---

First World War Soldiers (Pardons)

: I would agree entirely with that if the end result was that the Government were willing to consider the cases that could not be given the sort of scrutiny that the CCRC would undoubtedly give them, and that the benefit of the doubt would then be given in those cases by the Government bringing forward a one-clause Bill to grant the pardons. Twenty-odd years ago, when I was first elected to the House, I met some of the families of the people concerned, whom I met again in 1998. I also recollect members of my family telling me about their experiences in the first world war. One of the family members whom I spoke to some 20 years ago told me about the case of his father. He came from a small market town from which they all went off to war together. He was a 22-year-old with two children and with him went three of his brothers, one of whom had lied about his age and joined the Army at the age of 15, and who was killed within two weeks of being in France. Those were tragic circumstances. It was a close-knit community and the overwhelming majority of the male population under 30 joined the Army. Those who came back did so with stories of what had happened and about the execution of the person with whom they had grown up, gone to school and gone to war. It was much like the situation in the village in Lincolnshire, but people talked. The family did not tell people what had happened, but all the other men who returned told their families. The chap who I talked to told me what it was like to go to school with the other boys. I can remember it from after the second world war: I went to school and a boy in my class whose father had won the Victoria cross came into school with the VC in his pocket. The man told me that boys would come to school with the medals that their fathers had received for serving in the first world war and that they all gave him a bad time, talking about his family and him. He explained in graphic detail what it was like for the family and how the stigma stayed with them. His mother had great difficulty facing the local community, but because the family had no means to move away they had to live with it. They lived with it for the rest of their lives. We have an opportunity. I shall quote what the then Armed Forces Minister, the present Secretary of State, said about Armistice day in 1998. By ironic coincidence, he was speaking at 11 minutes past 11, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) pointed out to the House at the time. The right hon. Gentleman said:"““For some of our soldiers and their families, however, there has been neither glory nor remembrance. Just over 300 of them died at the hands not of the enemy, but of firing squads from their own side. They were shot at dawn, stigmatised and condemned—a few as cowards, most as deserters. The nature of those deaths and the circumstances surrounding them have long been a matter of contention. Therefore, last May, I said that we would look again at their cases. The review has been a long and complicated process””.—[Official Report, 24 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 1372.]" He went on to say that because there was no compelling legal ability to deal with the problem, the situation would be much as it stands: the Government would regret that it happened, but there would be no chance of relieving the pain. That is why the hon. and learned Member for Redcar was so right to talk not about justice but about the pain that families and others have suffered through the injustice. We cannot put that right but we can by some measure adopt what the New Zealanders did. We should not try to judge each case on its merits, but say that in today's circumstances it would be inconceivable for such situations to have arisen and to have been dealt with in such a way. I remember my grandfather saying that only enlisted men were shot, never officers. He said that it was a class thing. Officers who did not go to fight were merely sent home. Few of them ever stood any sort of trial and excuses were always found. I do not want to suggest that it was a class thing, but it is something that our generation—mine and yours, Mr. Bayley—can do something about. None of us could possibly imagine what those young men went through—and many were very young. Some of those who were executed had been in and out of the front line for more than three years. Many had served with distinction; some had been put up for awards at some time during their career. Some, as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk said, had been involved in incidents that probably would have meant some punishment from the unit commander or under the regulations of the British Army. However, it is inconceivable that any of us could say hand on heart that we would not have reacted in a similar vein in such circumstances. Some 20,000 people were convicted of some form of cowardice or desertion, but 300 paid the ultimate price. The circumstances that led to their being executed included the character of the commanding officer or brigade commander who ultimately made the decision, or the way in which the war was going at the time. As the hon. Gentleman said, examples had to be made. All circumstances were different at different times during the war, and those people were certainly in the wrong place at the wrong time. Circumstances compounded to make their situation even worse. If the House is worth anything to our society in trying to deliver relief for the pain that the families have gone through, we surely have to respond in what most reasonable people in this country believe to be the right way. In my opinion, that can only be through a full pardon as a result of a change in our legal system. We cannot reconsider the cases. The Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State, to their credit, went everywhere they could to find a way out for us all, but could not do so within the current framework. The matter will be resolved only in the manner suggested by the hon. and learned Lady, with the Government reacting, or by the Minister being courageous enough to give the benefit of the doubt to all 306 and to table legislation that would grant them a pardon. I urge him to do that sooner rather than later.