from officer prisoners of war and protected personnel and determine whether there was a case for making repayments to them after the war.

Successive Governments have reviewed the case. The previous Government instituted a most thorough investigation, the papers from which were presented to me when we came into office. I looked through those papers with considerable care, and I am afraid that the case that was being advanced did not stand up.

Mrs. May

Does the Minister accept that former officer prisoners of war and protected personnel who had their pay docked when they were incarcerated in POW camps—and their families—feel a genuine sense of injustice? They feel that they have facts that bear out their case and they have—as, indeed, has one of my constituents—raised real questions about the report to which the Minister referred. To satisfy the feeling that there are facts and records to bear out that sense of injustice, is not now the time to call for an independent inquiry, so that people can present their evidence orally, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) suggested, and feel that a decision is being made independently of Government?

Mr. Spellar

The hon. Lady should understand that her Government came to a similar conclusion. Her views are not universally held by ex-officer prisoners of war, several of whom have written to the papers expressing the view that they do not wish to be associated with the campaign. There would be a reason for setting up an independent or a different inquiry if all those who had examined the case in depth and in detail had not concluded that the case is not made and that the facts do not bear out the claims. Therefore, I believe that we have come to the right conclusion, as did previous Governments of both political parties.