Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, to the House. This is an historic debate. In my time here I have not seen a subject that received such overwhelming support across all sections of the House. The spirit of conciliation that permeates the Minister's contribution demonstrates that this issue is about reconciliation, not blame or criticism. I hope the contribution of the House goes some way towards advancing the desire of the surviving families of those shot at dawn for a final resolution of the problem.

It is salutary to note that during and following the First World War, over 3,000 men were sentenced to death under the Army Act between August 1914 and March 1920, but that 90% of those verdicts were commuted. In echoing the Minister's emotive and correct interpretation and relation of the history of those times to a present day audience, it is salutary to remember that the daily average casualties during the war numbered 2,000 and included 400 fatalities. It was absolute carnage.

Senator Brian Hayes rightly referred to the lack of awareness in the British military establishment of shell-shock and the impact of war, particularly on young servicemen. The reason the establishment carried out the executions — I know it is difficult to look back and get one's head around circumstances and attitudes of the time — was as a deterrent. Anthony Babington's 1983 book, the first published on this matter, was aptly entitled For the Sake of Example. The report states that while execution may have been effective in that respect, a general read through the case files of the 26 Irish soldiers reveals starkly that each man was subjected to an inconsistent, capricious and unpredictable court martial system. It is obvious from reading this painful report that the military establishment at the time was not only flawed in its judgment but had a strong anti-Irish bias.

While it is true that his happened a long time ago, the British Government suppressed the details of the shot at dawn soldiers for 75 years. It kept the information under lock and key, such were the sensitivities involved. It is only since the details emerged in 1990 and the seminal book on the subject, Shot at Dawn, by Mr. Julian Putowski and Mr. Julian Sykes was published, giving the excruciating, painful and emotive detail of how these people were shot, that the issue came into the public arena.

An English soldier called Private Ingham of the Manchester Regiment was shot at dawn on 1 December. At the time, the authorities had written to his father to tell him that his son had died of gunshot wounds. When he found out the truth years later he insisted that the Commonwealth graves commission, which is responsible for maintaining graves of servicemen all over the world, put the following inscription on his son's tombstone:

"Shot at dawn

One of the first to enlist

A worthy son of his father."

Even then, there was an awareness among the families that a cruel injustice had been done to their kinfolk.

The current campaign comes about as a result of the increasingly close relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland. It is also due, as the Minister pointed out, to a belated but welcome acknowledgement that those who joined the Irish regiments of the British army and those of Irish birth who joined in the United Kingdom, were no less Irish than those who subsequently fought for Irish independence. The shadow of the rising darkened the judgment of that generation and while the rebellion of 1916 was the catalyst for subsequent events, it was the period between 1919 and 1921 which delivered a sovereign Parliament, albeit a partitioned one, and many of those who fought for independence during that period learned their military skills in the Great War and had worn the uniform of the British army.

I wish to acknowledge the outstanding work of Mr. Peter Mulvany and also the great grand nephew of Private Downey, one of the men referred to in the recently published report. I also wish to acknowledge the enormous contribution of Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, our colleague on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, over many years, against the odds and the wishes of some at the highest level in his own party. I also salute Lord Alfred Dubs who, following the joint initiative of myself and Senator Maurice Hayes at the plenary session of the interparliamentary body in Edinburgh in November, took up the case again in the British House of Lords. That debate, to which Senator Maurice Hayes referred, has also rekindled a great deal of interest across all parties in the United Kingdom.

Given the ongoing discussions that Senator Maurice Hayes and I are having with our colleagues in the British Parliament, it is clear that this issue is not going to go away. Support for this issue is increasing among those of all parties and none and through the case of Private Farr in the courts, it is drawing the attention of the general media in the United Kingdom. I wish to outline, for the record, the aforementioned case.

Private Harry Farr enlisted in 1910 in the West Yorkshire Regiment, at the age of either 16 or 17, although he told the recruiting officer he was older. He was involved in various activities in the early part of the First World War with the British expeditionary force and at the Somme in 1915. On 14 and 15 September, his battalion moved up to the front line, near Guillemont, which Senator Feighan and I visited two years ago. The private fell out and reported himself sick at the transport lines the next day. When the medics allegedly refused to examine him, he was ordered to accompany a ration party as it went up the line.

Private Farr remained behind and later that day was seen by a sergeant, who had ordered his return to the line. Private Farr told the NCO that he felt unable to return to the line. The intervention of a corporal, who had been detailed to escort the private was also unsuccessful, as was a forceful attempt to drag the soldier off.

A trial took place on 2 October 1916 and in spite of his earlier shell-shock in 1915, no medical examination was carried out. The location of Private Farr's execution is unknown and his grave, unusually, was not identified after the war. He is commemorated in the Thiepval memorial to the missing, which overlooks the Somme battlefields. One cannot imagine how Private Farr's family must have felt at the time and how his 91 year old daughter feels now, as she battles the British military establishment in the courts to obtain justice for her father who was unjustly and cruelly executed. It is now widely accepted that shell-shock is a serious medical condition of warfare.

This issue transcends all party considerations, religious traditions and political ideologies on this island. As has been noted, the Reverend IanPaisley, Mr. John Hume and Mr. Ken Maginnis, when the latter was an MP at Westminster, all sponsored the Andrew McKinlay Bill. I wish to acknowledge that the spirit of reconciliation which permeated the Minister's speech is also to be found in this House, which is perhaps the strongest message that can be sent to the British Government, namely, that there is agreement across party lines and traditions going back to the foundation of this State.

While there may have been discrimination in life for the 26 Irish men who were executed, there has been no discrimination for them in death. The graceful, dignified, quiet, grey tombstones of the soldiers who fell in the Great War, those who fought and died and those who were executed, lie side by side and are the most powerful retort to those in Britain who believe this issue should be kept quiet and not addressed.