John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

The issue of those shot at dawn is one I have watched for several years. It is of particular interest and concern to me, given my experience in the military, and most importantly, my absolute belief that the 26 Irish-born soldiers executed during the First World War must get justice.

This is an issue not just for Ireland. Archives released in 1990 by the British Government after 75 years indicated that during the First World War, 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers suffered the so-called ultimate penalty. The word "penalty" implies an offence. Would any reasonable person consider that such an offence was actually committed? Were these 306 soldiers, including the 26 Irish soldiers, 22 Canadians, five New Zealanders and one young Jamaican boy, actually killed by the British military merely as an example to others? These are just two of the questions the Shot at Dawn Campaign has posed and they must continue to be posed to the British authorities.

There is, however, a specific cause for concern in Ireland. Dr. Gerard Oram's work indicates that in most British army groups one in every 2,000 to 3,000 troops was sentenced to death. That is a shocking statistic. However, the execution rate for Irish soldiers sentenced to death by British courts-martial is even more distressing at more than one in every 600. The numbers indicate that there were consistently more condemnations of troops serving with the Irish than in other battalions and that, on average, seven death sentences were passed in every Irish battalion but only four in other battalions. Why were more Irish troops executed in the British army than any other nationality?

We know that more than 134,000 men were recruited in Ireland during the war. The memory of this entire group has suffered an injustice over the years. The issues of Irish independence and unity were injudiciously applied or equated to taint the memories of brave men and their families, which is simply unacceptable. A more terrible and deadly injustice was applied, however. While New Zealand had a similar number of men enlisted at 112,000, there were 23 condemnations, while there were 239 condemnations in Irish units.

Use of the word "penalty" is not the only one with which I have a problem. As recently as yesterday, when new consideration for the executed Private Harry Farr was, thankfully, announced, I heard phrases such as "justice for cowards" and "cowardice campaign". The word "coward" is so inappropriate. A coward is defined as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity". Is a man to continue to be labelled a coward having suffered severe psychological trauma? Private Farr was physically unable to cope with the shocking scenes he had to witness. He had been admitted to hospital where nurses noted that he trembled so severely he was unable to hold a pen. Such a soldier was subsequently found guilty of cowardice and sentenced to death. That is abhorrent.

Those who share my belief that justice must be delivered are, less importantly, also labelled for condemning the events of a century ago from a modern-day perspective or for seeking something inappropriate or impossible. What we are seeking is very simple, namely, a pardon for soldiers executed for action such as so-called cowardice, desertion or attempted desertion, disobedience, quitting a post or throwing away their arms. They were executed as an example.

Can we be sure what constitutes desertion? I can remember many a court-martial during my own military career involving long-term absentees who were charged with desertion or absence. I recall that desertion had to involve a clear intent that one would never return. Was that definition applied to those soldiers?

Today we have a clear understanding of shell-shock and post traumatic stress disorder, conditions that were not entertained 80 years ago. What can we do now? Having had the report laid before us, the Houses of the Oireachtas should send a unanimous and unequivocal message to the British Government stating our firm belief that, first, pardons should be granted to the 26 soldiers born in Ireland who were executed in these circumstances and, second, we must record our support for the British Labour Party backbencher Andrew Mackinlay's wider Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War Bill. This would allow for the granting of pardons to all qualifying soldiers executed during the First World War.

I understand the Bill was due for its Second Reading in the House of Commons on 10 March but, when contacted yesterday, the House of Commons information service stated the measure had been dropped. Perhaps the Minister or his officials could inquire, if and when appropriate, as to how this Bill's progress is to be facilitated by the British Government.

As a representative of our Government, the Minister could relay to his British counterpart Ireland's request that the implication of the statistics I have set out on the high proportion of executions among Irish soldiers be investigated and explained. This is an issue that transcends individuals and pertains to our status as a nation. Was execution more or less likely on the basis of nationality and, if so, why? If that was the case, our nation deserves an explanation if not an apology.

As regards pardons, we are not seeking a precedent. As Senator Brian Hayes pointed out, the New Zealand Government has granted such pardons to five of its soldiers. New Zealand's Pardon for Soldiers Act clearly recognises that the execution of these soldiers "was not a fate that they deserved but was one that resulted from the harsh discipline that was believed at the time to be required; and the application of the death penalty for military offences being seen at the time as an essential part of military discipline".

My military experience informs me of how such an atmosphere and regime can develop, although not with these terrible consequences. Nevertheless, in a military environment, where a group of soldiers must be controlled by a small number of superiors, in unforgiving circumstances, we can see how harsh discipline can emerge. The label of dishonour attached to these soldiers and their families has compounded that horror.

The purpose of the measure passed in New Zealand five years ago "was to remove, so far as practicable, the dishonour that the executions brought to those soldiers and their families". It allowed a dignified closure for the families of soldiers executed in the First World War.

I encourage the Minister and his Department to follow through on the momentum that will no doubt follow the publication of the report. Should Oireachtas or party support be required or desired for the Government to do so, then let us get those explicit statements. Justice must be restored, honour returned to and blemish removed from the reputations of those concerned. On behalf of the Progressive Democrats, I support all appropriate efforts to make this happen.