§ 3.3 p.m.
§ Lord Clifford of ChudleighMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the commencement date for deductions from the pay of officer prisoners of war in the Second World War and when did those deductions cease.
§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)My Lords, the pay accounts of officer prisoners of war in the Second World War were reduced by the amount of pay they were due to receive from the enemy with effect from the date of capture and throughout the period of captivity. There is some evidence that deductions did not continue after March 1945.
§ Lord Clifford of ChudleighMy Lords, coming on top of the humiliating working group report, with its odious comparisons of proved inaccuracy, can the noble Viscount visualise the effect of his reply on, for example, someone who was taken prisoner in the desert, with up to three months transit in appalling conditions, marching from Tmimi Barce and all stations west of Tripoli; who learns today that up to half his pay was deducted from the date when he was taken prisoner, and knows, as he now does, that those deductions, unlike those made by other countries, were paid back to the Treasury instead of to the prisoners concerned at the end of the war?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, the noble Lord's Question on this subject, about which he has asked other Questions, related to the start date and the 649 stop date of deductions. I have previously made clear that a number of credits were made against those deductions and, finally, refunds. Since the noble Lord's previous Question, I have seen the unofficial committee of my noble friend Lord Kimberley and have provided a lot of information, which is summarised in a letter from me to him dated 22nd February (in the Library). of which one conclusion is that such evidence as we have—incomplete at this stage—suggests very strongly that two-thirds of the deductions of prisoners of war in camps in Germany and Italy were either credited or refunded. That seems to me to be rather greater evidence—and I hope that noble Lords will read the documents that I have tabled in the Library—that the policy of the day, whether it was right or wrong, was in the main carried out.
§ Lord ShinwellMy Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, despite his industry and concern in this matter, many of us have received representations from many quarters, and from overseas, from ex-prisoners of war who believe that they have a substantial case? Is it not likely that this controversy will continue for some considerable time? Is there not the suitable and reasonable alternative that the Government should agree to appoint a small committee of, perhaps, two or three judges or some Members of this House, who will be regarded as independent, to conduct an inquiry and bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I believe that I have on previous occasions given quite a lot of reasons why we think that an inquiry now could not elicit what happened to individuals at that time. It is for that reason, of not wishing to raise false expectations, that the Government continue to maintain that there is no point, but many disadvantages, in an inquiry. I am waiting to hear from my noble friend, as chairman of his un-official committee, the results of further detailed discussions between one of his members and my officials, and I can only say that I hope very much that we shall have satisfied him. I know that representations continue. It is a very long time ago and it is extremely hard at this stage to know what actually happened, when the noble Lord who asked this Question himself said that when he returned to this country he put his Italian pay book into Cox and Kings. But we have found that the orderly room sergeants of the units which they rejoined, Cox and Kings and Lloyds—and in every pay account we have found—did carry out the policy of the Government.
§ Lord MottistoneMy Lords, is it not a fact that, in the long run and in the last resort, some of the monies which ought to go to the ex-prisoners of war are being retained by the Treasury? Would it not be sensible to have a solution whereby some of the monies which the Treasury have held on to, which ought in some way or another to have gone to the ex-prisoners of war, are paid into some officers' charity of an appropriate type, as a gesture by the Government that they recognise that it is not proper for the Treasury to hold on to monies which they really do not deserve to have?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, I dealt with my noble 650 friend's point, and I have to say that if he will read in Hansard the report of the Unstarred Question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Kimberley, he will see that it is not the case that, under the policy of the day, the Treasury made off with money which was owed to prisoners. The premise of his question is simply not accurate, and I would ask him to read again the Hansard report of the debate.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, is the noble Viscount aware, as my noble friend Lord Shinwell has just indicated, that this is a problem which will not go away? Is he further aware that, according to his own answer, at least one-third of the persons concerned did not receive and were not credited with the refunds to which they were entitled? Is the noble Viscount also aware that there is abundant evidence that this is the case in a whole series of instances? Therefore, will the noble Viscount please consider inviting applications from the survivors—and there still must be some, although they are a diminishing number—who feel aggrieved, to be sent to him, in order for them to be examined and monitored, with a view to at any rate some contribution being made to those which are adjudged to be quite well founded and correctly stated?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, the noble Lord's opinion is that this is a problem which will not go away. I can only say that I have heard from a number of ex-prisoners who were worried as a result of the media coverage of this subject that they may have missed money which was their due, and who, having read the debate that took place in this House, do at least now say that they have no accurate recollection and it may well be that their accounts were credited. The noble Lord says that at least one-third were not credited. If he will read the letter that I have had placed in the Library, dated 22nd February, and the document attached to it, I believe he will be quite unable to hold to that point of view. I would ask him to read the letter.
Regarding his reference to survivors, a very large number of ex-prisoners are still alive. We have thousands of letters and I have read a very great many of them. The vast majority confirm that they had no recollection at the time, and the majority of them left pay matters to their orderly room sergeants and others when they were very delighted to be back.