Far East Prisoners of War

HC Deb 09 March 2000 vol 345 cc1286-94

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

7 pm

Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton)

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise this most important issue. All hon. Members have a variety of causes and campaigns clamouring for attention—an independent Member has perhaps more than most—but we know that if we take them all up, we will be ineffective on all of them. However, every now and again, a cause comes along that is so just, so right, so compelling and irresistible that it has to be adopted. Such is the case that I speak of today—the case for a one-off British Government gratuity to our heroes: those thousands of still surviving British service men who suffered for so long in Japanese prisoner of war camps.

Most of them now are in their 80s or 90s, although some of them are still in their 70s. It is therefore not a cause that will wait while intergovernmental consultation goes on in back rooms. The need will fade away, as old soldiers fade away. The Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association has reported the death of 293 of its members in the past calendar year. It may well be that another died today, and that another will die tomorrow. They are dying out by the natural process of attrition.

I have been drawn to this campaign not only by its urgency and its justice, but by some personal associations for which I make no apology. I was one of the last soldiers to be enlisted in the Suffolk Regiment—the Twelfth of Foot—one of the great infantry line regiments of the British Army. Fifteen years before I joined it, the Suffolk Regiment had two battalions—the Fourth and the Fifth—in Singapore, when Singapore fell. Of the Fourth Battalion, 286 men died in Japanese prisoner of war camps. Of the Fifth Battalion, 271 men died. There was a similar terrible death toll among the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Battalions of the Royal Norfolk Regiment and the First and Second Battalions of the Cambridgeshire Regiment, which made up the Eighteenth East Anglian Division.

There is not a community in my native East Anglia that has not been touched in some way by that. We remember it, as do so many communities in the north-west, part of which I now represent. On 24 June, I shall be leaving my constituency early to attend a reunion of 300 of those grand old soldiers, who belong to the South Suffolk Association. I very much hope that I shall be able to join them and congratulate them on the successful conclusion of this campaign. It is a campaign of great importance.

More than 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, mostly in Singapore, but others after naval engagements, in 1942. Of those 50,000, almost a quarter were killed or died in captivity. Many were executed in cold blood in the act of surrendering. I shall return later in my speech to deal with the conditions of captivity, as that it is an important part of the case for special treatment.

So far as is known, there are now 7,335 surviving British far east prisoners of war. With 3,300 widows, that comes to a little over 10,600 people whom we believe should qualify for compensation.

The case was taken up by the Royal British Legion last autumn, and this is the first time that we have been able to make the case in the House of Commons. The campaign has the open and declared support of 328 Members of Parliament—almost exactly half the membership of the House. Earlier this year, a delegation from the Legion met the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), as did a parliamentary delegation composed of the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and me.

We found the Minister sympathetic, but the case calls for very much more than sympathy. It calls for active intervention. We now believe that our pleas for justice—for it is justice—and the case of the old soldiers themselves are being heard in No. 10 Downing street. I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will provide those necessary assurances.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman will know of my longstanding interest in the matter. I agree that the case that he is making is now absolutely compelling. In April 1998, the late Derek Fatchett, who was then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said that the Government would no longer be pressing the Japanese Government to meet their moral responsibilities. However, have not the Isle of Man and Canada said that, if the United Kingdom Government will not press the Japanese on the issue, they themselves will step into the breach?

Mr. Bell

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Such action from the Government would draw the acclamation not just of the entire House, but of the entire country.

It has been argued that compensation should properly be a matter not for the British, but for the Japanese Government. So it should have been. Japan made a compensation payment in 1952, following the 1951 treaty of San Francisco with the United Kingdom and other countries. That compensation payment was £76 per veteran. Not only was that sum trivial, knowing what we know now of the treatment of those men, it was insulting. It was made from the sequestered Japanese assets in this country.

New evidence has since come to light that the British Government failed in their duty in 1955 when they decided not to take advantage of an article of the San Francisco treaty that would have provided for further claims if Japan had concluded more advantageous arrangements with other countries. Lord Reading's reasoning at that time is now in the public domain. In a footnote, he stated: We are at present unpopular enough with the Japanese without trying to exert further pressure, which would be likely to cause the maximum resentment for the minimum advantage. Hon. Members might care to think about the diplomatic cast of mind that such a comment represents—a triumph of expediency over principle that has been the curse of our diplomacy down the ages.

So it was that the far east prisoners of war were abandoned by the Government of that time and left to do what they could through the Japanese courts by their own actions and at their own expense. It cost a lot of money, took a lot of time and was not successful. Time was not on our side. All that the Japanese had to do was nothing and the problem would conveniently fade away.

It therefore seems to me and to the old soldiers that the one Government to which they can reasonably turn for help is their own. The case for gratuity payments is strong and there are precedents. One comes from the United States. The American Government agreed in 1989 to pay a $20,000 gratuity to each of the citizens of Japanese origin who had been interned—in extremely benign circumstances—in the United States during the second world war. The other precedent comes from Canada. Fifteen months ago the Canadian Government announced that they would pay compensation to their former far east prisoners of war at the rate of 18 Canadian dollars a day for each day of captivity, up to a maximum of 24,000 dollars. The Ministers announcing those payments said that the issue had gone on too long and that the time had come to do the right thing. If that was the case for Canadian veterans then, how much more so is it the case for ours after the further passage of time?

This is not a poor country—it is one of the richest in the world. We live in peace and prosperity—a situation that has, to a large extent, been bought by the sacrifices of those who served and suffered. Nowhere were those sacrifices greater than in the Japanese prison camps. The death rate was higher there than in any other theatre of war, including the Normandy landings. I respectfully argue that it is payback time—indeed, it is beyond payback time.

If compensation is paid to former prisoners of war of the Japanese, an objection may be raised that the former prisoners of war of the Germans should also receive something. I believe that the British people, including those who were held in German prisoner of war camps, accept that the cases are different. The Japanese behaved with consistent brutality and disregard of the Geneva conventions, which the Germans, on the whole, did not. The declining band of forgotten heroes, the former far east prisoners of war, are a special case. The survival of each one of them is a miracle.

I have here some letters sent from German and Italian prisoner of war camps to my father, Adrian Bell, who wrote a book called "Corduroy", which many soldiers carried in their kit bags, because he wrote of a peace in England and a farming way of life to which they wanted to return. Those who wrote those letters knew that they would return. Their repatriation was all but sure. He never got a letter from a Japanese prisoner of war camp and neither did anyone else. The Geneva conventions were not observed. The Red Cross was kept out. People died, people were killed and there were war crimes every day.

From time to time I have spoken in the House about the peace and security that we enjoy in this country and how little we understand the nature of modern warfare. How much less do we understand the nature of what happened to them and how they suffered, yet the documentation is there.

I have here the testimony of one of them, Harold Lock of Sudbury in Suffolk, in a pamphlet called "The Forgotten Men". He was 15 when he joined the Royal Navy, and not much older when the destroyer on which he served, HMS Jupiter, was sunk in the battle of the Java sea and he was lucky to struggle to shore with a companion. The Japanese soldiers made them dig their own graves and they were just about to be executed when they were saved by an English speaking officer. He writes in his book of what they went through:

Four prisoners made a bid to escape, but were reported to the Japanese by some natives from whom they tried to get a boat. They were brought back to the camp and shot. We were all assembled to witness this barbaric act, but no one showed any emotion. Death had become commonplace, and we were getting like robots, all feelings disappearing except the desire to cling to life. It is strange how precious everything seems when you are on the verge of death as most of us were. For three and a half years those who survived were treated like that, facing the imminent prospect of death at all times. It is difficult for people who have not been close to death to know how that affects people. Those who could not work died. Those who could worked on in vermin-ridden rags. All of them, I believe, were marked for life. To come through such an experience was like living a nightmare for the rest of their lives.

One of the service organisations that I support is Combat Stress, the ex-services mental welfare society, which recognises that long after the body has recovered from such an ordeal, the mind has not. No one suffered more than the thousands of British who were ill-treated by the Japanese.

It is remarkable how cheerful so many of them are, how normal they seem and how slow they have been to campaign for themselves. They are the very reverse of whingeing campaigners. To some extent, we owe it to them to campaign for them.

It is my view that in our lives, especially our parliamentary careers, however long or short they may be—and mine will be shorter—we have the choice between making a difference and filling a space. We can make a difference and the Government can make a magnificent difference, if they will. The opportunity is there and the case is strong. We are asking not for generosity, but for justice. I know that this cause will be supported by people across the country and on both sides of the House and I trust that we shall get a result very quickly.

Finally, it is hard for us, who live in such a peaceful time, to pay this debt of honour, but we owe it to some of the finest gentlemen who ever served under our flag. I urge the Government to help them in the evening of their lives and to pay this debt.

7.13 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing a debate on such an important issue—one with which all hon. Members feel sympathy. It is an indication of the interest in it that the attendance is rather larger than one would expect, even at 7 pm on a Thursday.

I should apologise to the House as I am wearing an old pair of glasses and find it difficult to see the brief, which is slightly too far away from me.

Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)

My hon. Friend needs a good optician.

Dr. Moonie

Indeed I do. I also need not to sit on my glasses.

The question of compensation for those held as prisoners of war in the far east during the second world war is one in which a number of Departments are concerned and my reply today covers issues that also fall within the responsibility of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.

Just over 50,000 British service men were captured by the Japanese, many after the fall of Hong Kong and the subsequent fall of Singapore in late 1941 and early 1942. Commonwealth service men fighting with them were also captured. For example, the Canadians had more than 1,600 men captured in Hong Kong and the Australians more than 18,000 in Malaya, Singapore, Java and Sumatra.

The treatment of prisoners of war was governed at the time by the 1929 Geneva convention. Japan had not ratified it, but said that it would, in general, recognise its provisions. However, as we know, it did not do so.

The prisoners of war were held in camps throughout the far east, and while conditions and the availability of the relief supplies that we sent varied considerably between those camps, even the best were harsh. The work that the prisoners had to undertake, together with poor nutrition, and the sometimes brutal ill-treatment, which was so graphically described by the hon. Gentleman, all combined to take their toll of the prisoners, some 25 per cent. of whom did not survive their captivity.

As a safeguard to the prisoners of war, the Japanese should have permitted inspection visits by the protecting power and the Red Cross. In many areas that was refused and even where, with considerable obstructions, visits were permitted, little could be achieved. That avenue, which in Europe produced improvements in the conditions and treatment of prisoners of war in a number of cases, achieved little for those held in the far east.

The British Government were, however, able to make the point strongly that the ill-treatment of the POWs was unacceptable. That was done by means of war crimes trials and, through the Tokyo trials, a number of those held responsible for the ill-treatment of POWs were brought to justice for their crimes.

Uniquely among British POWs, the far east POWs received some compensation after the war for their ill-treatment. They received it from their captors under the terms of the 1951 peace treaty with Japan. They also received the money that the British Government received under the treaty and that they decided to distribute to the POWs and to British civilian internees. The question has been raised many times of the possibility of reopening the peace treaty to seek a higher level of compensation. That is of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I will say that the Government, having examined the position most carefully, accept the legal advice that the peace treaty is closed and cannot now be reopened.

There have also been calls for an inquiry to be set up into the perceived failure of the then Conservative Government to invoke article 26 of the treaty and seek more compensation on the grounds that other countries had signed more favourable agreements. However, the records, which have been publicly available for many years, show that that decision was not taken solely because of the weak position of the Japanese economy at that time and the wish, which was in Britain's interest, to see it recover. It was also very much influenced by the fact that it was extremely difficult to ascertain what, if any, additional benefits this country would in practice be entitled to and what their worth might be. It is by no means clear, had the treaty been re-opened, that the British Government would have received any additional funds with which to provide compensation. Furthermore, there is no basis on which to reopen the issue of compensation for the far east POWs, because Japan signed no subsequent agreements conferring greater benefits upon the POWs of other countries than those awarded under the treaty.

The Government are very much aware of the depth of feeling that the ill-treatment of the far east POWs continues to evoke and we continue to raise the issue with the Japanese Government and to seek ways to build reconciliation as a means of helping to overcome the past.

At the end of the war, the pressure and support for compensation for the far east POWs was strong. The then Government suggested that the funds likely to be realised under the treaty should be shared on the basis of giving most to those who had suffered most. However, the representatives of the far east POWs wanted a simple per capita distribution, accepting that that might mean only small individual payments.

Those speaking on behalf of the POWs made it clear in the House that in establishing the principle of compensation from the captor, they made no claim of any sort on the British taxpayer. Brigadier Smythe, a leading champion for the cause of the POWs in the House said that on no account would they accept money from the British taxpayer. He went on:

The important thing about this claim is its moral principle. The Far Eastern prisoners of war do not mind so much about the money side as they do that the principle should be established that no nation shall treat the nationals of another when they have them in captivity as the Japanese treated our men.—[Official Report, 10 May 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2226.] It is clear from the views now being expressed on behalf of the far east POWs and their widows that that belief has now changed. They are seeking what is termed an "ex-gratia gratuity" from the British Government, and thus the British taxpayer. In essence, such a gratuity would be compensation.

It is a policy of long standing that British Governments do not make compensation payments to those who have been prisoners of war on account of their imprisonment. There are many risks implicit for those engaged in conflict and the risk of being captured is sadly one of them. It is unrealistic to suppose that Governments could effectively insure individuals against that risk. Terrible through the conditions suffered by the far east POWs were, it is unrealistic to think that it would be possible to ring-fence just that one group of POWs.

Mr. Bell

I wonder if the Minister actually believes what he is reading.

Dr. Moonie

Yes—otherwise I would not be reading it.

Objective decisions about degrees of suffering many years ago are impossible, and many thousands of other former prisoners of war who also suffered harsh conditions will be watching the outcome of the Royal British Legion's campaign with much interest.

The arguments that have been put forward in support of the claim have of course been considered, and considered with sympathy and care. We are well aware of the payments, for example, that the Canadian Government have decided to make to that country's far eastern prisoners of war, which amount to some £10,000 for each individual. Many comparisons are made with the treatment of prisoners of war elsewhere, and with money received by other groups; we do not accept that that alters our position.

British forces served throughout the world in the 20th century in two world wars, and in many other conflicts. Of course, they are still serving. For all of them, that service has involved risk and, for many—whether captured or not—it has involved difficult, dangerous and harsh conditions. Some have given their lives; others have received wounds and suffered illness.

The sufferings and needs of all those who are disabled as a result of their service—including any period of captivity—are addressed primarily through the provision by the Department of Social Security of war pensions. The dependants of those who died during their service, or whose subsequent deaths can be linked to their service, are supported through war pensions.

The service men themselves, in some cases, have received war pensions since the time of their leaving the forces; in other cases, where their disabilities have become apparent or worsened later in life, they have received war pensions or increased benefits at that stage. It is our aim in this country to target the resources available to help those whose service-related disabilities are the greatest, awarding pensions in proportion to those disabilities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)

On behalf of the House, may I say that we recognise that the Minister replying to these debates does not necessarily give his personal view, but states what the Government have so far not agreed to do? Will he consider what the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has said in terms of giving recognition, rather than compensation? How is the Government's view different from that of Canada? Did the Canadian Government say that there was something unique about the experience, or did they say that they would have to take this action everywhere? If other Governments do not have to do so everywhere, this Government might do what the previous Government failed to do, which is to provide that recognition.

Dr. Moonie

I can speak only for this Government and our views, and not for the views of the Canadian Government or the deliberations that went on prior to their decision. That is a matter for them.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

Cannot the Minister recognise the difference between prisoners of war and prisoners who have been the victims of war crimes? We give compensation to victims of crime. Why not give compensation to victims of war crimes?

Dr. Moonie

I have been making the point that there was a wide variety of suffering in many circumstances in prisoner of war camps, not only in the far east. It would be invidious to single out one group for special treatment.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Dr. Moonie

I shall not give way. I must make progress or I will be unable to say what I intend to say. If it becomes apparent that I can give way, I will be happy to do so later.

I should stress that anybody whose health has suffered as a result of being a prisoner of war, or the dependants of those who have died for that reason, is entitled now to lodge a claim for a war pension or a war widow's pension.

It is still possible to lodge a claim where health problems emerge many years after leaving the service, or to ask for a war pension to be reviewed where the health of the recipient has deteriorated. That is what we mean when we say that we are targeting resources on need.

The special health needs and problems of the far eastern prisoners of war are also recognised in the provision for them of special tropical disease investigations, so that problems that might not otherwise be recognised as relating to their military service can be picked up. The national health service provides free health care in this country, whereas a number of other countries do not make the same provision. However, there is an extra benefit for veterans here, in that they receive priority over others with the same clinical priority for NHS treatment of their problem, or of the condition for which they receive a war pension.

As I have said, it is not, and has not been, the policy of successive Governments to make across-the-board compensation payments. We prefer to target our resources on those suffering disablement as a result of their service. The Government do not feel, after careful thought, that to depart from this long-standing policy would be justified as being the right or the fair way forward.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

The Minister must realise that his answer will deeply disappoint the enormous number of people who recognise that a unique barbarity was visited on the far eastern prisoners of war. Should not that have been recognised by the successive Governments who have failed those prisoners of war by not obtaining compensation from the Japanese? Is not that a job now for this Government?

Dr. Moonie

Yes, I do recognise that. However, I believe that our policy is right. Although it produces disappointment, I will stand by it.

Mr. Nicholls

If the Minister feels as badly about having to make his speech as we do about having to listen to it, he should realise that it would make a great resignation speech in a moment or two.

I have done a lot of work with the national association representing former prisoners of war, and have met a great many men who were prisoners of the Germans. Some were confined in harsh conditions, but I have never met any prisoners of war from the German theatre who say that they would want part of any compensation that might be given to prisoners of war from the far east theatre. They recognise what the Minister does not—that the circumstances of the far eastern prisoners of war are unique. Given the strength of feeling expressed even in this short debate, will he not agree to reconsider the matter? If this is really to be the last word on the matter, listening to it has been a distressing experience.

Dr. Moonie

The hon. Gentleman brings his peculiarly repellant personality to a very important issue.

We welcome the chance to continue discussions with the Royal British Legion about other ways to look after the special needs of the far eastern prisoners of war. I am therefore pleased to say that I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are to meet Legion representatives in April, and that we will discuss the matter fully with them.

However, I must repeat that the Government have concluded that it would not be right to change the policy on the matter of compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.