Ex-Prisoners of War Deducted Pay

HL Deb 20 January 1982 vol 426 cc662-87

6.50 p.m.

The Earl of Kimberley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why the new evidence on the ex-prisoners of war deducted pay does not warrant the necessity for an independent inquiry.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, first I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses from all parts of the House who have come here tonight to support this Unstarred Question. I shall not be able to thank them at the end of the debate because I do not have the right of reply.

Noble Lords will know that this is not the first occasion on which I have drawn attention to deductions made from the pay of British officers held prisoner by the Germans and Italians in World War II. By Her Majesty's Government's own admission, these deductions amounted to a very substantial amount of money, and I submit that the onus is on the Government to give far more convincing reasons for continuing to deny these brave men their request for an independent inquiry into the disposal of these funds than were offered in the working group report of October 1980, in view of the subsequent evidence now in the Government's possession pointing to the many inaccuracies and contradictory statements which the report contained. This is a complex matter, and I will try to summarise some of the main issues.

During the last war, deductions were made monthly by the Services Department from the pay of officer prisoners of war. The intention was that this money would be used to reimburse the detaining powers for the camp money which should have been issued in various camps in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The rates at which camp money was issued and the rates of exchange used to calculate deductions were agreed between the belligerent powers. For British officers in Germany, the deductions in the main amounted to about one-third of their pay after paving income tax, and for those in Italy it was getting on for two-thirds. As I will explain later, some of these deductions were indeed refunded at the end of the war but much was not—and, as a result of persistent inquiries by an ex-prisoner of war over five years—Flight Lieutenant Roth, now resident in Canada—it came to light some 18 months ago that the remainder of the deductions had never been used in accordance with the Geneva Convention to reimburse the enemy and that it had been handed over to the Treasury. I have a telegram from Flight Lieutenant Roth and I should like to read it out. It reads: Our great hope lies in the powers of rights. It is not right to do wrong to justify a self-serving policy of expediency. You must now save that hope. It is not who is right hut what is right ". I think that is very fair.

Most noble Lords will be aware of the outcry that followed the publication of this information, which caused the Ministry of Defence to set up a working group to study the matter. The working group's report, which was produced in October 1980, formed the basis of the Government's decision not to consider making a refund of these deductions. The report has been greeted with derision by those who have been prisoners of war. Not only did it contain a number of serious errors of fact and omit important information, but these deficiencies, without exception, all led in one direction—unfavourable to the case for a refund.

As a result of this, a voluntary committee of ex-prisoners of war, backed by a fighting fund, was set up to establish what they considered to be the true facts. Members of this committee attended a meeting at the Ministry of Defence last May, at which I also was present and at which some of the errors and omissions in the report were pointed out; indeed, some were admitted. Despite this, not only have the Government persisted in saying that there is no case for a refund but the Ministry of Defence has placed copies of the working group's report in the Libraries of both Houses, despite, I believe, knowing that some of the statements of fact are wrong and that important matters have been omitted. This is a very serious matter and it reflects no credit on the Ministry of Defence.

I have already given my noble friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement a copy of the report prepared by the PoW's voluntary committee. This report is not based upon the sometimes rather hazy memories of ex-prisoners of war or on contemporary knowledge. It is a result of painstaking research at the Public Record Office, at the Ministry of Defence library, and upon actual pay records still in existence. It compares this information with what was and was not said in the working group's report. Several of your Lordships have, I understand, received copies of the voluntary committee's report, and I have further copies should any noble Lord like to have one. I have also placed one in the Library. This report is very detailed, and I will only attempt to outline one or two of the main issues.

The Ministry of Defence claims that information about deductions from pay was properly promulgated. In fact the first Army Order giving this information was only issued after the start of the German blitzkrieg in France in May 1940; therefore, many officers taken prisoner at Dunkirk and earlier could not possibly have seen it. The chances of being taken prisoner in the Royal Air Force were much higher than in the other two Services, yet only one order was issued throughout the war, in July 1940, and that gave only the preliminary rates of deduction, not those actually used. I would add that, to the best of my know ledge, the Ministry of Defence is still quoting the wrong rates in correspondence.

There are numerous reports on file testifying to the fact that, for much of the time, there was very little to purchase with the camp money. The Ministry of Defence claims that, when this was known, deductions were refunded; but actual pay records still in existence show that this was not done. The rates of exchange used were highly unfavourable to our men, as is shown in Foreign Office records, but this also was not mentioned in the working group's report.

Under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war had the right to save their camp money and remit it home. After numerous delays, for which our own bureaucrats must bear part of the blame, arrangements were finally agreed at the end of 1943, four years after the war had started. However, these arrangements did not work satisfactorily, and while some officers did have some amounts credited to their accounts before they returned, many did not. The Ministry of Defence implies that officers knew of the arrangement but did not take advantage of it—which, frankly, to me is incredible.

The Ministry of Defence describes at some length the elaborate arrangements made for the reception of prisoners of war and for them to claim refunds. Yet its own records show that, in many cases, those arrangements broke down completely. The Ministry states categorically that officers in the Royal Air Force received very substantial refunds; yet it can he proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that officers in Stalag Luft 3 could not possibly have received anything like the amount asserted. Actual pay records show that some got nothing at all, while others got very little.

The Treasury file dealing with refunds of deductions has just become available at the Public Record Office. This show how right the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was when he said in this House that it was unfortunate that these men were placed in the hands of the Treasury. Every possible excuse was dragged up to avoid refunding deductions from pay. I will quote but two. It was argued that ex-prisoners of war should not be refunded as they were better off than those who had not been captured because they had not had the opportunity to spend their pay; and that to refund the deductions would be unfair to those who had not been captured. I have a telegram from the Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Arthur Harris, who wrote me a letter and who says in his telegram: Certainly quote my letter. Regards, 'Bomber' Harris". In his letter he says that he was not consulted, and that he did not believe that anyone in Bomber Command would be so lacking in comradeship or so petty as to begrudge his less fortunate comrades a refund of their pay. The War Office actually used the expression, "Unfair to the men who continued to fight". I trust that my noble friend the Minister, who bears the name which will always be associated with the father of the Royal Air Force, will refute this slur on the honour of men shot down hundreds of miles behind the front line.

I will now deal with the main issue. The Ministry of Defence claims that in 1945 Ministers decided to refund the deductions from pay of all those who had been prisoners of the Japanese, and that they took a conscious decision not to refund those of prisoners of the Germans and Italians. The record of the meeting at which this decision was taken is available at the Public Record Office. It is certainly true, as is claimed by the Ministry of Defence, that the harsh treatment of our men by the Japanese was one of the factors which influenced this decision. But, my Lords, there were other factors, some of which were equally applicable to those who had been prisoners in Europe, and a case for a refund to them was never argued. A press announcement was made on 2nd October 1945 that the prisoners of the Japanese would be refunded, but nothing was said about any decision about the prisoners of the Germans and the Italians. A thorough search of Hansard has been carried out: no announcement was ever made in Parliament that a decision had ever been taken not to refund prisoners in Europe. Indeed, in February 1947 the then Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, the late Lord Attlee, made a statement in the House which implied that the matter was still under consideration.

A further, and most important, factor which must be borne in mind is that when these matters were discussed in 1945, and indeed in 1947, the Government still had an obligation under the Geneva Convention to reimburse the Germans and the Italians for the camp money which had been issued. Once it was decided not to reimburse the Germans and the Italians there was no justification, either financially or morally, for not refunding these officers, and they were not given any opportunity to make claims while their pay records still existed.

Another factor of which some of your Lordships may not be aware and which has been ignored by the Ministry of Defence is that, alone among the allies, only the British officers did not have the deductions from their pay refunded after the war. I understand that even the German officers were better treated than our own. Furthermore, many of our officers were prisoners of war for far longer than those of other countries and therefore they had much more pay deducted. How did the Government of that day justify such treatment once their obligation to reimburse the enemy no longer existed?

My Lords, I am not going into details about figures except for one short example, but I would like to give this one example of where the working group's report and the actual facts are completely opposed. It concerns the Royal Air Force. The working group report claims that at the end of the war there was £646,365 in the Air Ministry deduction account, and that in 1950 the balance of this fund of £116,821 was paid into the Treasury. From this information the conclusion is drawn that the difference between these two sums, namely £529,544, must have been refunded or credited to the officers concerned.

This assumption by the Ministry of Defence is plainly absurd. Full information is available about the numbers of Royal Air Force prisoners of war and the ranks which they held. From this it can be calculated that the total of the deductions made in the pay of all RAF prisoners of war cannot possibly have exceeded £475,000. Using the same data, it can also be shown that the average Royal Air Force prisoner of war would have had to be a prisoner for four years to have amassed a credit of this order. The average works out at £240 per head, and the contrast between this and the £37 for the Royal Navy and Royal Marine officers in the same camps to my mind calls for some explanation.

I should like briefly to mention the communal fund to which the Royal Air Force contributed £194,000. The working group report alleges that those who had subscribed to this fund were given an opportunity to claim back some of their contributions to the fund. To my knowledge, no ex-prisoner of war can recall being given such an opportunity. A significant amount from the communal fund was used to assist non-commissioned air crew, who were not allowed to work by the Germans and hence earn camp money to enable them to buy anything in the canteens. In the early stages of the war the officers had decided to assist the NCOs, despite the fact that many of them were more highly paid than the junior officers, and they, the NCOs, had no deductions made in their pay. At first this assistance was given in the form of loans, but was soon found to be impractical and the system was abandoned. It was made clear to the authorities in the United Kingdom that the officers expected to be refunded on their release for assisting the NCOs in this way, but no action was taken to warn them that their expectations were unlikely to be met, and in the event a refund of most of the fund was refused.

My Lords, I have spoken long enough, knowing that other noble Lords are going to speak. I will conclude by pointing out that had these officers been claiming compensation for having been prisoners of war they could have taken their complaint to the Ombudsman. But they arc not; they cannot complain to him because his terms of reference do not permit him to investigate complaints about Service pay and conditions. The errors and omissions in the working group's report have been scrupulously and objectively demonstrated by the Voluntary Committee of Ex-Prisoners of War in their answering report. They have, to my mind, established a cast-iron case for the setting up of an independent inquiry, and I know, and I do not blame them, that it is their intention to continue to press for one.

My Lords, it is no excuse for Her Majesty's Government to plead that the war ended 36 years ago, that they cannot be held responsible for past decisions, actions or inertia of earlier Governments of earlier party. One of the linchpins, supposedly, of Conservative policy is justice and fairness for all. I appeal to my noble friend: what justice can there be, in the light of so much evidence, in denying these brave men and their dependants, many of whom are now old-age pensioners, the full independent inquiry for which they ask?

7.8 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for having put down this Question. It raises certain very important questions of principle, and we on this side of the House, together with many of your Lordships in all parts of the House, would regard this entirely as a non-party matter.

The Question is a modest one in the sense that it asks for the setting up of an inquiry. I think there is quite adequate justification for this in the light of the evidence that has been produced by the noble Earl, and also that to which he has referred today in the course of his speech. It would appear that a study has been made, as he indicated, based on research in the Public Record Office and in the Ministry of Defence Library, and by examination of actual pay records, and this in fact brings out matters of an important nature which were either omitted from the Ministry of Defence report of 31st October 1980 or provide additions to it.

This is a matter of some importance. When Members of Parliament, whether in another place or here, are presented with a Government report purporting to set out the facts, the House is entitled to rely upon those; they are entitled to assume that the Ministry concerned with the production of the report is endeavouring to inform Members of Parliament of the results of their own best endeavours to ascertain the real facts, and I find it somewhat alarming that this report of 31st October 1980 should be markedly different in very important respects from the study that has been undertaken. It was even more disturbing to find that there were considerable differences, and these differences were themselves admitted by the Ministry of Defence, and that, notwithstanding that, an uncorrected copy of the working group's report was furnished to Members of Parliament.

This raises very considerable questions of principle. I spent the last 30 years of my professional life investigating cases of alleged fraud. I am not saying that fraud has taken place in this case. However, I am saying that on the basis of my examination of the documents there is a prima facie case for an independent investigation into what actually transpired. I would be most surprised if the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, who always approaches questions of this kind with a very open and fair mind, would be party to anything that endeavoured to stand upon a document which has been shown to have very important omissions from it and which in many respects has been proved to be incorrect. I would have hoped that the noble Viscount would be among the first to agree that the only thing to do in the circumstances would be to have an independent inquiry to ascertain the facts.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will allow me to make a very quick interruption to say that the document written by the unofficial committee mentioned by the noble Earl on the errors and omissions from the working group's report is their views on the situation. I shall comment both in my speech and to the noble Earl on what our views are in relation to their assertions about the working group report.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the House will wait to listen with very great interest to what the noble Viscount has to say. As the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said, these are events that took place a long time ago but they are of very considerable importance to the individuals involved, most of whom were "taken into the bag", as the saying went, without any blame attaching to themselves. It is one of the unfortunate hazards of war and I do not think that anyone would query the courage and indeed the endurance of the great bulk of the prisoners of war who were so adversely affected.

Whatever the noble Viscount has to say in reply, I do not think he can deny that there must be a very considerable number of cases in which money which ought to have been refunded to the individuals concerned was not so refunded and that the money, of course, ultimately found its way directly or indirectly into the Treasury itself. I am not casting any aspersions on the Administrations of any particular party. All Governments in the past, whether they be of my own political persuasion or whether they be that of the party opposite, have, to some extent, been remiss in not giving their urgent attention to this matter. So I make no party point on this at all.

But when one realises, as indeed I as a serving member of the forces throughout the war well realise, the rates of pay that officers and other ranks received in those days compared with the rates which they are now paid, even taking into account a rising standard of life and the impact of inflation, one must say that a refusal to countenance any examination of these past incidents seems to me to be rather churlish.

I well remember that when I was in France I was astonished to find that my own pay as a major in the forces at that time was surpassed to a very considerable extent by the pay of a technical sergeant in the United States Army. We were the poor people of the allied armies at that time. The hardship to those returning after being prisoners of war must have been very considerable and some redress ought to take place.

I realise that there are priorities in public expenditure—there certainly are. There are very great priorities even in times of crisis, and we on this side of the House on a different tack altogether are prepared to give the Government advice as to where some of the depressing demands for money ought to go. But this entirely begs the point that this was a responsibility which it is honourable to discharge. It is a responsibility in honour relating to a past commitment which has not in every respect been carried out, and it ought to be carried out.

Her Majesty's Government have decided from time to time and enunciated as a principle that they will do everything to aid the armed forces, and that they will do everything to provide for defence. There have been real and substantial rises in the pay of our armed forces here in peace time and in the case of Ireland, of course, in a state of near war. There have been very substantial increases indeed. The circumstances in those days were not the same. I would therefore have thought that the really correct thing for the Government to do would be for the moment to say, "Well, there has been a conflict as to what the facts really arc but we have an open mind about it. We are quite willing to consent that an independent body should examine all the documents without having the Treasury breathing down their necks the whole time and they should be able to give us the results of their examination". That is all that the Question really asks for. In my view it is the minimum that the Government can do, and I sincerely hope that they will take this evening what most of your Lordships, I am quite sure, believe is the only honourable course for them to take.

7.18 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, the noble Earl is surely to be congratulated not only for introducing this subject so well this evening, but for his long-drawn-out and persistent campaigning on this very distressing issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, described the opposition to the Government on this point as non-party. I think that as the debate goes on it will be seen also to be all-party, because certainly from the Liberal Benches the noble Earl has our support. He may have noted that our party Leader has already raised this issue in another place. I also enjoyed the references of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to his meagre pay as a major in France. How enviable he seems to me, who at the beginning of the war in France was paid in the ranks, I think, 1s. 9d. a day.

But the issue tonight is a very much simpler one than it appears from the detailed study of the figures and facts of pay. It is simple when we see, for example, as the noble Lord said, that justice was done to those who were prisoners in Japan but not to those who were prisoners in Germany and Italy. That is a very good indication that justice was not done to those in Germany and Italy. We remember, too, that the British Government at one stage in the war tried to renegotiate the amount deducted from officers' pay, and to renegotiate it downwards because it was plainly not working well. That is the only explanation that we can have of that. They failed in that, but it showed I think that even the British Government during the war were thoroughly dissatisfied with the arrangements for the deduction of pay. Then, as the noble Lord said, on this issue indisputably British prisoners of war were treated worse than those of other allied Governments, and almost certainly worse than the German prisoners of war in this country. So when we think on these matters I do not think that it is necessary to go into great detail or statistics to show that an injustice was done.

We all keenly await the reply of the Minister. In a way, I think it is a pity that custom prevents his intervening a little earlier in the debate. To some extent we are debating in the dark. He may get up and tell us that the Government acknowledge that injustice has been done and have decided to make restitution, though the intervention that he made in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not markedly raise my hopes on this point; or he may say that injustice was done and that there should be an inquiry; or he may argue that injustice was done but unfortunately, owing to the long lapse of time and the lack of records, it is not practicable to make restitution; or he may argue that it was some other Government's fault. We do not know. However, the one thing that he cannot argue successfully is that a grave injustice was not done. That he cannot argue. We await with great interest the reply from the Government.

Perhaps I may be allowed to add something to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I think that this independent inquiry should also cover two categories of other ranks. This is not an officers-only issue. There are two other categories involved. There is the category of protected persons under the Geneva conventions. These are medical personnel of the RAMC and the equivalent branches of the other Services. They were not given work pay, as were other ranks; they had their pay deducted like officers—the same procedure was adopted.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, and refunded.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, the Minister has said "and refunded". I am grateful to him. Perhaps he will elaborate on this, because I have here a suggestion that—and not all by any means failed to get refunds—there is evidence, which I would be glad to send to the Minister, that some of these protected personnel did not get the refunds. Perhaps he could deal with this point.

There is a second category of other ranks as well—those who were prisoners in Italy. I am informed that they, too, were not given work pay; they were given pocket money, and deductions were made in the United Kingdom. My information is that none of this was refunded. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that when he comes to reply.

In the absence of an indication as to the line which the Minister will take, it is difficult to elaborate on the excellent presentations made by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I would end by echoing the point made by the noble Lord. The fact of the passage of time does not eradicate injustice; it is never too late to make redress. I shall listen with great keenness to what the Minister has to say, and, if necessary, we must persist in the representations that we are making to the Government.

7.24 p.m.

Baroness Airey of Abingdon

My Lords, contrary to the usual practice of declaring an interest when a matter like this is debated in your Lordships' House, I should like this evening firmly to declare no personal interest. My husband was a prisoner of war from May 1940 until January 1942, but during that time he was for a considerable period of time wounded and in hospital, and later on he was escaping or else in punishment in solitary confinement and, therefore, had very little possibility of spending lager marks. I never heard him speak about lager marks and, as your Lordships know, in his case we can no longer tell.

But this does not mean that I do not strongly support the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Kimberley and other noble Lords from the other Benches who have spoken so eloquently this evening, and the very convincing arguments which have been put forward, and the very detailed research which has been prepared by many ex-prisoners of war. I have studied these reports and it appears that those who suffered the longest imprisonment had the most to lose. Reliable figures show that at least one-third of all British prisoners of war were taken prisoner before October 1941, in the various battles that took place during that time.

If, as is very strongly claimed, only part of the value of the lager marks was settled to British prisoners of war on their return and repatriation, in contrast to those prisoners who were from the allied countries and the then Dominions and who were frequently in the same European camps as the British officers, then surely there is only one way in which we can fairly solve this problem. As, due to the nature of the problem, it is impossible to submit this matter to the Ombudsman—as has already been mentioned—I suggest that an independent inquiry should be set up. Ex-prisoners of war have said that they will accept the findings of such an inquiry after evidence has been taken. Surely this in itself proves confidence in the fairness and the justice which will be done by such an inquiry. Therefore, I ask for an impartial public inquiry into this matter.

7.28 p.m.

Lord Winterbottom

My Lords, the House has already expressed its gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for initiating this debate. I can only express the hope that many thousands of individuals may benefit from his initiative. I suppose the Government would argue that the Statute of Limitations should apply to this particular situation. I know how troublesome ancient wrongs are to Governments, but the people who have been wronged are still alive. They were young when they were released from imprisonment, they faced life with enthusiasm and hope; they are now getting old. Any assistance that they can be given at this stage in their life, recognising the service that they have performed for their country, even in servitude, can only bring credit to the Government of the day.

The noble Earl has in fact pointed out that the whole business of administration of this particular policy is in a state of total confusion. The prisoners of the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians have all been differently treated. This is surely an administrative nonsense that could be corrected. The noble Earl also mentioned figures which, to be honest, I did not quite understand, but they seemed so small by the normal statistics of defence as hardly to be significant. Perhaps the noble Viscount who is about to reply to the debate could give some sort of indication as to what the Government consider this would cost the Exchequer, if a favourable finding were found by a committee of inquiry. It cannot be difficult to estimate. He must have been briefed to know what it would cost the Government if these ancient mistakes were corrected.

I do not want to bring in the question of self-interest, but the one aspect of the present Government's policy which I wholly support is their support for the British armed forces. They, I believe, are the key to our future survival as a democratic society. I should have thought that the benefits that the Government could achieve by generosity in this minuscule matter would be of enormous value to the morale of the armed forces, and perhaps even to the standing of the present Government. These are my own personal views, but I am also speaking on behalf of the party which I represent, the Social Democrats. I hope that the response to the request for a committee of inquiry will be favourable.

7.31 p.m.

Lord Clifford of Chudleigh

My Lords, I am afraid that I am somewhat of a " Johnny-come-lately " so far as this debate this evening is concerned. The reason is that for the last two Octobers I have been out of the country, and those were the months in which the working group report and the parliamentary Answers and the original Questions of my old friend Lord Shinwell and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, were raised. However, I did come in with a supplementary on 3rd December last, to a Question asked by the noble Earl. When I was declaring my interest, I noticed—I read it in Hansard the next day; I cannot hear interruptions because I am so deaf—some barracking by Members of the Government Front Bench. However, that does not matter.

As a result of that intervention of mine, I got an answer from the noble Viscount. I asked what reassurance he could give to those who, like myself, had been prisoners that there had not been any skulduggery. The noble Viscount replied that I should refer to the parliamentary reply and to the working group report. So, always being prompt to take any advice that the noble Viscount gives, I hied me to the Library and I photostated both documents. I then read, learnt, and inwardly digested the documents. I regret to have to inform the noble Viscount that, instead of allaying my fears, that only heightened my suspicions and, as a result, prompted me to take part in this debate today.

My intervention after the noble Earl's Question was reported in the press. I started to receive letters from those whom I had long forgotten existed. They showed that there was a feeling, which I admit I had never bothered myself thinking about, that there had been a miscarriage of justice. May I quote from one letter. It says: I see from today's Daily Telegraph that you got little satisfaction from the Government over PoWs' pay. I trust you will keep on at the Government. If the report correctly quotes Lord Trenchard it appears he is avoiding the principle concerned. It is not a question of injustice to individuals: it should be decided whether or not the questionable action of Civil Servants in appropriating the money which had been deducted from the pay of officer PoWs was correct or incorrect. If the latter, then means must be found to rectify the error". It goes on to say: Why does the Government not use the £5 million which was a recent windfall from HMS " Edinburgh "—that money was taken from a designated War Grant: to what better use could it be put? My next encounter was with an ex-Chief of the Defence Staff who had also seen that report. He told me that his brother-in-law, recently deceased, was taken prisoner at St. Valery with the 51st Highlanders. He had been on at him for many years about how so many of those prisoners with him had this sense of being badly let down—put it that way—and it had been simmering for some time.

I then got in touch with officers who I still remembered who had been prisoners with me, the ones who had not been as fortunate as I was, and had not got away. They were of course carted off into Germany, so they had experience in both areas that we are talking about today. They seemed generally to feel very strongly that a group injustice had been inflicted on them by the civil servants. But I must confess that their main attitude—and I am just summarising—was, " Well, what is the use of flogging a dead horse?"

If your Lordships will excuse me, I ask to be permitted to quote from my own experiences, emphasising the point where they reflect on deductions and other-wise. The dates are of some interest when it comes to working out what payment there was. I was winged and put in the bag in North Africa on 6th June 1942. After a variety of transit camps in North Africa, I was flown from Benghazi to Barce in Italy, and then to my first camp at a place called Bari. This was a notorious one. I gave written evidence at the end of the war at the war crimes trial of its commandant, Capitano Somervilla. Needless to say, at that camp we received nothing—practically no food, and of course no Red Cross parcels.

At the end of July I went to what was then termed a senior officers' camp, where the lowest thing that moved was a temporary major—me. It was at a place called Veano in the foothills of the Apennines. I was there issued with a paper, and I have it here. If I may be permitted to read it to you, it is headed: Campo di Concentramento per prigioniere di guerra, numero 29". Then it is called a, "Libretto dei Conti Personali —"personal accounts, No. 162. In there is the record of the total I received during the whole of the two years I was out of circulation. That amounts to eight months, and it does not bear the slightest resemblance to what was deducted. I photostated it yesterday, and I have sent a copy to the noble Viscount. It is not a very good photostat. I received only three months' pay then, and there was a gap. On paper—not what one received in cash to buy toothpaste or whatever—I received 1,300 lire a month.

As I say, that was on paper, so this is the question: when were the deductions started in England? Was it from 6th June or the end of July? Those first entries were made in Italian. Later on they were in English. I cannot remember why that should have been the case; perhaps the very efficient interpreter, Tenente Dente, came on the scene and he was very good at English. Perhaps he took over at that point. The interesting aspect is what the deductions were. For example, we had what were called "Arrears"; we had what were called Unione militari; and of course we had what was called "Mensa" on the Italian part or "PMC" on the other part.

Be that as it may, the cash issue was between 100 and 200 lire a month, or that was the total altogether. I presumed of course that no deductions were made in my pay for the following year; that is, after I escaped. The Special Forces in Italy dropped in a wireless operator, and so on, in the spring of 1944, so I presumed I was on somebody else's books. But, then, thinking back on it, it was clear that the Special Forces were so secretive that they even refused to let my family know that I was still alive. That information I got through my brother-in-law, whom the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, knows well. He was not allowed to let my family know that I was still alive. The point I am making is simple. Do noble Lords think that if they could do that, they would have let the civil servants arranging our pay know when to stop making deductions, or indeed to make deductions? I think it is most unlikely. I am only saying about that book that it proves that very little was actually given to prisoners in those circumstances. There were of course hundreds like me, and therefore it does not fit in. For how long were the deductions made? We do not know.

In view of what I have said, I wish briefly to comment on a few points made by the working group. First, I knew nothing before capture about the deduction of pay. Ignorance of orders is, of course, no excuse, but equally, I maintain, it cannot be an excuse for the Government to say that they could not have got to the people taken at Dunkirk.

"Transfer home of credits" is the next heading. That information, according to the working group, seems to have been agreed in 1943. All I can say about that is that by the time it got to Italy we were no longer there. As for "Goods purchased with camp money", I have already said that in some camps in Italy there was nothing to be purchased. In others, the situation improved and in our camp it improved noticeably after the battle of El Alamein, when we got Red Cross parcels regularly instead of spasmodically, as had previously been the case.

As for "General Information for PoWs", that is made a lot of, but that could not have got to Italy in time because it was promulgated in 1943, and that was when Italy packed up and the prisoners there were carted to Germany, escaped or were shot. Then the heading "Credit refunded"—according to my book I had 973 lire in credit. When I got back, I took my book to Cox and King's and I do not know whether or not they credited me; all I know is that the lady behind the counter wrote something down, gave me the hook hack and that was that. After two years away, at the then present rate of exchange that would have represented about £13, but I do not know whether we even got that.

Concerning the leaflet issued to prisoners of war on liberation, as I liberated myself I presume I have no cause to complain about that, but hundreds like me got no information. I do not know what happened about it, but everyone I talked to—those who were taken from my camp in Italy to Germany—said they did not know anything about it, but as I am talking about only two or three people, I cannot be dogmatic.

As for "Communal funds", I know nothing of those either, except to say that reading the working group report I find it the most illogical piece of whitewashing it has ever been my misfortune to read.

The fact remains that officer prisoners of war in Germany had a considerable sum of money deducted from their pay, in addition to income tax—which was what one might call the only public funds taken—on the hypothetical basis that they received regular camp money from their enemy captors, which in many cases they did not receive or, if they did receive it, they did not receive it regularly, and what they got had to be disposed of at a most unrealistic rate of exchange.

The fact remains that the Treasury civil servants in the departments concerned were responsible for ensuring that British officer prisoners of war were the only ones so treated, compared with the Americans and the forces of the Dominions and the allies. The fact also remains that this Government, through their parliamentary answers and the working group report, are perpetuating one of the most blatant cover-ups in the history of the war, the sort of thing the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has been investigating during his professional life.

I will tell the Minister what happened and I shall be happy for him to prove me wrong. First, we in Italy had up to two-thirds of our pay deducted from the day we were captured until the day we reported back, whether or not we received anything, and in my case it was eight months out of two years. Secondly, the Treasury civil servants who were "infiltrated" into the service departments concerned gave our wrongly deducted pay to the Treasury—unlike what happend to the Dominion and other forces. That said, my erstwhile mates and brethren in exile who still survive generally react by saying, "No use crying over spilt milk" or, "There is no point in flogging a dead horse", and that was my response until I read this report. That typical British reaction should be no excuse for not having an independent inquiry, especially after the fiasco of the working group's report.

7.49 p.m.

The Duke of Norfolk

My Lords, I was lucky enough never to have been taken prisoner of war, so when I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to talk on this matter, I contacted a certain Captain Watson of the Royal Marines, who happened to have been taken prisoner in Crete and was in Germany. He, telling me a similar story to that related by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said he was paid what were called Lagermarks which were deducted from his pay, and he said they were no use to him because, in the camps where he was, there was practically nothing to buy. The sort of things he was meant to buy with that money were, he said, portraits of Hitler, and he did not particularly want to purchase those.

I wish merely to emphasise what has happened and what has been said by other speakers. I agree very much with the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Mayhew, that this really is an all-party matter. We have heard how the British prisoners of war, British officers, in Japanese camps have had their deductions refunded. Why have those who were in the Italian and German camps not had their deductions refunded? Apparently all the allies have made refunds to their officers—the Americans, the French, and so on.

Then we hear the quite incredible story that the Treasury, which has deducted money from our officers, has never paid it to the Germans and the Italians, but has kept it. I find that to be a very shabby story, and I hope that when the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, replies he will give us an assurance—I am afraid that I am saying words that perhaps ought to be said more quietly—that he will not be pushed around by the Treasury mandarins.

Another thing is being said by some of my prisoner of war friends. It is that the Treasury mandarins and the Ministry of Defence mandarins, for whom I have no particular regard—I served in the Ministry of Defence at the end of my service—are just waiting for our generation to die out, and then it will not be necessary to refund the money. That is not the kind of thing that should happen to officers of the Services, and I am sure that it is in no way what the Government would wish to happen. I believe that there should be an independent inquiry into everything, which would satisfy everybody.

7.52 p.m.

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I wish briefly to add a few remarks in response to requests from naval friends of mine who also were "in the bag" and who have given me substantially the same story as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Kimberley and other noble Lords who have spoken. There are only two points that I feel come out of this. First, it seems quite clear that money was withheld ostensibly, or rather in fact, in order to hand it over to the captive powers at a later stage in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and, secondly, the money was not in fact paid to those powers and was not paid to the people from whom it was withheld in the first instance.

By way of example I would mention that a man who was then a young naval officer tells me that he was on £400 a year for his four years of imprisonment, which meant that he should have received £1,600, and £500 was withheld. That is not a very large sum of money, but it gives your Lordships an idea of the scale involved, and at that time it was quite a considerable amount in proportionate terms. It is also a sum of money that had not been paid to the Germans, by whom he was largely imprisoned. So surely it must come to him, and the matter seems to me quite straightforward.

If I understood him aright, I was very distressed by what my noble friend the Minister said in his intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. If I understood aright, what he said implied that he was going to produce a counter-argument to the arguments that the group of officers have produced to the working party. I hope that my noble friend is not going to do that because that would lead to a tit-for-tat situation, which would be rather childish of the Government. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend that this matter is better tackled by facing it head on and saying that there are many unanswered aspects to the case and that the only really just, sensible and, if I may say so, honourable thing to do is to set up an independent inquiry body that does not consist of a group of civil servants who, for what- ever reason, are apparently trying to justify the action of their predecessors of 35 years ago.

It seems to me that the case for an independent inqury is in everyone's best interests. It is in the best interests of the civil servants themselves, because it is they who are suspect. I hate to suggest that my noble friend should be suspect when he has finished speaking, but if he does not come very clean, then I am afraid that he will be suspect. But it is the civil servants who are suspect, and it is in their best interests that an independent inquiry should clear them. Surely there is not much doubt about the basic facts—that money has been withheld and not paid to the people for whom it was originally intended. I hope that my noble friend will give us a clear answer which we can appreciate and understand, and which we can feel has given fair and decent treatment to all concerned.

7.56 p.m.

Lady Sempill

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend in all that he said in his speech in opening the debate, I wish to make one point that has not been mentioned. It concerns the repayment of pay deducted from officer PoWs during the years from 1939 to 1945. Here I must declare an interest, since my husband was one of the many thousands of prisoners captive in Germany at that time. Furthermore, he was one of the repatriated PoWs in October 1943—the first exchange between Great Britain and Germany of the sick and wounded, including Members of your Lordships' House. The repatriation took place via Sweden, and included members of all three services. They were landed at the port of Leith in Scotland, having crossed the North Sea from Gothenburg. Those prisoners were then dispersed to hospitals throughout the country and were eventually sent on leave—that is, those who could be moved.

Then there were the usual administrative instructions, but there was no mention of pay or repayments of deductions of pay then or thereafter. The war was still on and of course there was no thought of repayment until hostilities ceased. When Germany finally collapsed completely there was still no mention of these money matters. In fact, my husband was then in the War Office and he asked whether anything was being done about repayment to the officers. The answer given was that nothing could be done as the books were closed. Finally, before I sit down, I should like to add that there is still massive evidence in support of their claims.

7.58 p.m.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I must apologise for not putting down my name on the list of speakers, but I was doubtful whether I could get away from a committee meeting. Unfortunately, I got away, but I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I want to support the noble Earl in this matter, which I think is of great importance because it involves such an obvious injustice. I was in bomber command, and I suppose that this situation applies to the members of bomber command who were taken prisoner. I must say that I agree with my noble friend who spoke earlier about the difficulty of trying to cover every point without first hearing the Minister's views. I know that it might be against the practice of the House, but it would be much more sensible if we first had an outline from the Minister, and then we could raise some of the points.

Some of the points that have been raised previously need answering. For example, it has been said that an order was clearly promulgated which showed that if people were taken prisoner deductions would be made from their pay in respect of the money that they spent in the camp. I was probably briefed for operations one hundred times and nothing of the kind was ever mentioned at all. We were told that it was our duty to escape, and it was easier to escape if you had not been caught. You were told to get away, to do your duty. There was never any mention of pay being taken away from you if you were locked out—not an iota of it.

Then, other arguments have been put. The principle was accepted by the public and ex-prisoners, apparently, that they should be in roughly the same financial position as those who had not been taken prisoner—that was one of the War Office arguments, I understand —and then, again, that such refunds would be unfair to those who had not been taken prisoner. The War Office (I know the Minister would never do it) actually had the cheek to use the phrase "unfair to the men who continued fighting". To start with, certainly one would have to admit that the people in Stalag Luft III continued fighting. The other thing, of course, is that nobody is going to grudge a POW the miserable pay piled up while he was living in a miserable camp.

Like many other officers here present, I finished the war having spent every penny of my pay and anything else I could get hold of, and I had an overdraft at the bank as well. It was an enormous privilege for me to be able to spend that money in those years; and the poor devils who were locked up for three, four or however many years it was would have given anything for the privilege to be that age and able to spend the money on the things that young men spent it on at that time when they could. So I think that these arguments do not hold water. There is no question but that the survivors in Bomber Command, certainly, would think it only right and proper that their comrades who were taken prisoner should get at least some recompense for the miserable time that they spent and the years of their youth that they lost in prison camps.

Then, the method of procedure in fact adopted was quite extraordinary. As I understand it the Government collected the pay and put it in a kitty, and it was all ready to pay to the German Government—I am talking about the German Government—after the war for the kindnesses our people had received. Then they found that they did not have to pay it, so they said, "Ah! This is simply splendid. We will keep it. It would just be wasted if we gave it to these fellows who were in the prison camps, and no doubt they received great value for it". It is rather like a banker who holds moneys on behalf of people to pay a debt and who, when he finds that that debt does not need to be paid, says, "I will set this money against losses incurred by other people". This appears to me to be wholly and completely dishonest.

I think the Minister should well reconsider it. He is sitting there studying his brief, which tells him to resist everything, and so on and so forth, and he is being a good little Minister; but I think he should be a noble Lord instead and really consider it. Because I can tell your Lordships for one thing that, though I do not know about the Army funds, the RAF Benevolent Fund and the Polish Airmen's Benevolent Fund could do with the money. It is at this time that a lot of these people are very hard up, having retired and having to meet their expenses in times of inflation, especially. There are certainly many cases in which extra money could be properly employed, as some reward for the services of these people about whom the Government are being rather niggardly.

But the association who have brought this matter forward are not asking for the money to be paid back to individuals; they are asking for an inquiry. I really do not think the Minister can possibly refuse it; and if the Government have an inquiry I have no doubt what they will find that there should be a substantial contribution to these benevolent funds, and that all the services should benefit.

8.4 p.m.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I have listened with care to this debate, and I know that my noble friend who has asked this Question is himself still deeply concerned about this matter. Listening to the debate I can only echo the words of Lord Mayhew, if I may, that to some extent it has been a debate in the dark. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I did in fact explore whether Standing Orders would allow me to speak after the noble Earl, so that Members taking part in the debate could first hear the Government's views on this vexed and difficult subject. The Standing Orders do not allow that.

I have no intention to be "a good little Minister" (or whatever his phrase was), or of reading my brief. Every word that I shall read was dictated, after pretty exhaustive study, by myself. I wish things were as straightforward as my noble friend Lord Mottistone suggested they should be. I want to say this finally, before I get into the answers that I have in the main prepared from examining the detailed correspondence. Above all else, I am not in the business of raising expectations about which it is my belief and the Government's belief nothing can be done. I believe that to be a thoroughly inhuman thing to do.

As I mentioned when I answered the noble Earl's Starred Question recently, I come new to this subject. Indeed, I have now read the working group report; the document which his unofficial committee sent to the Ministry entitled Errors and Omissions; the minutes of the meeting with my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 12th May, 1981; a transcript of the BBC "Checkpoint" programme; the correspondence from and about Captain Bracken's claim, which is mentioned by the noble Earl's unofficial committee; a fairly large cross-section of the letters which the Ministry has received since August 1980, which I insisted on reading myself; and a large number of the unfortunately too few relevant older documents that are still available.

I am clear that my colleagues and the Ministry of Defence as a whole have taken the allegations very seriously indeed. My own background, including my own wartime service in the regiment whose last- ditch stand at Calais played such a major part in the safe evacuation of the bulk of the British Expeditionary Force, gives me a bit of understanding and sympathy for this issue. I have spoken with personal friends who were captured at Calais; and I have spoken with Lord Campbell of Alloway, who intervened in the debate on the recent Starred Question. I find it very distressing that officers should themselves feel distressed.

The main theme of my reply in the time available to me without detaining your Lordships too long will be not to argue the detail about such things as who issued which document in the war at what time, or indeed other points where the surviving records are inadequate and thus allow for inevitable continuing debate. I do not accept all the statements about the accuracy of the working group report which the noble Earl's committee have made, and I should like particularly to refute the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that there is any question of Government fraud. The working group report was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 31st October, at the time that my predecessor made his Statement, so there is no question of our receiving the comments on Errors and Omissions of the working group report and then placing it; it was placed before.

I accept that we have not as yet gone in detail into all the matters which the unofficial committee have raised on the point, and I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Earl towards the end of my reply which will indicate that we are prepared to respond in detail to the latest document and to the points which he has made. I thank him for being kind enough to send me two days ago the latest document and commentary on the position which he and his unofficial committee have put together. For reasons which I think will become clear as I proceed, I do not believe that the points which are raised in that document alter the correctness of the Government's decision in this matter. I am prepared to accept that the diligent research of some of the members of the committee may well alter or amplify some of the more detailed points made in the working group's report, but I do not believe that they alter either what could be done or what should be done.

The House knows the sequence of this matter, since its sudden rise to public attention in August 1980. The Committee of Inquiry set up by the then Secretary of State reported on 31st October and the working group report was placed in the Libraries on the same day. Further representation from the noble Earl's voluntary committee and some further letters from prisoners in general then occurred and there were Questions and Answers in both Houses. However, I think I have briefly to comment on the background which has been mentioned in the debate, because the interpretation of that background reflects some of the points which I believe have caused a misunderstanding among some officers.

It is perfectly true that Article 23 of the Geneva Convention 1929 provided for combatant officer prisoners of war to receive pay from the detaining power at the same rates as officers of corresponding ranks in the armed forces of that power. The theory under this article was that, when there was a peace settlement, Germany would claim reimbursement for the sum paid to the officer prisoners. At an early stage in the war, reciprocal arrangements were reached with the German and Italian Governments in respect of the amounts to be paid by the captors. In order to avoid double payment—and this was the purpose of the deductions; not to have money to pay to Germany at some stage—corresponding adjustments were made to the United Kingdom pay accounts of British prisoners of war held in enemy camps. These varied according to rank but averaged—and this may be different from what the noble Earl's unofficial committee have alleged— one-fifth of total pay—and that is gross pay—for prisoners in Germany and a little over one-third for prisoners in Italy. Again this is gross pay. While I admit that figures during the debate on this Question have been mentioned in terms of net pay, I find it hard to believe that the deductions for tax across the average officer in those circumstances can account for that difference. But I am prepared to look at those amounts. I have personally asked for these figures rank by rank in the case of the RAF where the records are more complete. I have looked at the percentages which have been discovered.

The prisoners of war in Italian hands were credited with an additional ration allowance, because—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, would know this better than I—the Italians charged them for food. It is clear that some of the prisoners who have written to us find these points about the Geneva Convention important and they have suggested that the deductions made in the United Kingdom should have been passed to the German or Italian Governments; and, if they were not so passed, it has been argued in this debate, they should have been returned to the prisoners themselves. It has been claimed that the residue of monies not refunded should not have been appropriated by the Treasury.

The Government cannot accept this view. In the case of the Italian Government, there was a peace settlement and, by mutual agreement, a waiver of the debts between the Governments was agreed. In the general atmosphere of unconditional surrender and, may I remind the House, the partition of Germany, there was no settlement with Germany. Since there was not, each side in effect carried its own prisoner of war costs. This had no effect on individuals since the United Kingdom Government agreed to settle the accounts of all its own personnel according to their policy in relation to prisoners. The facts are that the Air Ministry but not, apparently, the other service departments recorded the prisoner of war pay deductions in a special suspense account. These totalled some £646,000. In the end there remained a balance of some £116,000, after all payments had been made. This sum, not required by the policy (which I will come to in a moment) in relation to prisoners was, in accordance with Government accounting regulations, credited to the Exchequer special receipts. Ministers then were not pushed around by the Treasury, and I assure your Lordships that I am not being pushed around by the Treasury now.

I cannot see that, in the circumstances in relation to the peace settlements or the unconditional surrender of Germany, the prisoners per se have any claim on the residue of these funds; although this is, of course, quite a separate matter from the belief of some of them that the policy which resulted in this residue was, in their view, wrong. If I may return at this point to the policy adopted at the time, it is clear that before the end of the war the Government appreciated that the administration of the practice agreed in accordance with the Geneva Convention was being carried out in a very variable way. Plans were therefore drawn up to give officers the opportunity at the end of the war to claim back those monies which, for one reason or another, they had not received, as well as accumulated credits, or savings, as they were sometimes called. It was clearly decided not to reimburse all money deducted from the pay of officers held captive in Italy and Germany.

The principle adopted was that officer prisoners of war should not be left financially in a better position than officers generally. We still have copies of a number of the minutes of an inter-departmental committee which considered all these matters in great detail not only under the Coalition Government but under the Labour Government after the war. Taken out of context, some memos from officials and even from Ministers may today appear mean; but I do not believe that the policy decisions taken by Ministers were in any way intended to be mean.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, will the noble Viscount clarify a point? I think he said that, in the case of the RAF, the sum of £640,000 was kept in suspense and that, after payments were made, there was something like £140,000 left. What payments were made? Were these payments back to individual officers?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I will come to that point a little later on. The noble Earl's unofficial committee have made the point that the exchange rates used for the calculations and the final reconciliation in sterling were unfortunate for them. They have also made the point—and clearly it was made at the time—that camp money could buy little and was of little value. All I can say is that it is clear that both those subjects were fully debated at the time and the exchange rates used in calculating both the deductions and the refunds, which were the same in both cases, were in my view prima facie not unfair. They were based indeed on the provisions flowing from the Geneva Convention and in both cases used the exchange rate of the currencies at the outbreak of war. It was also known that the prices in Italian camps were exorbitant.

The House knows that a different policy decision was applied to prisoners of war of the Japanese because very few payments had been made by their captors, who were not party to the Geneva Convention, and mainly in view of the conditions in the camps it was decided at the end of the war that all deductions from prisoners' pay should be refunded to their accounts. The deductions from prisoners' accounts in the European countries were properly authorised by the three services and promulgated. I am aware of the limited meaning of that. The prisoners have said—and I can understand it —that they did not know of the arrangements. I personally can think of nothing more academic to their situation at that time, but certainly there is evidence—and I have seen it in letters—that some of the prisoners did know, and the camp leaders should have known. I can well understand this information being regarded as pretty unimportant by both prisoners and even some camp leaders at that time and in those circumstances. However, there is evidence that detailed plans were drawn up before the end of the war to provide for the adjustment of officers' accounts on a basis which assumed that the records would not be available in many cases and so relied to a large extent on statements by the prisoner of war himself, taken in the context of the reports of the camp leaders. Were these plans put into operation in every case?

At this stage we really clearly cannot know—and no committee of inquiry can know either—but it is clear from the residue of contemporary evidence that adjustments to accounts were substantial and widespread. Where there is surviving evidence of payment to individuals in certain Admiralty accounting ledgers which have not been destroyed, and some letters still in the hands of individuals, prisoner of war refunds are shown in nearly every case. May I make a point to the noble Earl, the significance of which he knows, that the Admiralty ledgers were not the pay accounts of individuals.

The noble Earl's unofficial committee has suggested that the dispersal for refunds of some £500,000—and this is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, intervened about—in the case of the RAF is too big to be real. This is what the unofficial committee suggested. May I point out that that means that his initial statement that all errors alleged by the working group were in favour of the official point of view is not correct?

It may be that some of this dispersal of over £500,000 was made on behalf of Dominion Governments. This is a point which the noble Earl's committee have made to me. But, even if this were the case, the refunds in the case of the RAF, taking account of the numbers of Dominion officers concerned, must have been widespread and substantial. While the Army records are very sparse—there is less record in the Army case than anywhere else—there is evidence of refunds being made.

Now, my Lords, there is little evidence of disquiet at the end of the war, which you may well consider is not surprising in the atmosphere of victory and of getting home and away from the appalling experience which many of the prisoners had suffered. But, as I shall make clear in a moment, the matter did not end as a result of one interview at the prisoners reception camps or an earlier interview. There was activity for several years after the war and, in spite of this, there do not appear to have been many complaints in those years, and, after 1950, there appear to have been almost no continuing claims until recently.

There was controversy over the Government decision that refunds in respect of payments made into the Stalag Luft III Community Fund should be limited to escape expenses and the Reichsmark residue, but this was carefully considered at the time and the final decision was taken at Cabinet level. The appropriate correspondence was between the then Secretary of State for Air, Lord Stansgate, the then Secretary of State for War, Mr. Lawson, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Dalton.

The fundamental point which, in my view, we have to address is whether there was opportunity for all concerned, including the prisoners, during the two Administrations at that time, to complain against the policy decisions made, and for those Administrations, who were in a far better position than we are to judge, to amend or change the policies.

It has been suggested to a degree that this whole matter was concealed or hushed up. I find it very hard to accept that this could have been the case. Decisions, as I have said, were taken at Cabinet level and much activity started in 1945 and continued. The pamphlet which was prepared, and has been mentioned in this debate, referred to the entitlements of prisoners in relation to pay and was issued to returning prisoners. We cannot claim that every single returning prisoner received one, but in my view it is likely.

The voluntary committee itself has referred in its document to a monograph on Army prisoners of war written by Colonel H. D. Phillimore (later Lord Justice Phillimore), who served in the Prisoner of War Directorate of the War Office, in support of their contention that arrangements broke down. I have studied this document, and while it makes clear that the Army plans for handling prisoners on release in Germany did not work according to plan, his picture is certainly not one of complete chaos. Furthermore, he states that a copy of the pamphlet designed to let each prisoner know the arrangements for his reception and dealing, among other things, with pay matters, was handed to each man as soon as possible after release, and as I read it, at the latest at the reception camps in this country. He also states that a RAPC officer and staff were attached to each camp to deal with pay matters. Furthermore, the wording of the pamphlet makes it clear that the resolution of matters affecting officers' accounts would take place after their leave and when they arrived at their new unit. It should be remembered that at that time the war with Japan was still in progress.

Then there were Questions in Parliament. More important, there was a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General in March 1947 which not only provides evidence that substantial refunds were indeed made, but indicates that the issues were open to public scrutiny. That report was the subject of scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee in April 1947, the report of which indicates at considerable length the degree of care with which the Government at the time had approached the subject.

It mentions among other things the arrangements to depend on the claims of individuals and the corroboration of camp leaders. I have alerted the Library in relation to these two documents and would commend that noble Lords interested in this subject should read them in full.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, could the noble Lord give way on that point? He has referred to two meetings; one of the Cabinet and another a departmental official meeting at which these decisions were taken of which we are so critical. Will he also have copies of those documents placed in the Library?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I will consider the noble Lord's request. The summary that I am given is drawn from a very large number of documents. Certainly the two which summarise the situation will be placed in the Library.

My noble friend Lord Kimberley's committee have themselves referred to the fact that the officer responsible for accounts in Stalag Luft III was seconded to the Air Ministry to help sort things out. All these things indicate that the Governments of the time were not trying to hide their policies or their actions; nor could they have done. I must therefore say to the noble Earl that I cannot accept the explanation of the voluntary committee that the reason this matter received publicity only in 1980, after three decades of virtual silence, stems from the release of new papers. It is clear that the matter was dealt with in the normal way for a democracy, albeit initially still at war at the time.

It is for these reasons that I do not believe that the new evidence put forward by the noble Earl's committee alters in any way the conclusions reached by the Government over a year ago, that pay deductions were properly authorised at the time and that arrangements were made to make the necessary adjustments to the officers' accounts at the end of the war. It is evident that adjustments were made on a widespread scale, that a conscious decision was taken after the war, which was publicly known, to refund all the deductions for the prisoners of the Japanese and that this was deliberately not extended to prisoners of the Germans and the Italians.

The Earl of Kimberley

My Lords, would my noble friend give way for one moment? While accepting everything he has said, that the War Office tried to do their best for the prisoners, how can he account for the fact that in September or October 1980 the Ministry of Defence had over 2,000 applications from prisoners of war, saying they had not been refunded? Even allowing for 15 per cent. of them to be wrong, it still makes nearly 2,000 prisoners who said they did not have any money.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, I have in fact asked for a significant cross-section of those letters and I have read them. I have to tell my noble friend that the majority—and without looking at every one I cannot tell whether it is a very large majority, but I fancy it is, certainly on my sample —of those letters merely say that as a result of an article in the Daily Telegraph in August 1980 they saw that there was the possibility of a claim for refunds. They say they were made prisoner at such-and-such a time at such-and-such a camp, and they ask if we would please record their names should any disbursements be made.

I have stated, and I have to tell your Lordships, that at the time there was no widespread feeling on this matter, and although I will in a moment say that I recognise that there are today a significant number of prisoners who feel very strongly about this matter, I am not convinced that this mushrooming affair, which started in the media, represents a claim by many thousands of aggrieved people.

My Lords, if the question were to be re-opened, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and others have suggested, how could it be done? At the time it was possible to get an approximation based on the evidence of the prisoners themselves and of camp leaders. Today, while it may be possible to work out how much pay was deducted after the individual's period of imprisonment was known, we have, in the great majority of cases, no means of telling how much was deducted in the United Kingdom, how much was refunded to individuals after the war, how much was paid or credited to them during the war, and how many credits were repatriated mainly during the last months of the war. We have no individual pay accounts.

Letters that I have read make quite clear that the average prisoner has no recollection on which he himself would rely on these matters. Any payments would therefore have to be arbitrary and entirely unrelated to the need or the entitlement of the individual, But I regard those thoughts as hypothetical conjecture, as I do not believe a case has been made out for this Government to re-open the question. We have every respect for the integrity of those who have been raising these points, but I do not believe that there is useful purpose in pursuing them further, although I am prepared to see the noble Earl and members of his committee in order to go into the detailed points they have raised in more detail, or to give a written response to the document that he has sent to me. I will, if I may, discuss that with him.

In looking at the letters—here I am repeating myself due to the noble Earl's intervention—I do not believe that they indicate a generally held sense of injustice. Clearly the Daily Telegraph report in August 1980 and other publicity have triggered large numbers of prisoners to write to the Ministry of Defence. I am, however, aware that a substantial number of prisoners do feel hard done by. If there had at the time been a widespread sense of injustice I feel that both during the period of the Coalition Government and during the post-war Labour Government, strong representations would have been made. I have referred to the fact that these subjects were clearly under public scrutiny with both the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee inquiry. Furthermore, if there had been a feeling that the Labour Administration after the war had not been sympathetic to points raised, the Churchill Administration returned to office in 1951. If the known decisions of the two previous Administrations had been regarded as unjust, or if failure of administration had not been made good, I am sure the people at the time would have taken steps to change the policy.

There is no evidence of any such actions, complaints or pressure. In the circumstances, the present Government do not accept that a further inquiry is useful: nor can it see any practical method of ascertaining where there were cases of poor implementation of that policy. I do not claim that the policy was perfect in every individual case—few policies are—but I do claim that the time for complaints and rectification was during the three Administrations that I have mentioned. However, I would like to talk to the noble Earl and, as I have indicated, we shall certainly be prepared to discuss the detail further. But I must make clear that I can see no way in which this will alter the conclusions of the Government or lead them to challenge the decisions made and allowed to stand during the time of these Administrations when judgment could be properly made.

My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces made a Statement on 25th November 1981 in relation to cases of particular hardship. He did not mention in that statement, when a small concession in relation to hospital priority was given, the immense work of the charities that goes on. If I may say so, as a vice-president of the RAF Benevolent Fund and with some knowledge of regimental and army charities, I believe that the question of looking into the cases of those who have fallen on hard times because they were prisoners, or were wounded, or for other reasons is being, and has been, considered sympathetically by the appropriate Government departments and by these great charities.

I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful, but I do not believe it would be right to raise expectations without justification, and for it to be felt that payments might be made for which, I have to say to your Lordships, I cannot see any basis in the records which I know to be available or in the systems which we know were put into operation a very long time ago.