HC Deb 21 July 1988 vol 137 cc1416-24

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

10.40 pm
Sir Bernard Braine (Castle Point)

I begin by drawing the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to all-party early-day motion 119 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) which has now attracted 176 signatures and which will, I promise, attract a great deal more. The motion summarises succinctly what I am about to say. It states: That this House, in welcoming the growing friendship between Japan and the United Kingdom, believes that this friendship will not fully blossom until the wrongs done during the Second World War to Allied prisoners are fully accepted by the Japanese Government and due reparation made. In 1941, at a moment of great peril for our country, locked as we were in deadly conflict with Nazi Germany, the Japanese struck suddenly and without warning at the Americans, the Dutch and overselves in the Pacific. By the time Singapore had fallen, over 50,000 British service men and women and civilians, 20,000 Australians and 1,700 Canadians who had defended Hong Kong with great gallantry had fallen into enemy hands. Such was the appalling treatment of these helpless prisoners that over a quarter of them were either to be slaughtered in cold blood or to die of disease, malnutrition and unbelievable brutality by the time the Japanese surrendered.

I was a member of the personal staff of the Supreme Allied Commander in South-East Asia, Admiral Lord Mountbatten. I was in Asia in 1945 when the Japanese surrendered. I was moved to tears by the first sight of the pitiful survivors who came out from the hell of Japanese captivity. Many of them, still in their 20s, were to die prematurely, many more were disabled and crippled for life.

It is difficult at this distance of time to describe what they had endured. Field Marshal Slim, one of our greatest soliders, has put on record what the victorious British 14th Army found as it over ran the prison camps. He wrote: The state of these camps and of their wretched inmates can only be realised by those who saw them as they were at this time. Except for derelict huts and bashas, the camps were little more than barbed wire enclosures in which wild beasts might have been herded together. The Japanese and Korean gaolers, almost without exception, were at the best callously indifferent to suffering, or at the worst, bestially sadistic. The food was of a quality and a quantity barely enough to keep men alive, let alone fit them for the hard labour that most were driven to perform. It was horrifying to see them moving slowly about these sordid camps, all emaciated, many walking skeletons, numbers covered with suppurating sores, and most naked but for the ragged shorts they had worn for years or loin cloths of sacking. The most heart-moving of all were those who lay on wretched pallets, their strength ebbing faster than relief could be brought to them. He concluded: There can be no excuse for a nation which as a matter of policy treats its prisoners of war in this way, and no honour for any army, however brave, which willingly makes itself the instrument of such inhumanity to the helpless". I will mention just one case—I could mention a thousand—recounted to me by a former prisoner who suffered greatly. He refers to what happened to one of his comrades in Sonkrai camp on the notorious Siam-Burma railway. He said: He was chained to the teak tree at the entrance of the camp and we had to pass him every dawn when going out to work and at night when returning to Camp. We could do nothing to assist him or even get near him. He was left to die—in his own filth—exposed to the heat of the day and the cold at night. Tropical exposure is a nightmare. He grew weaker; no food or water was given to him and as death approached he lapsed into hallucinations and delirium. At nights, you could have heard a pin drop as we listened to his cries. It was sheer agony. In the end he died; a shocking and unnecessary death. The Japanese guards danced round his body shouting with glee. They enjoyed every moment of it. I was already a Member of Parliament when, in May 1951, hon. Members pressed the Government of the day to ensure that when the peace treaty was to be signed later that year there should be compensation for the appalling sufferings our men had endured. I recall vividly the powerful arguments of Jackie Smyth, VC, who had fought in Burma, the eloquence of George Thomas, who was later to become our Speaker and is now Lord Tonypandy, and the moving personal testimony of the late Lawrence Turner, the hon. Member for Oxford, who had been a prisoner and whose health never recovered from the experience.

It was not to much avail, for under the provisions of the treaty our service men were awarded the princely sum of £76.50, while civilians received £48.50. The excuse for accepting such derisory sums was that the Japanese economy was in ruins.

All that was 37 years ago. It may be asked, why revive the argument now? There are two reasons. First, we should demonstrate that violations of international law, as Japanese behaviour certainly was, are never to be tolerated by civilised nations and that, where there has been a denial of basic human rights, adequate reparation must be made.

Secondly, since the 1950s the wheel of fortune has turned favourably for Japan. Today, she is a stable democracy and the second richest nation on earth. She plays a responsible role in the management of the world economy and is ready to help in the eradication of world poverty. All that is greatly to the credit of the Japanese people and their Government, but, if the slate is to be wiped clean and Japan is to take her place in the comity of civilised nations—if she is to enjoy the respect of the international community and to be honoured for her virtues and achievements—there has to be contrition for past crimes and proper compensation for the victims still living and the families of those whose lives were destroyed. That is the view of many hon. Members. It is certainly the view of survivors of Japanese prison camps and for them we should realise that the years are fast slipping away.

A lead has been taken by the Hong Kong Veterans of Canada, who have lodged a claim for compensation with the United Nations Human Rights Commission. They are supported by the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Veterans Federation and the International Commission of Health Professionals, all of whom have status as non-governmental organisations to engage in such an undertaking.

The Canadian initiative has been systematic. Their approach to the United Nations Human Rights Commission is based on resolution 1503 of the United Nations Economic and Social Council of 1970. Their case is founded on an impressive in-depth study of the medical sequelae of what happened to the victims of Japanese cruelty. It presents a declaration of principle for consideration by the United Nations of compensation for gross violations of human rights. I understand that Australian veterans may be taking parallel action. There is to be a preliminary hearing at the United Nations in New York next month.

I am advised that, although Japan did not sign the Geneva conventions, that has been held by experts in international law to be of no consequence, since the Japanese Government of the day were aware that such a code existed and that the conventions had been accepted as the customary law of nations.

I hope, therefore, that I shall not be told by my hon. and learned Friend, as my colleagues have been told by other Ministers, that article 14(b) of the peace treaty specifically waived all claims that were not expressly provided for in the treaty itself, and that, in 1954, it was agreed that payment of a global sum of $4.8 million would be regarded as a full discharge by the Japanese Government of their obligations under article 16 of the treaty. No Government had and no Government have any right to sign away an obligation by another state to compensate for gross violations of the human rights of individuals and for the death and injury that occur in future years as a result of the sufferings that the Japanese inflicted on their helpless captives.

The relevant conventions expressly forbid such action by Governments. The regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague convention concerning the laws and customs of war on land provide that a belligerent party which violates the provisions … shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its Armed Forces. Article 130 of the third Geneva convention of 1949 refers specifically to grave breaches of human rights, such as wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health. They were hourly and daily occurrences in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. Article 131 significantly goes on Ito state that no High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of … breaches. I am advised that the International Committee of the Red Cross supports the legal; argument of the Canadian veterans that the peace treaty that the allied powers entered into with Japan does not remove Japanese legal and financial obligations to the victims of violations of the Geneva conventions. The conventions clearly provide that Japan shall not be absolved from compensation liability in respect of breaches committed by its armies during world war 2.

The Geneva conventions literally follow the Hague convention of 1907 and do not abrogate it in any way. Therefore, they are part of the customary law of all nations. A further consideration strengthens the Canadian claim and thereby strengthens any British or Australian claim. One of the non-governmental organisations supporting the veterans is the World Veterans Federation. My hon. Friend should note that, at the fifth international conference on legislation concerning veterans and war victims held at Bad Ischl on 21 to 24 April this year, it was agreed that there should be compensation for victims of acts contrary to international humanitarian law because of the post-traumatic stress disorders of such acts. A recommendation was made that the World Veterans Federation should initiate and support steps towards that end.

In short, the Japanese should not be allowed to escape the consequences of the damage that they inflicted on helpless prisoners for the rest of their natural lives.

It may be that the Japanese will answer that the peace treaty was the end of the matter—that is what Ministers have been saying. I suppose that if the United Nations ever ruled otherwise, it could not compel Japan to make reparation. If that proves to be the case, I am bound to say here and now that it will confirm the views held by many people in this country and elsewhere in the West that Japan can never be regarded as a civilised nation.

I pray that it turns out otherwise. Opinion in Japan is sensitive to the issue. There has been a stirring of conscience as a result of the revelations of earlier appalling atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army in China before the second world war. The Canadian reference to the UN should help to encourage this process of inward questioning and with this the Japanese Camp Survivors Association in this country heartily concurs.

The Canadian Government are not involved in the claim being made by its veterans and I am not asking that Her Majesty's Government should be involved in any claim that might be made by British veterans. All I ask is that the Ministers here should stop saying that the rights of individual victims were signed away in 1951. It is shameful that such an argument should have ever been used. I have demonstrated that it is unsound in international law. Moreover, the action of the Canadian veterans shows that there is indeed a case to answer.

If our Government cannot help directly, I want an assurance that they will not impede action by the Japanese Camp Survivors Association or any other British veterans. Better still, they should show readiness to provide positive help and information as the Minister for veterans' affairs in the Canadian Government has done in respect of the Canadian veterans.

Therefore I shall listen with the greatest care to what my hon. and learned Friend says in reply but I would, with great respect, remind him that he will be speaking here in a free Parliament, as all his predecessors have done since the end of world war 2, because the men and women of my generation stood and fought cruel and repellent enemies who, if they had prevailed, would have blotted out our freedom. There is therefore an obligation on the part of any British Government to those who died and to those who suffered in enemy hands. It may be very late in the day but I submit that there is still time for the new democratic Japan to make amends if it will. Our Government should encourage her to do so.

11.58 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for permitting me to participate in his Adjournment debate. He has a distinguished record, not only in this House but previously, to our country during time of war when he served, as I am delighted to record as a Staffordshire Man, with the North Staffordshire Regiment. I am only sorry that it was not with the South Staffs. There is another bond between us apart from our joint membership of this House, because my father served on Mountbatten's staff of the South-East Asia command during the second world war as a Royal Air Force liaison officer.

I join my right hon. Friend in this debate because I had occasion to have at my surgery one survivor of the Japanese prisoner-of-war camps, Mr. Robert Kelly, now aged 72 years, who worked on the infamous bridge over the River Kwai. For somebody of my post-war generation, like my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, to see before me a man who had worked in that infamous and intolerable labour camp in those appalling conditions brought home to me, as I hope that it will to my hon. and learned Friend, the fact that our generation owes a great deal to that generation and the sacrifices that it made.

In adding to the contribution which my right hon. Friend has made so eloquently, I shall add only two points. First, those men are a diminishing band. They are now in their twilight years and many are in straitened circumstances. It must be borne in mind that not only the physical but the mental anguish that they suffered at those barbarous hands all those years ago will have unquestionably debilitated them and impaired their earning capacity during their lifetime. They therefore find themselves more readily in straitened circumstances than their fellow citizens who served in the war but who did not go through those horrors.

My right hon. Friend has already said that, in 1954, when the agreement was signed, Japan was on its knees, it was trying to recover and rejoin the comity of nations. Today Japan is probably the most economically powerful nation on earth. I do not believe that it is immoral or improper for hon. Members to campaign on behalf of their constituents and to suggest to Japan that, in view of its enormous success—which it has been able to enjoy as a result of joining the free world and the free trade of that world—it should feel able to make some further recompense.

I do not believe that £76.50 paid in 1954 should represent the full and final settlement. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to assure my right hon. Friend, myself and our 200 colleagues on both sides of the House who have signed the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce), that Her Majesty's Government will not be found wanting by our constituents.

12 midnight

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Mellor)

I am glad to have this opportunity to answer a debate that has been instigated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), the Father of our House. His largesse of spirit has been shown so often in such debates—not least by what he has said tonight. It is a pleasure for me to answer any debates in which he participates having regard to the great kindness that he has shown me, and the support that he has given me over the years. It therefore saddens me that, although agreeing with many of the points that he raised, I shall be unable to give him much more satisfaction than some of my predecessors have done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) is right to say that those of us of the post-war generation who today live in freedom owe an enormous debt of gratitude to those who served in the war. We owe a particular debt to those who suffered as dreadfully as those whom my right hon. Friend starkly described, those who suffered at the hands of the Japanese. My father spent most of the war fighting in the far east, but, happily, he was never taken prisoner. He has told me of things that, once experienced, he has never forgotten; he remembers them as vividly as my right hon. Friend.

There is no dissent about the facts. We also know that the suffering was shared by thousands of Americans, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and other allies and by many thousands of civilians who were also treated appallingly. Although it is more than 40 years since those events, some wounds do not heal. If we had suffered in the same way, would the bitterness and anger ever disappear? I doubt it. Therefore, I am not surprised at the response that my right hon. Friend has had from a number of veterans to the case that he has raised.

I also understand the feeling at the heart of this matter—the feelings of those who, having suffered at the hands of the Japanese, now see a rich and successful Japan. They must believe that they surely deserve some further compensation.

My right hon. Friend, drawing on his 40 years of experience, was able to recall vividly the debate in the House in May 1951, when I was two years of age. At that time, it was a live issue and a great deal was said. Arguments were put forcefully and passed into the minds of the British negotiators. Behind the debate in the House lay many hours of discussion with the Far East Prisoners of War Association, which made a valuable contribution to the debate.

The negotiations proceeded on a bipartisan basis, the treaty of peace with Japan was signed by a Labour Government and ratified by their Conservative successors. The British delegation led the way in insisting that there should be a specific provision for compensation for former prisoners of war. That was not in the original treaty, and it is an unusual provision in a peace treaty, which reflects the uniquely dreadful treatment suffered by our service men in the far east.

As we know, the result was the peace treaty signed in San Francisco on 8 September 1951, which formally brought to an end the state of war between the United Kingdom and Japan. The treaty contained a number of articles, of which two are particularly germane. Article 14 concerned the general question of compensation and recognised that reparation should be made. It gave the allied powers the right to seize and dispose of Japanese property, which, alas, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point castigates the point, I fear cannot be readily evaded. Article 14(b) concludes with these words: Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war … ". Article 16 makes specific provision for the compensation of prisoners. That is what we might call the British article, upon which we insisted. Under that article, the sum of £4.5 million was paid and there was an agreed minute between the Japanese and the allied powers recording that payment and stating that the payment would be recognised as a full discharge by the Japanese Government of its obligations under Article 16 of the Peace Treaty". Out of that, we in the United Kingdom received just over £1.6 million. That was made available to the former far east prisoners of war. The sum that has been described was the sum that was paid. Although the sum of £76 was worth a good deal more in 1952 than it is today, I well understand and appreciate that it was extremely small sum.

Sir Bernard Braine

Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Mellor

My right hon. Friend puts me in difficulties. I wanted to make the case. I do not want to be discourteous to him, but would he allow me to finish?

Sir Bernard Braine

I want to ask my hon. and learned Friend just one question in the limited time available. Does he agree, as a lawyer, that the treaty does not absolve Japan from the conventions? That is the charge that has been put to the United Nations. This is a new situation.

Mr. Mellor

We believe that the treaty that was signed is binding on us and was a full and final settlement. Whether it is right or wrong, that is the position today and we do not see any way round it. I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is not wilfulness on our part; that is just the best objective interpretation that we can give. Every Government have had to defend that position and give such an interpretation over the past 40 years, and I fear that I have no authority to diverge from that.

We can only rest on the fact that it is the function of peace treaties to put an end to claims. If that were not so, we would still be concerned about disputes throughout the centuries. No compensation would be adequate to meet the sufferings of the people concerned. I understand that this compensation will seem to many people peculiarly inadequate, but we can find no legal basis for going back to the Japanese Government and asking for more. It has been the opinion of successive Governments, and it remains the opinion of this Government, based as best we can on an objective assessment of the documents, that Ito seek to go back on the undertakings to which we put our signature would not be an act of good faith and could not be justified.

My right hon. Friend has raised the Canadian initiative. I am grateful to him for giving me advance notice, with his typical courtesy, of all his points, which I hope will allow me to deal with them. If I run out of time, I shall write to him, because I want him to have a proper explanation.

We do not think that it would be proper for the Government to press the claim. That was one of the considerations that the Canadian Government have had I o bear in mind. I understand that it is an independent association called War Amputations of Canada which have submitted the claim to the United Nations Human Rights Commission on behalf of the Hong Kong Veterans Association. I was interested o hear my right hon. Friend say that his claim has the support of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Commission of Health, Professionals and other nongovernmental organisations that have consultative status at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I understand that a delegation of former prisoners of war went to the 44th Commission on Human Rights in February, but I am not aware that any non-governmental organisation with consultative status raised the delegation's concern in that forum.

My right hon. Friend also mentioned that this claim was submitted under the procedures based on resolution 1503. I have every sympathy for the claimants—I cannot stress that enough—but I am afraid that the chances of success under this procedure cannot, in my judgment, be high. One of the criteria applied under that resolution when judging whether claims are admissible is that the allegation of the violation of human rights must be submitted within a reasonable period, and the 40 years that have elapsed may be held to be not within that proviso.

A second difficulty is that the question may be outside the mandate of the United Nations, since that body was not in existence at the time when the violations took place. All I—

The motion having been made after half-past Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.