HL Deb 13 January 1999 vol 596 cc178-80

2.47 p.m.

The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will arrange for a pardon to be granted to the 343 officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers from the United Kingdom and the British Empire who, during the First World War, were "shot at dawn".

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)

My Lords, the House will be aware that, as the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, Dr. John Reid undertook a very careful and thorough review of the cases of servicemen executed during the First World War. He concluded that, regrettably, 80 years after the events, the little evidence that survives did not provide a sufficient basis for the Secretary of State to be able to recommend a pardon for all these men. However, they have now been publicly recognised and remembered as victims of the war. A copy of the summary of the review is available in the Library of the House.

The Earl of Carlisle

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which I find disappointing and a little dispiriting. Although I welcome the expression of regret and the resolve of Her Majesty's Government to remove the death penalty from the Army Act, is not the time now long overdue—bearing in mind that these events took place eight decades ago and many were miscarriages of justice, as has now been recognised—that these men should be granted a free pardon either by invoking the Royal Prerogative or by introducing legislation? Does not the Minister wish to remove the stigma which the families feel, the slur on the names of the regiments in which they served with great gallantry and the long shadow cast over the War Office, now the Ministry of Defence, which the Minister represents with great distinction and humanity?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his remarks. I quite understand why he feels a sense of disappointment. However, perhaps I may correct him on one minor point. I am sure that he will welcome, as I do, the fact that the death penalty ceased to be available for any military offence in the Armed Forces from November of last year. That is already in place.

With respect to granting pardons, these are extremely difficult and complex matters. They involve inviting the Queen to intervene and overturn a decision of a properly constituted judicial tribunal. That is a difficult thing to do. As I said in reply to the noble Earl, the evidence is scanty and concerns events that took place 80 years ago. I agree with him that even one execution is one too many, but unfortunately these matters occurred in the past and I am afraid we must leave matters as they are.

Lord Renton

My Lords, as one who lived throughout the First World War and well remembers its agonies, will the noble Lord bear in mind that we have to judge people by the standards of the time in which they lived and not by the more enlightened standards of our own days, as we believe them to be? Will he therefore ensure that in considering this matter those who did their duty, which resulted in these men having to be shot at dawn, will not be condemned for doing that duty?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I take seriously the points that the noble Lord makes and of course I bow to his experience. I think it is worth recalling to your Lordships that nearly all these courts martial were conducted by junior officers with immediate and relevant experience in the field of battle with regard to the people on whom they sat in judgment. Some 20,000 servicemen were charged with offences during the First World War to which the capital penalty then attached. Of those 20,000 some 3,000 were convicted and of those 3,000 only about 10 per cent. were executed. I do not think that makes the matter any better but I thought that your Lordships might like to know those facts.

Earl Russell

My Lords, does the Minister agree that his argument that the evidence is scanty in a matter involving reasonable doubt is capable of cutting both ways? Does he agree that the medical effects of trauma were much less well understood 80 years ago than they are now, and that that fact alone might well give rise to a reasonable doubt?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I am quite sure that the main point on which the noble Earl rests with respect to recognition of the medical effects of trauma is absolutely correct. However, one has to recognise that there was a whole range of offences for which these men were convicted. I am afraid to say that in some of those cases there was little doubt that the tribunal came to an appropriate verdict. We must accept that. As regards the fact that matters have changed with respect to medical assessments, I am sure the noble Earl is right about that. However, not only did my honourable friend undertake this review, but a review was also undertaken by the previous government which came to exactly the same conclusions.

Lord Monson

My Lords, does the Minister agree that no more than 25 German servicemen were executed for similar offences during the whole of World War I? Given that British and Empire servicemen were no less brave and steadfast than their German counterparts, does this not indicate that if the less draconian standards prevailing in other combatant armies at that time had been applied by the British Army, probably no more than 30 British and Empire servicemen would have been executed? If the Minister agrees with that analysis, will the Ministry of Defence issue a public statement to that effect so that the descendants of those who were executed can console themselves with the thought that their forebears were statistically probably among those who were unjustly executed, even by the standards of 80 years ago?

Lord Gilbert

My Lords, I did not come armed with the number of German soldiers who were executed although I have the figures relating to various Commonwealth countries. I agree with the noble Lord that standards were different and discipline was much harsher in those days. I shall certainly pass his suggestion to my honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. However, I can see no way in which I can encourage the House to believe that the Government will move towards granting a pardon for all those concerned.