---

First World War Soldiers (Pardons)

: My very first experience as a councillor, before I came to this House, was of laying a wreath at the cenotaph. I stood next to the secretary of my local Labour party branch. He was one of four brothers who went to the first world war, and the names of three brothers are on the cenotaph. I fully understand the horrors and the consequences, but no one could say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when Minister for the Armed Forces, did not carry out the most exhaustive, determined examination of the issues with a desire to do something about the matter. As colleagues have explained, and as I seek to explain, there are difficulties about simply agreeing to a pardon in the way that my hon. Friend strongly advocates. At the time of the review, my right hon. Friend felt strongly—particularly with respect to the families of the executed and those who still remembered them—that it was simply not right to take no further action, and so he made a statement to the House on 24 July 1998. He said that the House acknowledged and expressed deep regret for the loss of life and remembered all those who endured such terrible conditions, those who died at the hands of the enemy, those who were executed and those who did their awful duty of being part of the firing squads. He said that all those executed should be recognised as victims of a terrible war. The Government then asked that the names of the executed men be added to war memorials and books of remembrance throughout the country. That is public recognition and a sign of the lifting of the stigma of execution from the men and their families, and I am pleased that many communities around the country did precisely what was asked. The men who were executed are commemorated in the national memorial arboretum, where a very fitting memorial was dedicated in June 2001. They are remembered among their fallen comrades, and the sacrifice of all their lives is honoured and acknowledged. Although the Government felt that it was not right to put all cases to the pardon test only for most of them to fail, it was always open to individuals, particularly the families of the executed, to petition the sovereign and seek a pardon for a particular serviceman. If such a petition is received it is, of course, considered on its merits. The Secretary of State has to determine whether he can recommend that the sovereign grant a pardon, whether free or conditional, on the basis of the evidence available. That is what happened in the case of Private Harry Farr, who was executed in 1916. The rejection of the petition submitted by his daughter is now the subject of a judicial review. The courts have accepted that there are no arguable grounds to challenge the rejection of a free pardon, but the hearing was adjourned in October following the submission of new legal arguments about the possibility of a conditional pardon. Those points are still being considered. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to take an overview of our considerations and to report to him directly when considerations are complete. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that it is difficult for me to say much more about the Farr case because of that. However, I emphasise that, as we said in court, there has been no pleasure for the Secretary of State in reaching any of his decisions in relation to the rejection of the petition on Private Farr. As I said, we have not yet reached a further conclusion on the new grounds submitted to us, but the Secretary of State and the Government—all of us—have the greatest sympathy for Private Farr's daughter and her family, who conducted the campaign on his behalf. Another matter in which hon. Members will have an interest is the response to the report submitted to the Government by the Irish Foreign Minister in October 2004. It seeks pardon for 26 Irish soldiers executed during the first world war. We are considering our response to the Irish Government on that; we will, of course, make it public. Throughout this debate, and over many years, the Government have approached the cases that we are discussing with a sympathetic heart and an open mind—a point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk when he responded to the statement made in July 1998.