---

First World War Soldiers (Pardons)

: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that intervention. I know that she put that very matter as a written question to the Minister's predecessor a couple of years ago, and got an answer that was not in the affirmative. That question should not so much be put to me, as it is an option. My personal view—I should be interested to hear the Minister's—is that, so far as I know, not only is each case different, but the material relating to each case is different. Some files are very comprehensive, but others consist only of one sheet of paper. I am putting my conclusion before I have developed my arguments, but I have concluded—this may not be the final conclusion of the High Court—that we decide to pardon either everybody or nobody. There are, I suspect, major problems, and I refer the hon. and learned Lady's question—while in no way avoiding it—to the Minister. Since 1998, we have seen a number of developments, which I should like briefly to take hon. Members through. In November 2000, an important psychological threshold was crossed when relatives of those executed were allowed to participate in the Remembrance day ceremonies at the cenotaph. As my hon. Friend pointed out, many but not all local communities—even in this regard they have been divided—have decided to add to war memorials the names of those who were executed in the first world war. I think that I am right in saying that there are one or two examples of the names of those who were executed already appearing on war memorials in the 1920s and 1930s. I have not had time to check this, but the name of the only Norfolk man to be executed—Private John Abigail of the 8th Norfolk Regiment, who was a volunteer who deserted more than once and who was executed in 1917—appears on the wooden panels of St. Augustine's church in Norwich. Having seen a photograph, I think that that predates the contemporary debate. However, that was an important watershed. In October 2004, the Irish Government formally submitted to the United Kingdom Government a report seeking a pardon for 26 Irish soldiers who were executed. They were from both the north and the south, Catholic and Protestant—those who served in the demonstrably Protestant 36th Ulster Division and the overwhelming Catholic 16th Irish Division. I shall come back to that, but I understand that the report is lying on the table and that the Ministry of Defence has not yet formulated a considered reply. Obviously, there are contemporary political sensitivities relating to that. In May 2005, a case was brought before the High Court by the family of Private Harry Farr, seeking a full posthumous pardon. It was brought in the name of his daughter, who is now aged 92, who must be one of the relatively few surviving immediate relatives. That case has been adjourned while the Ministry of Defence considers further submissions by the family. I recognise that I should not get into the weeds of that case because it is, at present, sub judice. In November 2005, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)—alas, he is not in his usual place; like Charles II, he is on his travels abroad, with the Foreign Affairs Committee, but his heart is here in this room even as we speak—introduced a new version of his private Member's Bill, which in effect has been introduced and reintroduced since 1993, seeking a pardon for soldiers of the great war. In 2000, the New Zealand Government passed an Act to pardon soldiers of the great war, which related to five New Zealand soldiers who were executed. That was a no-holds-barred, absolute retrospective pardon. In July 2005, the New Zealand Prime Minister presented the relatives of those soldiers with any outstanding medals, decorations and certificates. The New Zealand Government have gone the whole hog. Interestingly, to compare and contrast, in December 2001, the Canadian Government debated the issue and offered a formal apology to 23 Canadians who had been executed, but stopped short of granting statutory pardons. In three countries—the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada—we have three variations: there has been no apology and no pardon directly from the United Kingdom Government, but there has been a motion of regret, which is as near as possible to an apology; in New Zealand, there has been a complete apology and a restitution of all civil rights, if I may put it that way; and the Canadian Government have made an apology, but have not granted a statutory pardon. Interestingly, there are dogs that have not barked in this case. As far as I understand, no request has yet been received from the South African Government for those who would now be constituted citizens of South Africa who were executed during the first world war. I will not touch on the subject of other Commonwealth citizens who were also executed under military law during the first world war. There are half a dozen in relation to Nigeria and the West Indies, and, of course, several hundred who were in the old Indian army. Several dozen were executed as a consequence of a mutiny in Singapore in 1915. It will muddy the waters if we get on to that area. A vast amount of popular and academic literature and many TV documentaries have been produced since 1998. In my considered opinion, the two best books, which do not quite present the arguments for and against, but which complement each other, are Catherine Corns' and John Hughes-Wilson's ““Blindfold and Alone: British Military Executions in the Great War””, which was published in 2001, and Dr. Gerard Oram's ““Military Executions During World War I””, which was published in 2003 and which has the advantage of comparing and contrasting what happened in the French and the German armies, as well. Having sketched out the background, let me come to the core of what I wish to address. I want to ask the Minister some specific questions to see what, if anything, has changed since 1998. First, has his Department discovered any new official documents relating to the court-martials and executions of these men? Secondly, have any of the files relating to the 3,000-plus men sentenced to death but reprieved been discovered? I understand that all those files were destroyed at some point in the inter-war period. This is an important issue; the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) will be aware of it. There would be a control mechanism if we had available the 3,000 files relating to those people found guilty but reprieved. We do not know why they were reprieved. We have only one side of the argument. Thirdly, have any other official documents or has any other contemporary evidence been produced by other Departments or by individual citizens since 1998 that is directly relevant to the central question? Finally, has the Government's legal opinion changed since 1998? Obviously, a serious challenge to the Government's opinion as stated in 1998 is the High Court case involving Private Harry Farr. I know that this may be difficult for the Minister to answer and he may very well say that it is a hypothetical question, but can he confirm that if a final ruling finds in favour of the family—that there will be some form of pardon, even if it is a conditional pardon—that would effectively set a precedent for all the other cases, or, as the hon. and learned Lady suggested, would the Ministry of Defence have to consider some form of tribunal that would assess each individual case as the case of Private Harry Farr has been assessed? I understand the political sensitivities of this matter, but the MOD has now had just over a year to study the report of the Irish Government covering the cases of the 26 Irish soldiers. A copy of the report was leaked to the Sunday Mirror and there are various extracts from it on the internet. I have to say—this is a personal view and I admit that I have not read the full report—that it struck me less as a legal, historical document than as an emotional polemic aimed at the British Government. Does the Minister intend publicising the report as soon as possible? It has already been partly leaked to the press and it might be helpful if we saw the full report. Given that a year has now gone by, when is it likely that an answer will be given to the Irish Government about the report? Will the British Government's reply be placed in the public domain? If the British Government were to accede to the request of the Irish Government—if they recognise that the Irish Government have presented a case and the 26 Irish soldiers effectively get some form of pardon—would the British Government's opinion be that that would set a precedent across the board for other national groupings? After all, what about the Scots and the Welsh? Given the Minister's background, it may interest him to know that, of those found guilty and condemned to death during the first world war, 10 per cent. were from England, 10 per cent. were from Ireland, 12 per cent. were from Scotland and 14 per cent. were from Wales. An incredible 22 per cent. were from New Zealand. What do those statistics mean? I suspect, in isolation, not a lot, but one can see the potency behind different groups arguing for their specific cases. There is a final point connected with Ireland. I recognise that this does not fall directly into the category of those executed in the first world war. Does the Minister know whether any formal request has ever been made by the Irish Government for formal pardons to be given to those 15 Irishmen convicted by British Army tribunals in 1916 and executed following the Easter rising? They were convicted and executed for a rebellion that, as far as I understand from reading the best, most recent account—Professor Charles Townshend's ““Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion””—was fully covered under military law at the time. I realise the sensitivity of the matter, but I think that we are now into this area. The purpose of my debate, apart from the opportunity to put a series of questions to the Minister, is to allow colleagues who may have different views to contradict what I have said, perhaps to press strongly for a pardon or a partial pardon and to ask similar questions. I am still unpersuaded by the case for a pardon, but I have an open mind. If I could be persuaded, perhaps I would be. There is now an opportunity for the Minister to explain his Department's current position and whether it has changed since 1998, and to ensure that my questions and those of other hon. Members receive due attention.