HC Deb 15 December 1947 vol 445 cc1437-9
13. Mr. Teeling

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why over 500 notices have recently been issued to British subjects interned in Shanghai during the war, demanding repayment of the £I a week allowed them whilst interned; to what length he will go to recover these sums in view of the strong feeling against repayment existing in Shanghai; and why this sum cannot be recovered as reparations from the Japanese in the Peace Treaty.

Mr. Mayhew

The notices sent out request the persons concerned to refund advances made to them by the Protecting Power as a charge on British funds against undertakings to repay. A concession rate of £2 a month per person is adopted, though the cost to public funds at its highest was about £25 a month. There is no intention of pressing for repayment where hardship would be caused thereby. The fact of internment by itself does not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, constitute grounds for a claim against an enemy belligerent.

Mr. Teeling

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the notices given to these people in Shanghai did not suggest that ordinary cases would be treated leniently? They were considered as "dunning" notices. Can he say why the Japanese, by means of reparations, should not pay for what these people have gone through?

Mr. Mayhew

The notes which go out are accompanied by an invitation to apply for exemption in the case of hardship. In a large number of cases compassionate exemptions have been granted. It is also true that many internees, for instance, those associated with large firms, had their salaries paid throughout the war. The scheme has worked well, large numbers of people have paid up and large numbers have been exempted.

Captain Marsden

Have 500 notices been sent out to each person, because, if so, that is rather overdoing it, even for a Socialist Government?

Mr. Mayhew

Most people pay up before then.

Mr. Gammans

Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that these wretched people must pay the Japanese for locking them up?

Mr. Mayhew

It means nothing of the kind.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan

Is this not a matter of principle? Surely, if it is just for one to pay it is just for the other, or both should not have to pay. Why is it only in the matter of hardship that a thing is considered to be unjust?

Mr. Mayhew

This is a matter where one case differs from another. It is very different where the salary of a person has been paid throughout the whole of the war.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite

Has there been a means test?

Mr. Mayhew

This method performs the job without undue rigidity, and has regard to each individual.

Mr. Teeling

Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the point I made as to why the Japanese should not pay for this?

Mr. Mayhew

It is, I think, an established fact that internment is no ground for a claim against an enemy belligerent.

Mr. Teeling

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.