HC Deb 27 January 1955 vol 536 cc552-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.21 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

Never has a London Member listened to so much discussion of Scottish affairs. That is a good thing, because it has probably helped my Parliamentary education. The reason I have stayed in the Chamber is that the matter I am raising is of great importance, and I say "Thank you" to the Secretary of State for War for being here personally to answer this debate.

The matter concerns moneys which are made available to the Imperial War Graves Commission. My purpose is not to criticise the way in which the Commission do their job. I should be the last person to do that, because I have been abroad, I have seen many war graves, and I know the excellent way in which the Commission maintain them. They do a truly magnificent job. I am concerned with quite another matter, the method by which they handle those moneys, and also the provision of photographs of war graves and memorial inscriptions to the next-of-kin.

This matter came up because one of my constituents came to see me on this point. I have already written to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and I ask him not to mention the name of my constituent tonight because she has had enough publicity and it is a little painful. This lady lost two sons in the last war, which was a tremendous sacrifice. One she lost in Germany and the other at El Alamein. The grave of the boy lost in Germany was known to her, but not of the one in El Alamein. This lady read in the Press that there was to be an El Alamein Memorial. That was the first she heard of it. In his letter to me the right hon. Gentleman said that she had been written to at a certain address, but she has not changed her address throughout the years.

She then wrote to inquire whether she could have photographs of the memorial and inscription, because she comes from a working-class family and could not afford to go to the ceremony in the Middle East. My complaint is about the way in which this matter has been handled. Much more important is the fact that the Imperial War Graves Commission are not able to furnish photographs free to relatives. Here may I say that the Secretary of State for War is replying to this debate because he accepts responsibility in this House on behalf of the three Services? I am not blaming him personally, but I am hoping that at the end of this debate he will have enough initiative to see that something is done to solve this problem.

It is understandable that this lady wanted photographs. It was the first intimation she had received of the grave of her younger son. She received what I regard as a paltry little document from the Commission. It says, "Yes, that is right. You can have the entry in the register if you like to send 7s. 6d." They then show her what sort of thing will be sent to her and the sort of words which will be on it. They also say that relatives and friends may buy copies of the register at cost price of 7s. 6d. each.

They go on to say on an equally paltry piece of paper, "If you want a photograph of the unveiling ceremony, that will cost 2s.; if you want the introduction to the register, it will cost 2s. 6d.; if you want a photograph of the part of the memorial where the name of the soldier is shown, it will cost you 2s. The total cost is 14s. If you send the 14s. to such and such an address these photographs will eventually be sent to you."

This may seem a trivial and unimportant matter, but it was fortunate for this lady that she had a son who was working and was able to provide the money. She has not got the photographs yet, but I presume she will get them as the 14s. has been found.

The case came to my knowledge, and I was extremely annoyed about it. I was annoyed about the curt manner in which the woman had been notified and the fact that this money was required for the photographs. I could have understood it if the Imperial War Graves Commission had said, "We are sorry, but it is physically impossible to provide photographs." But they say they can provide all the photographs, provided 14s. is found.

I therefore wrote to the Secretary of State for War, and I said in my concluding paragraph: I hope I shall receive a satisfactory reply. This is the reply which I received, which I do not regard as at all satisfactory: The Commission are not empowered to use their funds to supply photographs of individual graves or of names on memorials. They felt, however, that as so many relatives would be unable to visit the El Alamein Memorial in person, they would make arrangements to supply photographs at cost price. The right hon. Gentleman then confirmed the sum of 14s.

The Secretary of State for War said: I can quite understand your feelings about this matter about paying for photographs, but to supply them free to any relatives would mean that we must offer them free to all. In view of the very large number of casualties throughout the world, this would be a very big financial undertaking and could not be accepted by the Government. I might add that the normal practice is for the British Legion to make arrangements to obtain photographs for relatives … This is the point of this debate.

I am sure that many others will be annoyed to learn that Her Majesty's present Government and the previous Government—for no party politics are involved here—consider that the obligation is too great. This is really too much. We can find £1 million compensation for Herr Krupp when we have the audacity to take away his armaments. We gave him £1 million after the war because we happened to knock some of his stuff down. I could give a lot of examples of money which this and the previous Government have spent and which could well have been used for different purposes. But they cannot spend it here. Too much money is involved, they say.

I should have thought that there would have been no difficulty at all in sending a personal letter to this woman saying, "We are sorry. We know you cannot get to El Alamein, but we will send you the photographs." But, no. The Imperial War Graves Commission—it is not their fault that they have not got sufficient money—sent her these small pieces of paper saying, "If you want the photographs, you pay for them." That, in effect, is what it says.

I should mention the fact that the Commission sent a letter to another relative saying, "If you like to make a contribution towards the cost of the memorial, you can send a sum up to £1," and they sent a detachable form which could be completed and sent back, together with the money for putting up the memorial. I think that that is impudent, but again I suppose it cannot help it because of the lack of funds.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

I do not think that the hon. Member would want to mislead the House in this matter. I think that what he is now referring to is the question of an added inscription, of a personal nature, on a stone.

Mr. Mellish

I do not want to confuse anybody, but a matter of principle is involved. My constituent will get her photographs because her son is able to pay for them. I think it is wrong that a person who wants the sort of thing which so many people want—a photograph of the grave of someone whom they will never see again—should have to pay for it. It means that if a person cannot afford it, it is just too bad; unless the person pleads poverty, or goes to some mayor's parlour, and gets the money from someone else.

In the letter to which I have referred, the Commission say, "If you had thought of making a contribution perhaps you would kindly complete the detached slip and return in the enclosed envelope." Up to £1 may be sent. I should say that they add: We wish to make it clear that you are under no obligation so to send. The whole point is that it is so cheap and wrong that when the next-of-kin of somebody wishes something to be put on his relative's stone he has to pay for it. The nation ought to pay. If a person wants a photograph of the grave of her husband or son, we should send her one; it is as straightforward as that.

I am sure that the Secretary of State for War is sufficiently briefed on this matter to know that some other Governments already do pay. I understand that Australia does it, or is contemplating doing it. The answer may be given that this is not only confined to this country. But surely Her Majesty's Government can bring tremendous pressure to bear on other governments. If necessary, we could undertake to ask the Treasury to see that this small thing is done. These little things become big things in the lives of ordinary people, and if the country is to be worthy of those who lost their lives in the war, it should set a first-class example. This sort of cheapness is just not warranted. I hope that the Secretary of State will not put forward some specious argument, but will say that the Government will look at the question and see if anything can be done.

I am not prepared to agree that the cost is the bar. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is not the last he will hear of this matter if he says that the Government are willing to pay but cannot afford it. We can afford it, and we should see that the relatives of these men not only receive personal letters, but letters which explain the position and enclose the required photographs. We should find the necessary money, because we owe it to these people.

10.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head)

I should like to say at the start that I appreciate the hon. Member's feelings on this subject. It is something which has nothing to do with party but has much to do with sentiment. To some extent, I blame myself for the inadequacies of the letter which I wrote to the hon. Member explaining the whole situation. I have had only 3½ years' association with the Imperial War Graves Commission, compared with others who have done much more work and have had much more experience. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Commission's work in other spheres, the greatness of which is beyond dispute.

It is my duty tonight to deal with this complaint, which I believe is partly due to a misunderstanding, for which I am prepared to blame myself because of the letter I wrote to the hon. Member. The first thing he raised was the complaint, which might appear to be legitimate, of this boy's mother that the first she knew about this matter was in a newspaper. The next of kin given to the War Graves Commission was this boy's brother and not his mother. The War Graves Commission can only write to the next of kin given to them, and they wrote to the brother. He, as it turned out, had changed his address, and the letter took a long time to reach him. That was why the mother heard of it through the Press. That is not a thing to be laid at the door of the War Graves Commission.

The next thing concerns this question of photographs. I agree with the hon. Member that, superficially, it seems mean and skinflint for a nation to say: "Your son has died for his country and we won't give you a photograph of his grave." This matter has a history, which I should like briefly to recall, to explain the situation to the hon. Member.

After the 1914 war, when the War Graves Commission were fixing up cemeteries in many areas, there was a widespread demand for photographs. The Commission sought legal advice about their entitlement to spend money on various measures and projects which they thought they should consider. The legal advice was that the provision of photographs of war graves was not within their charter, which was for looking after and ensuring the upkeep of war graves. As a result of that legal advice, the Commission arranged that the British Legion should undertake an organisation which would provide photographs on a world-wide basis; a considerable task, when one thinks of the vast areas in which there are cemeteries. That the Legion undertook to do. Any relative that wanted a photograph of a grave, starting from 1919, applied to the British Legion, which supplied it for 5s. 6d. That price, when one considers the very inaccessible places in which some of the graves are situated, was not excessive. The hon. Member says that they should be free, and he is entitled to his opinion about that. Within the charter of the War Graves Commission, it was not possible to do it.

Perhaps I may now mention the letter which goes to all relatives who have headstones erected over a grave. The letter asks them whether they would like to contribute to a personal inscription. It says, in effect, "Do you wish a personal inscription to be put on the stone? If you do, will you send us the inscription"—which has to consist of so many words—"and we will pay for it; but if you like, you can contribute a part." I think the hon. Member attributed that to parsimony of the War Graves Commission, but that again is not so.

After the 1914 war, a large number of relatives claimed the choice of the headstone, its design, shape and size. This House debated the matter and, I think in its wisdom, decided that, irrespective of the rank or financial position of the relatives, there should be a standard headstone. But it was also agreed that if any relatives wished as a matter of choice and at their own expense they could put an inscription of their personal choice on the headstone. That arrangement continued until the end of the 1939 war. It would have been within the sphere of the Commission to let that arrangement run on, but it was felt at the end of the 1939 war that it was wrong to continue the arrangement which, in the first instance, had been made to satisfy the personal feelings in this matter and automatically involved a charge.

Here we come to an intangible which cannot be entirely measured. Many people felt they would like to pay something as a purely personal tribute. A compromise was made so that those who wished to pay for a personal tribute could do so and those who did not wish to pay for an inscription need not do so. Concerning graves of the last war which have been listed in this particular category of personal inscriptions, 90,000 of those written to have chosen to pay for a personal inscription and, of those, 28,000 have elected to pay purely voluntarily. I think that of the total to whom the Commission has written only four have complained.

I think the hon. Member would agree that this is not done out of parsimony but out of a desire to satisfy many people, as the fact that they have personally paid for the inscription makes it a more personal matter than if it is done by some organisation without their assistance. Although such a thing may be intangible, one is dealing with a matter which is of sentiment, which in itself is intangible.

The specific case which the hon. Member raised had to do with the Alamein Memorial, recently unveiled. The War Graves Commission realised that very few people would be able to attend the ceremony in person because of the distance. They also realised that, because people could not go there, they might particularly like to have photographs of the ceremony, or of the particular panel on which their relative's name was engraved, or to have a copy of the register. It was therefore decided, as a somewhat exceptional case, that all relatives should be written to and asked if they would like any or all of those records to do with the Alamein Memorial.

The Commission was at once up against the ruling that it was not within their province to provide photographs free of charge. If they said, "Let us stretch a point with the Alamein Memorial and provide them free of charge" that would at once create a precedent by which the other war graves photographs would have to be provided free, and it would also contravene the legal ruling. Therefore, in this instance, the Commission undertook the task formerly done by the British Legion and said in effect, "If you want a photograph of the ceremony, it will cost 2s.; if you want a photograph of the panel, it will cost 2s. The register is more expensive, because it is a large printed book containing all the names, and the cost of that would be 7s. 6d." The introduction alone, which was an explanation of the whole ceremony, was 2s. 6d.

I do not know what exactly is wanted in this case. It may be that in the first instance people would want all those things, and the charge, as the hon. Member said, would be 14s. I appreciate what the hon. Member said about the purely financial aspect, but I hope I have explained sufficiently to show that the Commission of itself could not have waived that charge.

I do not want to score a point against the hon. Member; this is not the kind of thing on which one wants to score points. Obviously, the relatives wanted a full record, both the register, the photographs and the introduction, and it cost them 14s. As far as the Commission were concerned, what was the choice? The Commission could have adopted the easiest course, which would have been to write to every relative but to do nothing in the provision of photographs or records. What the Commission could not do without further legislation was to provide photographs or the register free. Therefore, the Commission wrote to every relative, but in this case, because of the change in address, something went wrong; and the Commission offered the various matters in connection with the Alamein Memorial on payment.

Everything I have had to do with the War Graves Commission has convinced me that they have two main thoughts. One is that the memory of those who have died should be revered by keeping up the cemeteries, to which the hon. Member has paid tribute. The other thought is that in every way, in their approach and, indeed, in their charges to the next of kin, everything should be done to help; but in this matter it was impossible for the Commission to give these matters free because of the charter, which was primarily concerned with the upkeep of cemeteries.

I have not simply taken a brief to answer the hon. Member, but I am convinced by my own inquiry that this was the only course that the Commission could adopt. The hon. Member said we should seek legislation to extend the powers of the Commission. That is a quite different matter. I am convinced that, under its existing charter, the Commission maintained the tradition of doing the best they can by the next of kin.

Mr. Mellish

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be the right thing to provide photographs free; he does not deny that, and I am sure he would like it to have been done in this and other cases. What contributions can the Government make to ensure that the Commission are enabled to have this done?

10.52 p.m.

Sir Patrick Spens (Kensington, South)

We are very sorry to hear of any criticism of this kind. The difficulty about giving photographs free is, of course, the inaccessible places and the scattering of the graves of the last war. I have been all over North-West Europe. There are graves scattered on every island. The actual physical expense of getting a photographer to those places and taking photographs of a large number of the graves far exceeds 5s. 6d. or anything like that.

The suggestion that we should undertake to give every relative a free photo- graph would entail a very serious financial liability. We cannot do it at present. If we were to extend the charter, it would mean that we were asking ourselves and all the other members of the Commonwealth to make a much larger contribution than they do at present.

Mr. Mellish

That is the point I am trying to make. I know that it would cost money. What the estimate would be, I do not know. I am saying that someone, somewhere, should now decide to give the Commission the money to do this. If there is some legal implication and the House must look at the matter again, obviously it is a matter for the Government. Something has got to be done about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.