Pardon for Solidiers of the Great War (Hansard, 19 October 1993)

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to pardon soldiers convicted of, and executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1918 for, the offences of cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer; and for connected purposes. The Bill would facilitate the granting of pardons to 307 soldiers of the British Empire forces who fought in the great war of 1914–18 but were executed by firing squad, having been found guilty of charges that ranged from cowardice to desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer.
Many of those soldiers were young men—teenagers. They were drawn from every corner of the United Kingdom. Many were not conscripts but volunteers, and some spent not months but years in the trenches enduring constant shellfire, sniping and lack of food and sleep in the constant wet and cold. It is hardly surprising that, in many cases, their spirit broke.
All 307 soldiers were, in my submission, denied the operation of rules of natural justice. They were not given the opportunity to prepare a defence; in many cases there was no advocacy whatever, and when there was it was not conducted by a legally qualified person. Above all, none of the soldiers was given the opportunity to appeal against the sentence of death: invariably, they were given only 12 to 24 hours' notice before that sentence was carried out. That shows that those men have endured grave injustice, and it is time that the record was put straight.
We now know from the documents that have become available, following the crazy 75-year public records rule, that many of those men were sick, traumatised and suffering from shell shock. For that reason, the House should begin to put the record straight to ensure that the men are held in high national esteem.
I am motivated to bring this Bill before the House because many dependants of those men seek redress, and because there are still among us a few thousand veterans of the great war, in the evening of their lives, to which nothing would give greater satisfaction or contentment than knowing—albeit late in the day—that their comrades in arms were finally exonerated. I was pleased to see the support in the press of my noble Friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a veteran of Passchendaele, who endorses my view.
It has been suggested that I am seeking to rewrite history—I reject that. I am seeking to ensure that history is written with clarity and precision and that those things that are uncomfortable to the establishment are brought into the open.
In a few weeks' time, Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be at the cenotaph, and other right hon. and hon. Members will rightly be at their local war memorials. We attend such memorials not to remember veterans of the Crimean war, the Napoleonic wars or the Cromwellian wars, but to remember soldiers of the great war because they are of our time.
All of us have had grandfathers, fathers and uncles who were in the great war. We have all seen, spoken, touched and loved them. That is something which cannot be ignored. They are not merely history. It is long overdue 160 that a remedy was sought to heal the reputations of those men that were broken during the sham trials in the great war.
My Bill provides two options: either to grant a blanket pardon for all 307 soldiers, which I and Lord Houghton favour, or, if that is not appropriate, that the Secretary of State be able to refer each case to a panel of High Court judges to test whether or not there has been injustice and whether or not there should be a pardon. I cannot see what can be wrong with that, other than that some people might not like the truth coming out.
The measure is universally popular. My postbag and those of many hon. Members show overwhelming public support for it. I shall go further: the difference between now and 18 months ago, when the pardons campaign began, is that, we now know that, in a sense, the soldiers have already been pardoned by the highest court in the land —British public opinion. My Bill would facilitate an official way in which the nation could collectively say sorry.
My Bill could be a matter of national pride for our generation and this House of Commons. We could draw a line under the unhappy events of the first world war, do all we can to repair the damage done to the reputation of those men, to heal the wounds of the families and to allow the veterans of the great war who are still alive to go to sleep tonight content in the knowledge that their comrades are now deemed to be brave soldiers.
I ask nothing more than for the opportunity for these cases to be tested by the normal criteria that operate in the land. Have the rules of natural justice been applied? Were those men sick and traumatised, as I believe they were? My Bill would facilitate a test by which their cases would he put before High Court judges. The documents are now available and they speak for themselves.
The demand for this remedy is like a cry from the grave. It is time that the House of Commons took hold of the matter, put aside the objections of the establishment and said that those soldiers of the great war who were executed are deemed worthy to be among those we will remember on Remembrance Sunday.

§ Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth)
rose—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.

§ Mr. Evans
The speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was plausible and emotional, but fundamentally misconceived and wrong in principle. History is littered with injustice, and it is entirely inappropriate at this stage in the century to examine what happened between 1914 and 1918. If ever there was an argument against open government and in favour of keeping the files closed for ever longer, it could be made now. What are we hoping to achieve by the measure?
If the scheme of the hon. Member for Thurrock is designed to give a blanket pardon, it cannot be right, as a matter of principle. It will be not an examination of the historical record, but a mere expression of opinion, without any reference to the particulars of the cases. It would be a case of wasting time with a sort of war crimes tribunal in reverse at the end of the century. That would be a monstrous procedure and wholly wrong. The matters are for historians, not the House now.
161 To seek to lay blame by using the word "establishment", as the hon. Member for Thurrock did, was an extremely unfortunate way of attacking the British state. The fact remains that we are the beneficiaries of the sacrifices made by our grandparents' generation, and it would be wholly wrong to continue with the scheme.

§ Madam Speaker
The Question is, That the hon. Gentleman do have leave to bring in the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) must call "No."

§ Mr. Roger Evans
No.

§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on previous occasions it has always been argued that, when an hon. Member speaks against a 10-minute Bill, his or her vote should always follow his or her voice. Is the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) going to put up Tellers? Has he been asked?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is not obliged to put up tellers. I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not hear me tell the hon. Member for Monmouth, who opposed the Bill, that his voice recording "No" must follow his speech. The hon. Gentleman gave the word "No", which is sufficient under our procedures. Even if he wishes to oppose the Bill, he does not have to put up tellers.