Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Page 49 of “Erskine May” refers to the official Opposition as

“the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office”.

The current official Opposition has lost two thirds of its shadow Cabinet. Their leader and what remains of the Front-Bench team no longer command the support of the overwhelming majority of their Back Benchers. They can now no longer provide shadow Ministers for large Departments of State. They are clearly in no shape to assume power or to meet the key responsibilities outlined in “Erskine May”. Given these obvious failings, what steps would now need to be taken to have the official Opposition replaced with one that can meet the responsibilities set out clearly in “Erskine May”?

Mr Speaker

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am familiar with “Erskine May”, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, and I am genuinely grateful to him for giving me notice of his point of order. I can confirm that the Labour party currently constitutes the official Opposition and that its leader is recognised by me, for statutory and parliamentary purposes, as the Leader of the Opposition. He will have noticed that I called the Leader of the Opposition earlier to ask a series of questions of the Prime Minister. He will also be aware that today we have Opposition business duly chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, as indicated on the Order Paper. I should perhaps add that in making these judgments and pronouncing in response to points of order, I do give, and have given, thought to the matter, and I have also benefited from expert advice. These matters are not broached lightly. I understand the vantage point from which he speaks, but he raised the question and I have given him the answer. We will leave it there for now.

Bills presented

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Nicolson, supported by Amanda Solloway, Keir Starmer, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Iain Stewart, Sarah Champion, Tommy Sheppard, Paula Sherriff, Nigel Huddleston, Stephen Twigg and Dr Philippa Whitford, presented a Bill to make provision for the pardoning, or otherwise setting aside, of cautions and convictions for specified sexual offences that have now been abolished; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 6).

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Bob Blackman, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Helen Hayes, Mr Mark Prisk, Kevin Hollinrake, David Mackintosh, Alison Thewliss, Jim Shannon, Mary Robinson, Julian Knight, Mr David Burrowes and Liz Kendall, presented a Bill to amend the Housing Act 1996 to make provision about measures for reducing homelessness; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 7).

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alec Shelbrooke presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to apply the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to workplace internships; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November, and to be printed (Bill 8).

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Pat Glass presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; to specify how the size of a constituency is to be calculated; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 9).

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Kelly Tolhurst, on behalf of Gareth Johnson, presented a Bill to prohibit the wearing or public display, by a person not entitled to do so, of medals or insignia awarded for valour, with the intent to deceive.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 10).

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mhairi Black, supported by Chris Law, Mr Dennis Skinner, Liz Saville Roberts, Caroline Lucas, Ian Blackford, Carolyn Harris, Angela Crawley and Andrew Percy, presented a Bill to require assessment of a benefit claimant’s circumstances before the implementation of sanctions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed (Bill 11).

Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Eilidh Whiteford, supported by Mrs Maria Miller, Jess Phillips, Gavin Newlands, Liz Saville Roberts, Fiona Mactaggart, Angela Crawley, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Alison Thewliss and Lady Hermon, presented a Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention); and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 12).

Families with Children and Young People in Debt (Respite) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Kelly Tolhurst, supported by Mark Garnier, Amanda Milling, Craig Mackinlay, Victoria Borwick, Roger Mullin, Angela Crawley, Antoinette Sandbach, Yvonne Fovargue, Ian Paisley, Ben Howlett and Jo Churchill, presented a Bill to place a duty on lenders and creditors to provide periods of financial respite for families with children and young people in debt in certain circumstances; to place a duty on public authorities to provide access to related advice, guidance and support in those circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 13).

Registration of Marriage Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Edward Argar, supported by Sir Simon Burns, Victoria Atkins, Simon Hoare, Seema Kennedy, Wes Streeting, Christina Rees, Jess Phillips, Stephen Doughty, Nigel Huddleston and Greg Mulholland, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of marriages.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Assets of Community Value Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

James Morris presented a Bill to make provision about the disposal of land included in a local authority’s list of assets of community value; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Roger Mullin, supported by Kirsty Blackman, Patrick Grady, Michelle Thomson, George Kerevan and Ian Blackford, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to align the outcomes of double taxation treaties with developing countries with the goal of the United Kingdom’s overseas development aid programme for reducing poverty and to report to Parliament thereon; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 16).

Farriers (Registration)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Byron Davies, supported by Chris Davies, Dr James Davies, Craig Williams and Mike Wood, presented a Bill to make provision about the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 January, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Parking Places (Variation of Charges)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Tredinnick presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the procedure to be followed by local authorities when varying the charges to be paid in connection with the use of certain parking places.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew Gwynne, supported by Andrew Stephenson, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Byron Davies, Norman Lamb, Lyn Brown, Mark Menzies, Barbara Keeley, Robert Flello, Mims Davies, Helen Jones and Diana Johnson, presented a Bill to make the completion of disability equality training a requirement for the licensing of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Gangmasters (Licensing) and Labour Abuse Authority

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Louise Haigh, supported by Mr Chuka Umunna, Mr Iain Wright, Chris White, James Cleverly, Paul Blomfield, Lisa Nandy, Will Quince, Greg Mulholland, Chris Stephens, Stella Creasy and Mr Dennis Skinner, presented Bill to amend the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to apply its provisions to certain sectors including construction, care services, retail, cleaning, warehousing and the transportation of goods; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November, and to be printed (Bill 20).

International Trade and Investment (NHS Protection)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Anne Main, on behalf of Mr Peter Lilley, presented a Bill to require the National Health Service to be exempted from the provisions of international trade and investment agreements; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Kew Gardens (Leases)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger presented a Bill to provide that the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the management of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, include the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Glen presented a Bill to repeal sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Amendment)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lucy Allan presented a Bill to repeal provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requiring teachers, carers and responsible adults to report signs of extremism or radicalisation amongst children in primary school, nursery school or other pre-school educational settings; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 January, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Child Poverty in the UK (Target for Reduction)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dan Jarvis presented a Bill to establish a target for the reduction of child poverty in the United Kingdom; to make provision about reporting against such a target; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February, and to be printed (Bill 25).

The Chair

- Hansard -

Copy Link

I welcome everyone to this Public Bill Committee. I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Please switch any electronic devices to silent mode; I hope I have done the same, now that I have said that. I also remind hon. Members that, during sittings, tea and coffee are not allowed, just water. There has been no issue with us today, but there have been issues in the past.

Clause 1

Offence of wearing medals or insignia without entitlement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chair

- Hansard -

Copy Link

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out

“on the day after the day on which it receives Royal Assent”

and insert

“at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed”.

New clause 1—Offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive—

“(1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive, the person wears—

(a) an award specified in the Schedule, or

(b) something which has the appearance of being an award specified in the Schedule.

(2) In this Act “award” includes anything representing an award, including in particular—

(a) a miniature cross, medal or star;

(b) a ribbon;

(c) a bar;

(d) a rosette;

(e) an emblem.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine;

(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Schedule by—

(a) adding awards to it;

(b) removing awards from it;

(c) amending the description of awards specified in it.

(5) The regulations may add an award to the Schedule only if it is awarded in respect of—

(a) acts involving gallantry, or

(b) involvement in a campaign or operation entailing—

(i) the risk of danger to life from enemy action, and

(ii) a level of rigour significantly greater than might normally be expected in a non-operational environment.

(6) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(7) Regulations under this section may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”.

New schedule 1—Awards—

“Part 1

Gallantry awards

Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan, for what I think is the first time. I am grateful for the very constructive approach that hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken to my private Member’s Bill; that has shown the workings of the House of Commons at their best.

It may assist the Committee if I set out the purpose behind amendments 2 and 3, which is to leave out the existing clauses 1 and 2 so that they may be replaced by the new clause and schedule. On Second Reading, a number of hon. Members, including me, noted that the Bill was capable of improvement. It will be clear from the amendments tabled last Friday that parliamentary counsel certainly agreed with me: some fairly big changes are proposed.

As I said, the purpose of amendments 2 and 3 is to leave out the existing clauses 1 and 2, on the basis that a new clause and schedule are introduced to replace them. The Bill will therefore be narrower in scope, but will more effectively carry out its main intention, which is to end the practice of people wearing medals with intent to deceive. The existing clauses 1 and 2 should not stand part of the Bill.

The purpose of amendment 4 is to amend clause 3, so that the Act will come into force two months after Royal Assent. It is standard practice for an Act to come into force a minimum of two months after Royal Assent, unless there are exceptional circumstances. I suggest that clause 3 be amended to extend the period between Royal Assent and the coming into force of the Act to the more usual two months. The police, courts and lawyers need an opportunity and some time to evaluate the contents of any Act of Parliament that creates a criminal offence; amendment 4 will, I hope, facilitate just that.

New clause 1 is the main change to the Bill: it creates the guts of the Bill for consideration by the Committee. Its purpose is to replace the existing clauses 1 and 2, and it is designed to work with the schedule. The new clause contains all that is necessary to create the new offence. It sets out its scope, delineates the penalties for contravention and provides the basis on which the Secretary of State may amend the schedule where necessary from time to time.

I have prepared draft explanatory notes for the Bill, which are available should colleagues want to peruse them. The first change is to subsection (1). On Second Reading, there was some disquiet about the potential for the Bill to criminalise mere boastfulness. That was because the offence included representing oneself as being “entitled” to wear an award when that was not the case. I considered very carefully the comments made on Second Reading, as well as the recommendation of the Defence Committee in its report, and the new clause makes it an offence to wear an award or something that resembles it.

The awards covered by the Bill are separately listed in the schedule and are, in broad terms, military gallantry awards, three civilian gallantry awards and military campaign awards from just before the first world war to date. It seems sensible not only to cover those medals most widely in circulation, but to recognise that medals awarded before world war one do not seem to be used very frequently to deceive people, in my experience.

The key focus of the offence is the need for a person to have an intention to deceive by wearing the awards. The Committee will note that the proposed changes narrow the scope of the Bill. My intention has always been to target those people who undermine our serving personnel and veterans by wearing awards that they have not been given to try to deceive people. That action undermines the confidence that people have when seeing serving personnel and veterans proudly wearing their medals. The new clause enables the Bill to target those who falsely wear medals.

The new clause does not contain any specific offences and exemptions for various groups. It no longer includes the concept of a person being “entitled” to wear an award. Instead, it places the focus on whether the person wearing the award intends to deceive by doing so. In short, if there is no intent to deceive, no offence can be committed. An offence can be committed only when there is intent to deceive; it cannot be committed accidentally or unintentionally. The wording is critical, as it means that the wonderful custom of family members sporting medals in honour of loved ones is unaffected by the Bill.

For instance, the original Bill included a specific exemption for family members wearing awards in honour of their relatives. It also contained specific provisions exempting other groups, such as actors and those taking part in historical re-enactments. As the offence is drafted in the new clause, it is not necessary to set out lists of specific exemptions. The key question to be asked in any case is whether the person wearing the medals intends to deceive others by doing so. The context in which they are worn will be key in determining that. Family members and friends wearing medals in honour of another will not have the necessary intention to deceive others, so they will not be guilty of an offence.

The need to protect family members and friends from liability under the Bill has been a key concern from day one. I believe that the new clause achieves that protection. Anyone wearing medals awarded to someone else who says, for example, “I am wearing these medals in honour of my wife’s great-uncle Harry, who was at Dunkirk”, will not be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

On the other hand, a rogue family member might decide to wear a relative’s medals to further some deceptive scheme of their own. The existing clause may unintentionally have given such a person an unwarranted protection just because they could claim, “This is my grandfather’s medal.” I am certain that the Bill as redrafted will not in any way hinder the wonderful custom of people wearing medals or ribbons in honour of loved ones.

The medals covered by the Bill are now set out in a schedule, and they include all the military gallantry awards, both current and superseded, three civilian medals and all campaign medals awarded since the beginning of the first world war. The medals are specific so that there can be no doubt about which are covered. The Bill protects awards for valour. The new clause contains a much clearer definition of what those are for the purposes of the Bill. The awards covered are specific gallantry awards and campaign awards approved in respect of campaigns or operations that involve a danger to life from enemy action and a level of rigour that exceeds what might be expected in a non-operational environment.

The new clause makes it an offence to wear an item that has the appearance of being one of the awards specified in the schedule. That will ensure that those who wear replicas or copies of medals will be committing an offence if they intend to deceive by doing so. It will also ensure that the police do not have to forensically examine any medal worn with the intent to deceive to prove the offence. Having an article that simply appears to be one of the awards in the schedule is sufficient.

The process has been a fairly steep learning curve for me. I have learned an awful amount about the etiquette of wearing medals. I have learned some things that I never thought I would about the range of physical items that can represent a medal, depending on the occasion. Subsection (2) of the new clause expressly provides that the offence is committed if any of the items commonly worn to represent the award of an honour are worn with the intention to deceive others. It includes ribbons, clasps, stars, bars and miniatures, but the list as set out in the new clause is not exhaustive.

I move on to subsection (3). The new clause makes no change to the penalties that may be imposed on conviction, but it more clearly sets out the level of fines to be imposed in the different jurisdictions in our United Kingdom. As before, the offence will be able to be tried only in magistrates courts in England and Wales and their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In all jurisdictions, the fine is set at the standard level 5; however, the amount of such a fine differs between jurisdictions. In England and Wales, the fine will be unlimited, while in Scotland and Northern Ireland the maximum fine will be £5,000.

A person convicted of the offence may also be sentenced to a maximum of three months’ imprisonment. I do not envisage that a custodial sentence will be imposed for this offence in any but the very worst cases. However, the possibility of a custodial sentence—it will be an imprisonable offence—will enable courts to impose a community order or community payback where appropriate. The offence would be committed against society, so it is appropriate that courts have that discretion. Indeed, courts have imposed just such a sentence in the past when this offence existed previously.

Let me clarify the changes to subsection (4). The new clause allows the Secretary of State to amend the schedule when necessary by adding or removing awards and by amending the description of awards listed. The power is necessary to avoid the need for Parliament to amend the Act by primary legislation every time a new medal is approved, which might become onerous in the case of campaign medals. Unfortunately, we cannot exclude the possibility of future conflicts, so it makes sense to allow for awards to be added to the schedule in that way.

The power can also be used to amend the schedule by removing medals no longer considered to be in need of protection. We envisage that these would be primarily campaign medals relating to campaigns or wars outside living memory.

Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

This is a very comprehensive list and the procedures the hon. Gentleman is suggesting make sense. Can he clarify the situation regarding commemoratives? I know that there is a much wider debate around whether they are right or wrong. I know that many veterans would like to see commemorative medals issued for service in, for example, the British Army of the Rhine or the cold war, but they are not issued by the Government. Can the hon. Gentleman be clear about the scope of the Bill? Does it affect commemoratives at all?

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Commemorative medals do not come under the umbrella of the Bill: if the award is not for valour, it is not covered by this legislation. The hon. Gentleman would have to bring his own private Member’s Bill if he wanted to add the type of medals he speaks about. Campaign medals are covered by the legislation and there is a very set test that I will outline in a moment that any Secretary of State has to follow before adding any items to the schedule.

The list could have gone on ad infinitum: there are so many different types of awards, so many different commemorative-class medals, ribbons and so on that could have been added to the list. Part of my intention was to keep the scope of the Bill narrow, so that it would be well understood and therefore manageable as a piece of legislation to go through Parliament.

Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about the different kinds of award and medal that are available and covered in the Bill. Does he agree that it is unfortunate that there is not a national defence medal that could be granted to all service personnel?

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I know she feels very strongly about this issue; I believe that she led a Westminster Hall debate on the issue not long ago. The Bill is not about anything other than awards for valour, so that kind of medal is not included. That is not to say that we do not recognise and appreciate the courage of those individuals who have served, put on a uniform and been prepared to risk their lives for our country.

The Bill does not cover long-service awards and, again, that is not a failure to recognise the contribution those people put in. It is simply trying to ensure that, if someone pretends to have received an award for valour and are doing so with intent to deceive, they will be covered by this legislation. It again comes down to trying to keep the scope of the Bill manageable. If the hon. Lady wishes to pursue the issue she has mentioned, I will be happy to help in any way I can.

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mike Penning)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As the Minister at the Ministry of Defence responsible, I said to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire before the proceedings started that I am happy to facilitate a meeting in the Department. However, the issue is out of the scope of this Bill, as the Chair has already indicated. From my point of view, let us discuss it. I would be a recipient of such a medal, along with my colleagues, but I have yet to be convinced that that would be right.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Perhaps I could move on then.

Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The hon. Gentleman is taking a pragmatic approach. As a former Veterans Minister, I know that this could go on for pages and pages. Is he confident that the provisions cover the main area of medals? Most medals awarded by foreign Governments to members of our armed forces are not allowed to be worn but I think there are some exceptions whereby they are allowed to be worn, with the Queen’s permission. Are they included in these provisions?

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The list covers purely those awards sanctioned by Her Majesty and the Defence Council, as opposed to, for example, the Légion d’Honneur, which has been won by veterans from this country. Of course, if someone had legitimately been awarded the Légion d’Honneur and was wearing it, there is nothing wrong with that. They would be committing an offence only if they were wearing a medal or award that is in the schedule, with intent to deceive. If it were a foreign medal, it would not be covered by this schedule, which relates only to awards that have been given by Her Majesty, previous monarchs and the Defence Council.

Mr Jones

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I think it would if the Queen had given permission. I am trying to rack my brains to think of them. There are a couple, I think, that are allowed to be included. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is only the ones that the Defence Council or the Queen have authorised to wear? If it is a foreign medal that has been given the Queen’s permission, it would be in the scope of this.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

If it is a foreign medal, it would not be. Trying to keep the list down to a manageable level is difficult enough with British medals. To try to include all medals from around the world as well would make it unworkable. It covers civilian awards such as the George Medal, the George Cross and the Queen’s Gallantry Medal. Quite often those awards are given to military personnel in any event.

The schedule does not cover awards from around the world. It was very tempting, when drafting the Bill, to include knighthoods and OBEs. The list goes on, frankly, and one has to decide where to draw the line. The line I have decided to draw is on awards for valour that have been sanctioned by Her Majesty the Queen.

Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is making a good point but the hon. Member for North Durham also raised an interesting one. The Sultanates of Oman and Brunei, I suspect, are the areas that he is particularly thinking of. At various points, the Sultans have awarded medals. They are not normally awarded on exactly the same grounds as they would be in the United Kingdom. For example, teachers in the Sultanate of Oman have sometimes qualified if they were teaching the Sultan’s military personnel.

We must remember the comments of Queen Elizabeth I on foreign awards:

“My dogs shall wear no collars but mine own.”

However, in this circumstance, it makes sense to focus, as my hon. Friend does, on awards for valour issued by the Defence Council.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Yes, of course.

Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I understood that the Bill was intended to stop people parading in medals and awards to which they are not entitled. If the Bill covers only medals for valour, what is to stop the Walter Mitty characters simply continuing to do as they do, using long service or other medals, not medals for valour, in the hope that the public do not read the small print or understand the insignia and the ribbons attached to them? Surely, unless there is a blanket ban, it does not really address the problem.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

If somebody seeks to wear medals that are completely fictitious, that would not be covered by the Bill. If they wanted to wear Boer war medals, that would not be covered by the Bill. I come back to my original point—the Bill deals with a particular problem.

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of Walter Mitty characters tend to pretend that they have served in Afghanistan or in a recent conflict, such as the Falklands, and wear the medals that represent that. The Bill would stop the overwhelming majority of such instances. It will not cover every single example of someone being boastful and exaggerating their worthiness to others. It would be impossible to have a Bill to achieve that, without huge unintended consequences. The Bill ensures that the overwhelming majority of Walter Mitty-type characters—as the hon. Gentleman put it—are covered by legislation, the practice is stopped, and there is an end to the deep hurtfulness and offensiveness that they create, once and for all.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am sorry to press the hon. Gentleman further, but I have a point of information. I totally understand why he has chosen to draw the line where he has, but I can think of a number of common medals that one sees on display at the moment, including the Territorial Decoration and the Jubilee Medals. They are quite often worn by people and I am sure have been worn by some of those Walter Mitty characters. Will he explain why he did not choose to include those commonly worn medals?

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Because they are not awards for valour—that is it in a nutshell. These kinds of characters tend to wear a collection of medals; it is rare that just one medal is worn. The examples that we have had are of people who have worn a couple of dozen medals. It is absolutely ridiculous. I have not served in the armed forces, but anyone who has will immediately be able to recognise that it simply does not add up and therefore the person’s delusions are quite often picked up. It is rare that they would just wear one or two medals to claim their bravery.

Mr Jones

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

There is a common area that has been completely missed, which is NATO campaign medals. They are worn quite often, especially if we consider the 1980s, when we were not in the Afghanistan and Iraq phases and many servicemen would have got those medals.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

There was a discussion about the NATO Medal. It was felt that it did not come under the risk and rigour criteria, if I remember correctly.

There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State adding medals to the legislation at a later date. We have a Minister of State here. If there are omissions from the list—I do not believe that there are, but if there are—they can be added at a future date. There will be occasions when circumstances change and British forces are asked to serve in arenas that we are unaware of at the moment. Medals are likely to emanate from that. This is a moving beast and will have to modernise from time to time.

Kirsten Oswald

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments that there is scope for this to be reviewed in the future. He understands my sentiments about the prospect of a national defence medal, so it is positive to see that avenue. To take him back to the point about Walter Mitty characters and the majority of characters who behave in a certain way, which is the concern that led to the Bill being drafted, I do not know enough about that. Will he talk us through the detail of the evidence of the behaviours of people who are committing these kinds of offences, which I agree cause significant offence to those who are entitled to their medals?

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is very difficult to estimate exactly how many Walter Mitty-type characters exist at the moment because the practice is not a criminal offence and therefore no record is kept. We do know, though, from various organisations that seek out these individuals, that it is likely that the numbers are measured in hundreds —not thousands or dozens. In my local British Legion club in Greenhithe, of which I am president, we have had at least two instances in my time there of people wearing medals and claiming to have served when they had not. Since I introduced this Bill numerous people have contacted me, offended by having attended a Remembrance Day service and seeing people wearing medals that clearly could not have been awarded to them. I am not claiming that this is rampant, but it is a growing and significant problem, given the internet, where people can purchase medals whenever they want to, relatively cheaply, and therefore curry favour. All four countries in the United Kingdom have a very rich military history and we are rightly proud of that. Because we are proud of that, and hold people who have served in high esteem, unfortunately there are those who want to elevate themselves to that position without having taken the risk that others have done. It is right that, when we see somebody wearing medals, we can continue to have confidence that they are the real deal; that they have been awarded those medals and are worthy of the respect that comes with them. That is what is behind the Bill.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

One can see many videos on Youtube of people posing wearing medals, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that the most concerning examples are those where people are trying to get money, often deceitfully, for non-existent charities or otherwise. They are using the medals as a way of getting money from the public.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Of course, doing anything fraudulently to obtain money is a criminal offence, but at the moment it is not a criminal offence to try to curry favour, respect and elevation as a consequence of wearing medals when people are not entitled to do so.

Brendan O'Hara

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

To go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire about the numbers involved, while I accept the goodwill behind the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, I note from the Defence Committee’s report on it that the Royal British Legion said in its written evidence that

“only a handful of such instances”

of non-veterans applying fraudulently for help could be recalled and that

“there are no reliable statistics to reveal the true scale of the problem”.

Even the Royal Air Force Families Federation said:

“We have no evidence either way but instinctively we would say it is not widespread”.

There seems to be a consensus among the military charities that this is not a major problem. Are we in danger of creating more legislation where the current legislation on fraud would cover what this is designed to prevent?

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Fraud law already exists, so that is dealt with separately. Again, it is difficult to get a handle on exactly how many people are guilty of this misbehaviour—as it is at the moment, rather than being a criminal offence. However, I would take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Numerous military charities that are fully supportive of the Bill have contacted me. They say that, particularly around the time of Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day, numerous people have contacted them to say, “I’ve got this character at my local service and they are doing a massive disservice to the people who attend.” I am not saying that this is rampant or that there are thousands of people around the country, but there are certainly hundreds.

That is just one part—to tackle these Walter Mitty characters—but another, perhaps the most important part, of the Bill is about giving people confidence. It is a deterrent. It ensures that when we see somebody, we can have confidence that that individual is bona fide. That is one of the main reasons behind the Bill; it is a secondary purpose to catch those Walter Mitty characters and punish them through the law. I do not expect hundreds of arrests to flow from the Bill, but it is right to have it. Such legislation exists in most countries in the world, particularly in America, where the Stolen Valour Act protects people who have won the Purple Heart, for example. I understand that it works very well around the world and gives veterans the protection they deserve. It is high time that in this country, which has one of the richest military histories in the world, we protected our veterans in exactly the same way that we see in most other countries.

I shall move on to subsection (5)—back to the dryness of my speech. It contains clearly defined criteria that an award will have to meet to be added to the schedule. It will have to be a gallantry award, military or civilian, or a campaign medal awarded on the basis of risk and rigour. In the United Kingdom, a campaign medal will be approved to acknowledge a particular campaign or operation only if it meets the criteria of risk and rigour. Broadly speaking, the campaign or operation must have involved a risk of danger to life from enemy action, and it must have involved a level of rigour that is significantly greater than that experienced in more peaceful times. Those criteria are stringent and the bar is deliberately set high to ensure that when awards are made, they reflect the value of the sacrifice made by those who participated in the campaign.

Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure, Ms Ryan, to serve under your chairship for the first time. I congratulate—dare I call him my hon. Friend? —the Member for Dartford, and I agree wholeheartedly with his amendments. They tidy up and deal with some of the criticisms that were made on the Floor of the House when the Bill was first debated last year. I am delighted to place on record that Her Majesty’s official Opposition fully support the Bill, because we firmly believe that anyone impersonating a veteran by wearing medals they have not earned should face legal sanctions. The practice of impersonating veterans or serving soldiers causes real and serious offence to our forces community, as has been pointed out by all Members who have intervened today, and of course by the promoter of the Bill himself. It is right that we recognise this and punish these military imposters, in the same way as it is currently an offence to impersonate a service member by wearing a forces uniform.

The law as it currently stands does not go far enough, as we know. Military imposters can be prosecuted for fraud, as the hon. Member for Dartford has pointed out, but this requires them to have fraudulently obtained a benefit. The fact of wearing a medal that has not been earned is not currently an offence. As the Defence Committee said:

“The protections sought in the Bill are necessary to safeguard the integrity of the military honours system, to reflect the justifiably strong public condemnation of the deceitful use of military honours, and to ensure that legitimate recipients of these distinguished awards should not have to endure the intrusion of imposters”.

That backs up what the hon. Gentleman said about ensuring the integrity of the system. Such sanctions are common in other legal systems around the world, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and the lack of similar protection in the UK is exceptional, according to the Defence Committee.

Of course it is right that we allow relatives to honour fallen veterans by wearing medals and the hon. Member for Dartford has made adequate provision for that. Indeed, every Remembrance Sunday I wear my father’s medals, of course on the other breast. The Bill contains that important protection and we are very pleased to support it fully.

Kirsten Oswald

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Member for Dartford for all his work in bringing the Bill here today. I also thank the Clerks, who have been extremely patient with me, in the same way that the Ministry of Defence has clearly been very supportive of the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has done a significant amount of work to bring the Bill here today and that he has done that without the benefit of a third party campaign group or a charity, which I think is worth noting.

I had a large number of questions when I came in here today and to the hon. Gentleman’s credit he has answered them with no problem. That is incredibly helpful. A number remain, but it is interesting to see this process going through. It is a privilege to speak, on behalf of my party, for the armed forces and veterans. The spirit of the Bill is very much in tune with its views on supporting our armed forces and veterans communities and on ensuring that they appreciate that we are absolutely behind them and the work that they do. He and I have discussed that the Bill would not have been my main or first priority in terms of the armed forces and veterans activity, but I appreciate that he is bringing it here for all the right reasons.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that people should not wear medals that they are not entitled to wear. If somebody is seeking to deceive by using or wearing a medal, that is clearly unacceptable. I am less convinced by his concern about people lacking or losing confidence in our armed forces because of the people who deceive in that way. I believe it is a small number of people and I do not think that it has that effect. However, I think that the sentiment is well placed.

The hon. Gentleman spoke interestingly about people who wear medals and turn up at commemorations, perhaps those of family members, and that is important. We must not let that be caught by the Bill. In my little area, a number of people attend Remembrance Day wearing family medals. It is important to them to be able to do that. It is important to have clarity in ensuring that those people are not covered by the scope of the Bill. A number of people here will march with their own medals, but there are those of us who march alongside our local veterans. I have the privilege every year of marching alongside the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women and alongside Brigadier Monty Cowen. The respect that we would be showing to people, such as him, who have been through incredibly difficult situations is what has brought the hon. Gentleman here today.

That brings me on to the issue of the national defence medal. Having discussed that with Ms Ryan, I have agreed that I am not going to pursue that in any detailed way here because I understand that that is not within the scope of the Bill. I appreciate her considering the amendment. It was not selected on this occasion, but that consideration is very helpful. My concern, which flows from that, is that all our veterans show valour. I wonder whether we might be looking slightly through the wrong lens here because everybody who goes into our armed services is, by definition, showing valour.

It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman clarified a small number of points for me. He spoke about people accidentally and unintentionally deceiving. It would be interesting to hear a bit more about how that could happen; I am not entirely sure how it would happen. He spoke about the “offence against society”. If that is a turn of phrase he is using, that is fine. If it is something more, I do not understand it and it would be useful to have his clarification.

I would also like clarification on the extent to which this would apply in Scotland in particular. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the appropriate court in Scotland. It would be useful to know what that means exactly. Does the Bill require a legislative consent motion from the devolved Governments? Does it require legislation in Scotland, for instance? Is it compatible with the differences in law that exist in the constituent countries of the United Kingdom in its current form? It would be particularly helpful if those questions were answered. Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work thus far.

Mr Jones

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford on bringing forward this Bill? It clearly plugs a loophole. This was an offence until 2006. May I profess guilt and say, as a veteran of the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Act 2006—a massive piece of legislation—that this got missed? I have read the Ministry of Defence’s explanation for that. I do not quite accept it. I think it was just one of those things that got missed off. Members on both sides of the Committee on which I served would have supported these provisions being in that Act. The Bill therefore brings the law back to where it should be. People say, “Is it about numbers?” No, it is not about numbers—this is wrong. If people are wearing a medal that they are not entitled to, I do not care whether it is one or two a year, or one a year—it is wrong.

As a former Veterans Minister, I know from meeting the men and women of many campaigns, how proud they are of the hard work, dedication and personal sacrifice they have made in many cases to earn the right to wear those medals. It is completely unacceptable that anyone should try to wear medals and to impersonate the great courage and service of those men and women. It is a very important issue. As I say, the number is small, but I do not care—it is right to introduce these provisions.

The approach the hon. Gentleman has taken to listing the medals is correct. I have scars, as a former Veterans Minister, about medals. I am sure the Minister gets those now. It is not just the national campaign—there is a whole variety of things that people want medals or decorations awarded for. The only way to do it is the way the hon. Gentleman has done it—to be very prescriptive; although comprehensive, I think it covers that.

The caveat at the end allows the addition of medals. For example, I raised the issue of NATO. If that becomes a problem, I am sure those could be added. Perhaps that is the best way to deal with that. I also think his approach in allowing family members to wear medals is correct and common sense.

There is the growing issue of replica medals. I do not know how to get round that, even with the Bill, which covers the actual medals themselves. People will always try to get round that. I think that framing a law that outlaws them would be virtually impossible. The hon. Gentleman is making the best attempt to cover all the circumstances.

There is another common-sense aspect to the approach in the Bill—it is about the intent. I am sure that hon. Members are aware that there are some people with mental illness who claim to have served in the military. There are many people in our prisons who have never served but, for whatever reason, perhaps of mental health, claim to have served. In some of those cases, they are genuinely convinced they have served. However, they would not be caught by the Bill because it takes a common-sense approach in terms of intent.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman again on bringing forward the Bill. Let us hope that it closes the loophole in the law, which unfortunately I and other members of the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill in 2006 did not spot.

Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan; I assure colleagues that I intend to speak only briefly. I take this opportunity to commend the hon. Member for Dartford for bringing the Bill to the House and for the constructive and cross-party way in which he has done it.

I am mindful that there are other important matters taking place in the House today, and it would be very easy to be distracted by those. If we were, we would run the risk of missing this opportunity to do something important and something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham just said, could well have been done 10 or more years ago: protect the exclusivity of awards for valour.

I know from personal experience, as will a number of other hon. Members, that both the awarding and wearing of medals can be highly emotive issues. As a general rule, any debate that takes place in this House that in any way relates to medals is one that I tend to avoid. However, I also know that many people in our society rightly feel angered by those who deceive us into believing that they should be honoured through the false wearing of medals.

All of us here are united in holding in great esteem those men and women who serve so bravely in our armed forces—and, of course, the families who support them. The wearing of medals should be an opportunity for all of us as a society to share in that esteem. It gives those who wear them the opportunity to demonstrate pride in their own service or pride in the service of their loved ones. It also gives us, the public, the opportunity to express gratitude and respect. To bask falsely in that admiration and gratitude is to tarnish the medals and achievements of others.

Although there is seemingly no end—thankfully—to the appreciation that the British public show our veterans and their families, to raise even for a moment a doubt in the minds of the public as to the integrity and worthiness of entitled medal wearers is to take something from them that cannot subsequently be given back.

For those reasons, I am pleased to add my support to the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Dartford for bringing it forward and I hope all other Members will support it.

Brendan O'Hara

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford on getting the Bill this far. I also thank him for being so generous in this debate and clear and precise with his answers, taking time to explain fully the thinking behind this legislation.

I am concerned that the narrow definition of the “for valour” medals that it will be illegal to wear if unearned will do little to deter those we have been describing as the Walter Mitty characters who are determined to appear at cenotaphs and remembrance parades the length and breadth of the country, passing themselves off as something they clearly are not.

That brings me to a query about the blanket nature of the legislation. Is there going to be a sliding scale between those who are in many cases essentially harmless, rather sad fantasists who desperately crave attention and acceptance, and those who are using their fake medals for personal gain or to deceive for some kind of financial benefit? Are the two to be treated exactly the same? One suggests to me an issue of mental health; the other is a pretty serious criminal offence. How, if at all, will that be looked at within the scope of the Bill? As I said earlier, is there anything to distinguish between those two? Are the England and Wales Fraud Act 2006 and its equivalent in Scotland not sufficient to deal with the issue already? I know the hon. Gentleman touched on that point, but it would be worth looking at again.

Finally, why now? What has changed between 2015 and now? I understood that the Government’s clear position was that the United Kingdom did not require an equivalent of the USA Stolen Valour Act, which makes it a federal crime to claim fraudulently to be a recipient of certain military decorations. The Stolen Valour Act of 2013, as amended, was directed at those

“with intent to obtain money, property and other tangible benefits fraudulently”

and who hold themselves out to be something they are not. I absolutely agree with that, but does that deception apply to those with mental health challenges who seek nothing more than the admiration of his or her peer group? Will they be classed in exactly the same way?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his time and congratulate him on bringing the Bill this far. I would just like clarification on those issues.

Mike Penning

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan.

The Chair

- Hansard -

Copy Link

Thank you.

Mike Penning

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Many have said it, and we all mean it.

I should say at the outset how difficult it is to get a private Member’s Bill to this position. Myriad, untold amounts of legislation could have been brought forward by a Back Bencher, and it would have been very worthy; the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire mentioned that other things could have been brought forward. However, the chances of getting such legislation to this stage, with this amount of cross-House support, would be very remote. However, it happened the other day with the Homelessness Reduction Bill and it is happening again today.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for the pragmatic way in which he has worked with my officials and people across the House following Second Reading. On Second Reading, there were genuine concerns that loved ones, for instance, could be targeted by the Bill. I have been a member of the British Legion since I was 18 years of age—long before I was in this House. To be on parade on Remembrance Day and to see young people, sometimes really young people, wearing their grandfather’s medals, or in some cases, because we have been on operations so much in the past few years, their father’s or their mother’s medals—we must not forget that we lost ladies as well as men on ops—is one of the most moving things.

The hurt caused to loved ones if anyone, even one person anywhere in these great islands of ours, falsely claims to have done what their loved one did for their country and their family, will be deep. When we talk to families who know that someone is on parade falsely wearing a medal—even, in respect of my situation, the General Service Medal Northern Ireland—we see that it really hurts. We must never underestimate that. As the former Veterans Minister, the hon. Member for North Durham, said a moment ago, if we can stop even one such person, that will be extremely important.

The list of the valour medals is spot on, as others have mentioned. The 1977 Jubilee Medal was referred to. I was serving in 1977; I did not get it. I was not on the list. Not everybody got it. Everybody assumes that everybody got it.

Dan Jarvis

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Speak to the Minister.

Mike Penning

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It was a subtle hint.

There is one area that we will look at, given the powers in the Bill, when we get some time: the UN Medal. Ever more of our troops are in danger and at risk and fit the criteria. Quite rightly, they get the UN Medal, but it does not come under this. The hon. Member for Dartford is absolutely right: there is an unlimited number of medals and honours that we could look at, some of which do not cover a traditional UN role, such as the Cyprus situation, in a buffer zone. There are really different situations—not least the troops whom we recently sent to South Sudan. We are in that environment today, under the UN.

I want to draw my comments to a close and say congratulations: it is difficult to get to this position. Hon. Members have had private Member’s Bill after private Member’s Bill way up the list but they have not come to fruition, often because those hon. Members have not been pragmatic enough. Having such a narrowly focused Bill, which specifically targets people that hurt other people’s feelings and memories, is absolutely spot on. I congratulate my hon. Friend and hope we can move on swiftly with the voting.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I intend to be very brief as well.

First, I offer my wholehearted support for the Bill. If I had got lucky in the private Members’ ballot, I would have thought of introducing something similar, so when I heard that the hon. Member for Dartford had brought this Bill forward, I was delighted to add my name as one of its supporters. I praise his cross-party approach and generosity in answering the many reasonable questions. He has clearly had a difficult job in narrowing the Bill down, but he has found a happy balance that will make a big difference to the offence of wearing medals inappropriately on the part of those who simply do not deserve them or have not been awarded them.

When we read some of the citations, let alone the wider stories, particularly around some of the medals awarded for the highest valour, we understand how inappropriate such impersonation is and the offence caused to serving members or those who have been in receipt of such awards.

This weekend, I was standing outside the West House in Penarth, our town council headquarters; memorialised on the wall were two Penarth recipients of the Victoria Cross in world war one. Reading such citations, particularly when they are for one’s own constituents, past or present, is a humbling experience for us all.

As I mentioned earlier, I have seen the many regrettable characters who attempt to portray themselves inappropriately in this way. There are many examples one can look at online, on YouTube. People have rightly been challenged by actual serving members of the armed forces, and those who have actually been in receipt of these medals have rightly asked such people to explain themselves. Unfortunately, I think the practice is more widespread than perhaps we realised.

I am pleased to hear what has been said about the issue of intent and those who have mental illnesses. There was an example at Remembrance Day last year of an individual who is well known to the community and is not necessarily causing offence to anybody; there is acceptance that this individual literally thinks they were serving and had awards. There is a general sense in the community that we would not want to see someone like that criminalised. There are clearly others, though, who are doing it for wrong reasons, or even to get money or other things.

I shall briefly raise three issues. I have already mentioned commemoratives, something we might need to return to in the future. I can see how these can be used to attempt to deceive, but I also understand that there is a great deal of debate about the issue in the veterans community, particularly when it comes to people who feel they should have been awarded something, but never were.

Mike Penning

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It’s a minefield.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Indeed; I have spoken to people on both sides of the argument and it is a complex and emotive issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central said.

The second issue, which has certainly been of concern to a number of my constituents who served on the Arctic convoys in the second world war, was the non-ability to receive the Ushakov Medal that had been awarded by the Russian Government, despite their having been awarded by many other allies from the second world war. I am glad to say that that was eventually resolved and members were able to receive the Ushakov Medal. Indeed, a number of them now wear it proudly, particularly at our merchant navy and Royal Navy memorials in Cardiff and Penarth. I know a number of individuals who were in receipt of it. Given what has been said about foreign medals, I am glad that they will not come within the scope of the Bill. Although I would not want to see people attempting to deceive through the wearing of foreign awards, I would not want people unnecessarily criminalised for wearing things from foreign Governments to which they were duly entitled.

The last issue has been raised by a number of constituents, and one in particular. I hope that I might tempt the Minister to intervene on me. It is clearly not something that we are going to be able to address; I considered tabling an amendment but did not, given the tight scope that the hon. Member for Dartford was attempting for the Bill. It is the issue of impersonation: attempting to deceive by the wearing of uniform or the false use of rank, particularly on letterheads or business cards. I know of a number of examples locally where individuals have tried to achieve social standing, financial gain and other access that they would not otherwise have got, particularly through the abuse of post-nominals in relation to awards for valour.

Mr Jones

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I would include standing for elected office. I remember a case, when I was a Minister, of a Liberal Democrat who claimed to have a record in the military that did not stand up to a great deal of scrutiny.

The Chair

- Hansard -

Copy Link

We do not want to go beyond the scope of the Bill.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am going to bear the Chair’s comments in mind. Will the Minister perhaps briefly intervene on me?

Mike Penning

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation. Of course, such wearing of a uniform is illegal, but we do not want to criminalise guys who go to the army surplus store and then wear the clothing. However, it is something I am conscious of. The area that I think is more important is impersonating rank, such as retired major and so on, which one often sees on letterheads. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could find time to see me and I will make sure the officials are with us. That issue may not be within the scope of this Bill, but he might do really well in the next ballot and we could then assist him in the same way we have assisted my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thank the Minister for his generous reply and will certainly take him up on that offer. This issue is of concern to many people. As I said, I do not want to criminalise people with army surplus clothing and so on, but I have seen people fundraising in standard issue PCS—personal clothing system—uniform without medals on, clearly inappropriately, who were not serving members of the armed forces.

I offer my full support for the Bill and know that it will enjoy support across the country. It is very important and I again praise the hon. Member for Dartford for the way he has brought it forward. I hope we can take it to the next stage.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I shall briefly go through some of the points that have been raised. First, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire asked me whether the offence can be committed unintentionally. It cannot be committed unintentionally: there needs to be a specific intent to deceive. I used the word “society”, but that is purely a phrase. It is up to the courts to decide the appropriate sentence, but it often makes sense that one who affronts society pays something back to society. Consequently, the offence will be publishable by imprisonment.

Fines used to be set for levels 1 to 5 right across the United Kingdom, with level 5 being the maximum. That was changed fairly recently to an unlimited fine in England and Wales for most magistrates court cases. That is why there is a slight difference in the penalties in the Bill. The fine can be up to level 5 for Northern Ireland and Scotland, but for England and Wales it simply says “a fine”. An unlimited fine would therefore be available for the magistrates to impose.

I am afraid I cannot read my own handwriting on the last point I wanted to make. If hon. Members want to intervene on any point I have not covered, I will do my best.

Kirsten Oswald

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way; he has been incredibly generous with his time. I think his point written in unreadable handwriting might have said something about legislative consent motions or separate requirements for legislation.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

That is right. Matters involving the military are obviously not devolved matters, and the Bill therefore affects the whole of the United Kingdom. There does not need to be additional consultation. I understand that there is a debate in the Scottish Parliament tomorrow about justice, so that is an opportunity for MSPs to make contributions about this issue if they see fit.

The hon. Member for North Durham made an excellent speech, but to clarify one issue he raised, replicas will be covered if there is an intention to deceive when wearing them. If somebody has replicas of their own medals, that is perfectly fine; nobody is being deceived. The Bill will cover anything that resembles a medal or award that is covered by the new schedule. If a replica resembles one of those, that is sufficient if there is an intention to deceive. The reason for that is partly to save the police from having to examine forensically anything that someone is wearing.

I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central for his assistance and his constructive approach to the matter. He is absolutely right about the medal system being incredibly complex—it really is. Along with other hon. Members, he rightly mentioned that this is not a party political Bill in any way, shape or form. The Bill is as much a Labour party Bill as it is a Scottish National party Bill and a Conservative Bill—it is even a Liberal Democrat Bill. [Hon. Members: “Steady on!”] All right; it is not a party political Bill. It is a Bill that we have debated the merits of, and it is not something any political party would in any way take credit for.

The hon. Members for Argyll and Bute and for Cardiff South and Penarth rightly mentioned mental health issues. The offence in the Bill requires specific intent. If somebody is not capable of forming the necessary intent to commit the offence, they are not guilty of the offence. The Crown Prosecution Service has an additional safeguard—as I am sure does the procurator fiscal in Scotland—whereby a prosecution has to be in the public interest to be brought. I submit that it would not be in the public interest to bring a case in which someone clearly had such serious mental health problems as to be incapable of committing this offence. I hope I have allayed hon. Members’ fears on that.

There is scope to add additional medals, such as commemorative medals, to the new schedule, as we see fit. A colleague of mine said, in a rather tongue-in-cheek way, that a man flu medal should be added to the list. That is not going to happen.

The final question was why the Bill was brought before Parliament. I was pulled out in the ballot—that is why. This is the only opportunity I have ever had to bring in a Bill.

The Chair

- Hansard -

Copy Link

For the convenience of the Committee, I should explain before I put the Question on clause 1 that if a Member wishes to substitute new clause 1 for clauses 1 and 2, he or she should vote no to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill. We will come to the decision on whether to add new clause 1 and new schedule 1 to the Bill later.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1 accordingly disagreed to.

Clause 2 disagreed to.

Clause 3

Extent, commencement and short title

Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out

“on the day after the day on which it receives Royal Assent”

and insert

“at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed”.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive

“(1) A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive, the person wears—

(a) an award specified in the Schedule, or

(b) something which has the appearance of being an award specified in the Schedule.

(2) In this Act “award” includes anything representing an award, including in particular—

(a) a miniature cross, medal or star;

(b) a ribbon;

(c) a bar;

(d) a rosette;

(e) an emblem.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine;

(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the Schedule by—

(a) adding awards to it;

(b) removing awards from it;

(c) amending the description of awards specified in it.

(5) The regulations may add an award to the Schedule only if it is awarded in respect of—

(a) acts involving gallantry, or

(b) involvement in a campaign or operation entailing—

(i) the risk of danger to life from enemy action, and

(ii) a level of rigour significantly greater than might normally be expected in a non-operational environment.

(6) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument.

(7) Regulations under this section may include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Gareth Johnson.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

Awards

“Part 1

Gallantry awards

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Wearing an award in a public house—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house.”

New clause 3—Wearing an award in a place that is not public—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place.”

New clause 4—Wearing an award listed in the Schedule—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule.”

New clause 5—Person serving in the Armed forces for more than 2 years—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years.”

New clause 6—Person serving in the Armed forces diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder—

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

New clause 7—Family member of the person awarded the medal—

“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if—

(a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or

(b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—

(a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood,

(c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and

(d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.”

New clause 8—Report on number of convictions—

“The Government is required to place before each House of Parliament figures showing—

(a) the number of convictions and

(b) the sentences imposed

for the offence of wearing medals with intent to deceive each year following this Act coming into force on, or as near as possible, to the 12 month anniversary of that date.”

New clause 9—Expiry of the Act—

“(1) This Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order is made under this section.

(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 2, page 1, line 6, leave out “anything representing an award,”.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 6, leave out from second “award,” to end of the subsection.

Amendment 4, page 1, line 15, leave out

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or”.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “1 day”.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “7 days”.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “14 days”.

Amendment 12, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “21 days”.

Amendment 14, page 1, line 15, leave out “3 months” and insert “28 days”.

Amendment 16, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 18, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 16, after “fine” insert

“not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale”.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 17, leave out

“imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or”.

Amendment 7, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “1 day”.

Amendment 9, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “7 days”.

Amendment 11, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “14 days”.

Amendment 13, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “21 days”.

Amendment 15, page 1, line 18, leave out “3 months” and insert “28 days”.

Amendment 17, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “1”.

Amendment 19, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “2”.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “3”.

Amendment 23, page 1, line 18, leave out “5” and insert “4”.

Amendment 24, page 1, line 20, after “may” insert ” not”.

Amendment 25, page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 26, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (c).

Amendment 27, page 2, line 2, leave out subsection 5.

Amendment 28, page 2, line 6, leave out subparagraph (i).

Amendment 29, page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment 31, page 2, line 17, in clause 2, leave out “two” and insert “four”.

Amendment 32, page 2, line 17, leave out “two” and insert “six”.

Amendment 33, page 2, line 17, leave out “two months” and insert “one year”.

Amendment 34, page 2, line 17, leave out “two months” and insert “two years”.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As I said on Second Reading, I do not support the Bill. In fact, as I went through it with a view to amending it, what struck me was that, in many respects, I was trying to amend the unamendable. I cannot emphasise enough, however, how much I understand the sincere intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in introducing the Bill, the effort he has put into it and his efforts to find a compromise that suits everyone. I commend him for his sincerity and for his attempt to find a way forward with which everyone agrees. I just cannot agree with him on this occasion. Should the Bill proceed, I hope that my amendments will be accepted, as I believe they will save it from having some unintended consequences and reduce the chances of criminalising people who may be unintentionally caught by it as it stands.

The Bill is considerably different from the one that appeared on Second Reading. That is very much to my hon. Friend’s credit and shows how much effort he has made to find a workable solution. I am grateful to him for taking on board many of the points that I made in the Second Reading debate. However, I still feel that the Bill is deficient, so I will go through the amendments I have tabled. I hope that they may find favour.

New clause 1 would ensure that

“The offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive is triable only summarily.”

It implies that the offence must be dealt with in a magistrates court only. Some may think that the new clause is unnecessary, but it would mean that people had to think twice before amending the legislation to increase the sentence. That is the purpose of new clause 1: it is a safeguard in that respect. That was specifically mentioned by the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the Bill.

New clause 2 would ensure that

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house.”

The “intention to deceive” element of the offence could be committed in a variety of circumstances. Seeking to deceive for financial gain would already be covered by fraud legislation. This Bill is clearly supposed to include other types of deception. That could be the intention to deceive to gain respect or to impress a potential future partner. The new clause deals with people in a pub.

We all know that pubs are places where all kinds of rubbish are talked at times by people—not just in pubs, I hasten to add, but particularly in pubs. To think that someone could have a few too many, boast about something to which they have no right with a cheap replica medal bought off eBay or wherever and end up with a criminal conviction is rather over the top. The new clause would remove that possibility. When my hon. Friend conceived the Bill—again, I applaud his sincerity—it was about people who turn up at Remembrance Day parades and events such as that purporting to be someone they are not. Therefore, ensuring that the provision does not apply to people in a public house would help to get us back to the Bill’s original intention.

New clause 3 would ensure that

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place.”

Therefore, it would provide the defence of the offence taking place in private. It is important, given the Bill’s intention, to limit the offence to a public place. If someone gets a medal out and uses it to impress someone in their own home or in private property—a private club or somewhere like that—I do not see why that should be an offence. I cannot believe that that is what people think of when they think of people with criminal convictions. If someone wants to argue that some private places should be covered, I would ask, what about the unintended consequences? Is it not time that we stopped ignoring the foreseeable consequences of legislation? Someone who boasts to a woman he has met in a pub that he has a medal, which turns out not to be his, is a copy or is something that looks like an award, could find himself in court with a criminal record for the first time. Some people might not care about that—they might think, “Well, they had that coming”—but I do care. I think we have enough people committing serious offences that we do not deal with properly, and to create offences for those who are likely to have issues anyway, probably including mental health ones, to be committed in the privacy of their home strikes me as being rather over the top.

New clause 4 would insert:

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule.”

The defence would be that they are entitled to wear a medal named in the long list at the end of the schedule, but they just happen to be wearing the wrong one. If someone is allowed to wear one medal but wears a different one—not an additional one, but just a different one—even if it is a case of enhanced valour, why should they be criminalised if they were entitled to wear a medal on the list? I do not think that that should be a criminal offence. It might not happen often, but it is certainly not impossible, and, assuming it did happen, would we really want to criminalise that person? Would it not be better to make it clear in the Bill that that person would not be criminalised?

New clause 5 would insert:

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years.”

As with the amendment on existing entitlement, I do not think people really had it in mind to criminalise former or current members of our armed forces for this offence. I return to the point about an intent to deceive to gain respect—added respect, I guess. Do we really want to go down that route? We should not want to risk criminalising someone who has risked their life serving our country just because they might have tried to embellish their record in some way. This amendment would remove that possibility for those who have served for two years or more in the armed forces.

New clause 6 would insert:

“A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”

In a similar vein to the amendments about serving or former members of the armed forces, this amendment would protect, in many respects, many of the most vulnerable people—those with diagnosed PTSD. Those who have been seriously affected by frontline service and who have this condition as a result could be more susceptible than those without to fall foul of this proposed legislation, and I would not want to see that person either intentionally or unintentionally caught out. I would rather make it abundantly clear in the Bill that they could not be caught by the legislation.

New clause 7 would insert:

“(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if—

(a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or

(b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)—

(a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood,

(b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood,

(c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and

(d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father.”

Again, this amendment deals with family members of those given an award. My concern is that they might well have a medal, especially if the person in question has sadly died. Their chances of becoming susceptible to the provisions of the Bill must therefore be greater than for the average person, by definition.

Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend think that this new clause would deal adequately with the points raised by the Royal Air Force Families Federation in its written evidence to the Defence Committee?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. I will come to that in a moment.

I know that it is not the intention of the Bill to create the outcome I have just described, but it remains a possibility. As my hon. Friend says, the Royal Air Force Families Federation said in its written evidence to the Defence Committee:

“Yes, there should most certainly be safeguards for family members. The key question is who ‘qualifies’! The definition we use is ‘anyone who is a blood relation’ but this may not be ?appropriate in these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions. Interestingly, the MoD is struggling with its own definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any definition for these circumstances with the MoD definition if and when they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it’s probably a matter for common sense.”

I know that the issue is dealt with differently now, but I believe that it is worth having a definition of “family” in the Bill, in its new sense.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Defence Committee’s report states:

“A number of our witnesses emphasised the importance of ensuring that relatives of deceased or incapacitated medal recipients can continue to wear their relations’ medals at commemoration events without risk of prosecution.”

The report also states:

“Mr Johnson indicated that family members would be doubly protected as they would lack the necessary intention to deceive, as well as being able to avail themselves of a specific defence that will be placed in the Bill.”

I agree that a specific defence should be included in the Bill, and that is the reason for this new clause. How we define “family” is an issue. Crucially, the report goes on:

“The term ‘family member’ must however be defined in terms of the proximity of the relations that it is seeking to include in the defence. It is not a legal term of art with a single definition. Acts of Parliament which use the term commonly carry a definition of ‘family’ within them to be used for the purposes of that Act. Mr Johnson suggested in oral evidence that he was minded that this defence should be quite narrow, so that for example a nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the defence by claiming that they were his uncle’s awards.”

It also states:

“The inclusion of a defence to ensure that family members representing deceased or incapacitated relations who are recipients of medals is vital, but ‘family member’ must be properly defined to ensure that there is no room for uncertainty or abuse. We suggest that the Bill include a definition of ‘family member’ in order to provide certainty over who will be covered by this category.”

That is what I am trying to do in the new clause. I have taken it as read that spouses should be included, as should blood relatives and step relatives. I have also included provision for those who are adopted into families, which slightly extends the basic definition of “family” according to section 113 of the Housing Act 1985. In reality, there will be only one actual award, so we can assume that the closest family member might have it, or that it would be shared by close family members, in which case it is unlikely that a distant relative would use the award.

The new clause would also prevent the situation from arising in which, for example, a son pinches his father’s medal for a bit of fun and goes around bragging that it is his. However unlikely or unbelievable that claim might be, the act of intending to deceive does not take account of the perception of others. They might well laugh out loud at the absurdity of a 17-year-old wearing a medal when everyone knows he has never been in the armed forces, but as the Bill stands that does not prevent the offence from being committed. I hope that the new clause will help with that.

Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend has obviously done a lot of work on defining what he means by a family member for these purposes. Did I hear him correctly when he said that this was based on housing legislation?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I took the basic definition of a family member from section 113 of the Housing Act 1985, although I am conscious that my definition is wider. The 1985 Act’s definition was a starting point, but I would like to think that I have brought it a bit more up to date.

Mr Chope

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

In that case, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his innovative drafting.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

From someone as esteemed as my hon. Friend, that is high praise indeed.

New clause 8 would require the Government on, or as near as possible to, the 12-month anniversary of the Bill’s enactment to place before each House of Parliament figures showing the number of convictions, and the sentences handed down, for the offence of wearing medals with the intent to deceive. That would ensure that we monitor the effect of the legislation, both in terms of the number of convictions and the sentences handed down for those convictions. As we have no figures now, we do not know the extent of the problem. When I asked my local police force and the Metropolitan police, they could not tell me of any incidents relating to the existing offences in relation to military uniforms, and so on.

The Defence Committee heard evidence from various sources, and no one could quantify the problem, although people gave anecdotal examples. The problem seems to be very small, from what I can glean from the evidence that the Committee heard, so the idea that we need a law seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If the Bill came into effect, new clause 8 would give us a clearer idea of the extent of the problem and the sentences being handed down.

Mr Chope

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Under the Fraud Act 2006 it is still an offence to make, or to attempt to make, a financial gain by fraudulently wearing uniforms or medals. Does my hon. Friend have any information on how many times that provision has been applied in law?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being well enough prepared to answer his question, but I do not have that information. I do not even know whether anyone has that information. Someone might have it, but I do not.

New clause 9 states:

“(1) This Act shall expire at the end of 2022 unless an order is made under this section.

(2) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument; but no order shall be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Basically, this is a sunset clause. If it became apparent that the Bill was not doing as intended, new clause 9 would be a nice way for the Bill to fall without any fanfare. Of course if the Bill were enacted and doing particularly well, someone would be able to rehash it.

Mr Nuttall

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend agree that new clause 9 strengthens the case for accepting new clause 8? New clause 8 would make things far easier for those wanting to assess the success, or otherwise, of the Bill.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. New clauses 8 and 9, in many respects, go together. If we had a sunset clause, we would need to be able to measure the success, or otherwise, of the legislation, and the reporting set out in new clause 8 would help with that task. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, in many respects, new clauses 8 and 9, though not reliant on each other, flow nicely from each other.

I appreciate that that was a quick canter around the course of new clauses.

Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I listened closely to the hon. Gentleman as he set out his new clauses, but I wonder whether he actually read the Official Report of the Public Bill Committee, where the Bill enjoyed strong support from Members on both sides of the Committee, including from former members of the armed forces. Many of the issues he raises have already been addressed, particularly those on mental health and family members wearing medals. Why is he continuing to frustrate this process?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

If the points had already been covered, my amendments and new clauses would not have been selected. They were selected because those points are not covered by the Bill. That is the whole point. I cannot table an amendment to do something that is already in the Bill, because it would not be an amendment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not grasped that basic point during his time in the House.

Let me now deal with my amendments. Amendment 1 seeks to remove clause 1(b). The Bill refers to

“something which has the appearance of being an award”.

It is one thing to have an offence relating to people wearing actual medals, but it is quite another to extend this to something with the “appearance” of a medal. The whole Bill is rather over the top, but this takes it one stage further. If someone can be guilty of a criminal offence by wearing, in an attempt to deceive, something that looks like something else but is not that thing, I worry where we are going with our legislation.

James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if someone goes around wearing a fake Victoria Cross, they should not be covered by this legislation, and that they should be covered by it only if they have a genuine one that they have stolen?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The Bill does not say, “If someone goes around with a fake Victoria Cross”; it refers to

“something which has the appearance of being an award”.

That is all-encompassing, and somebody would be committing a criminal offence by wearing something that somebody else perhaps thinks has the appearance of something. Who decides whether it had the appearance of something else? Presumably a court would have to decide whether it had such an appearance. Does the distance from which it was seen make a difference? If someone sees something from a long distance it may well have the appearance of a certain thing, but up close it may be obvious that it is not that thing. From what distance are we judging that something “has the appearance of”? We are introducing the law of the land here, and this is airy-fairy at best. It is certainly not precise enough to be tested in a court of law. Who is to decide this? Does someone go along and say, “It gave me the appearance of being an award”? Is that good enough? I really do not know where we are with that.

Mr Chope

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The policy background to the Bill was set out in the explanatory notes, which state:

“Since 2009 it has not been an offence for an individual to wear medals or decorations that they were never awarded.”

It does not seem as though the law before 2009 covered the wearing of false medals. I cannot understand—I wonder whether my hon. Friend can—why we are seeking to extend the law beyond even what applied prior to 2009.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill goes over the top in making these things a criminal offence, potentially with a custodial sentence attached. That is bad enough in terms of going over the top, but when we are dealing with things that have “the appearance of being an award”, we are going way beyond what anybody has ever envisaged before, and we are going too far.

My amendment 3 proposes to delete the words “including in particular” from clause 2. That seems a strange phrase to have in legislation, as it is general and does not strike me as being a particularly helpful legal phrase. How do we define “including in particular”? Does that mean something else is included that we do not know about? I do not really know what definition we have in mind for “including in particular”. How on earth is anyone to know whether they are committing an offence if they are wearing something which is not mentioned “in particular”? It could be interpreted that they did break the law without having any idea that they were doing so because the provision just includes things “in particular”, but not exclusively those things. That is a strange phrase.

We can take amendments 4 and 6 to 15 together, as they all deal with the fact of this being an imprisonable offence. They would remove the custodial sentence for the offence in England and Wales.

As I have said, I do not think we should have this legislation. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Defence Committee called its report on the Bill “Exposing Walter Mitty: The Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill”, but it would not expose Walter Mitty; it would criminalise him and potentially send him to prison for three months. If it was just about exposing Walter Mitty, probably none of us would have a problem with the Bill, but that is not what it would do.

Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I have deliberately not intervened on my hon. Friend until now because it is quite clear that he is trying to talk the Bill out, and it is absolutely clear that his amendments are wrecking amendments that are not based on logic. Does he accept that it is a great shame that there is support on both sides of the House—from Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Government, the Scottish National party—yet he seems hellbent on preventing it from becoming law?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that attitude. I have tabled some amendments that have been found to be in order by the Speaker. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is questioning the Speaker’s selection of amendments, but they are all in order, which is why they have been selected for debate. If they were not, they would not have been selected. I am going rather rapidly through each of them, which is what we are supposed to do on Report—we table amendments and go through them to explain the purpose behind them, and then people can explain why they disagree. That takes as long as it takes. I do not think I have been dwelling unnecessarily on any particular amendment, so I am sorry that my hon. Friend takes that view. I do not set the timings for debates; if the debate could last longer, I would be happy for it to do so, but I do not set the rules. I am going to go through the amendments and explain why I have tabled them. I am sorry that he does not like people doing that with legislation in the House of Commons, but that is what the House is for.

James Cartlidge

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

On a point of principle, does my hon. Friend think that people who deface war cemeteries should be subject to criminal sanction?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As it happens, yes I do, but I think we are straying from the point. I do not want to test your patience by going off on a tangent, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am trying to stick to my amendments. As it happens, I agree with my hon. Friend, but unfortunately that is not what the Bill is about, and it certainly is not what my amendments are about.

The amendments would remove the custodial sentence for the offence in England and Wales. It is bizarre: as a member of the Justice Committee, I regularly listen to Justice questions, and I hear everyone—apart from me and a few other notable exceptions—seemingly agreeing that fewer people should be sent to prison. In fact, the Labour party recently proposed that we should let half the people out of prison—not too long ago, the shadow Attorney General in the Lords recommended that the prison population should be halved, although the Commons Front-Bench team distanced themselves from that suggestion. How on earth can we be desperately trying to get people out of prison who have been convicted of burglary, robbery, arson and all these things—

Mr Nuttall

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

And domestic violence.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Indeed. People are desperate to get those people out of prison as quickly as possible, but at the same time they are supporting a Bill that would send somebody to prison for this offence. You literally could not make it up! How could anybody put those two things together? They think there are too many people in prison and that we should be letting them out, but that the people covered by the Bill should be sent to prison. How on earth can anyone make that argument?

Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman takes prison and custodial sentences seriously. Will he therefore try to make a bit more progress so that we can discuss some of the other Bills—for example, mine, which would increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from the current paltry six months to five years?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

As it happens, I very much agree with the hon. Lady’s Bill, but it is seventh on the list, so she was a bit optimistic ever to have thought we would reach it. I cannot remember the last time we got to debate the seventh Bill on a Friday. She well knows that her Bill was never going to be reached for debate. I absolutely agree with her Bill, though, and she will get my wholehearted support if she persuades the Government to take up her proposal. Nevertheless, unfortunately the luck of the draw meant that we were never going to reach it today.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Order. We are starting to stray quite a lot now. We are now not only not talking about the amendment, but not talking about the Bill. I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman could restrict his comments to the amendments that he has tabled.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I am trying to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I keep getting distracted by Members wanting to raise all sorts of other matters. I will stick to my amendments, as I was trying to do in the first place.

Amendment 4 would remove the chance of anyone being sent to prison for such an act. Other countries have different positions, as was confirmed by the House of Commons Library before Second Reading. A range of offences is covered, and there is a distinction between wearing medals, wearing medals with an intent to deceive and wearing medals with a view to a financial gain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) said, fraud legislation already provides protection in this country when it comes to wearing an Army uniform, so we do have other legislation that covers this area, when other countries have no such legislation.

My amendments give a range of options: I have gone from no custodial sentence to custodial sentences of one day, seven days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days, all of which are naturally better than three months. I prefer no custodial sentence at all, but I have tabled all those different amendments to give the House some kind of choice if it felt a different option was more appropriate.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very sad that, come this Remembrance Sunday, any individual can parade in front of widows, veterans, families and loved ones wearing medals that they have not won themselves—they may not have even served—with the intent to deceive and to curry favour? The reason why they will be able to do so is that he has filibustered this Bill.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I thought that my hon. Friend was going to make a sensible point, rather than bandying about more accusations. I am trying to improve his Bill. The fact is that, by his own admission, he brought forward a Bill that was a bit of a dog’s breakfast, because he changed it radically in Committee. If he had had his way, his Bill would have gone through on the nod; no one would have said anything and it would have gone through in its original form, which he accepts was a dog’s dinner of a Bill; it is now half a dog’s dinner. I accept that he made some improvements in Committee, but just because he is on a tight timescale is no basis on which to pass legislation in this House. It cannot be appropriate to say, “Well, I know that it is not a very good Bill, that there are deficiencies in it and that there are lots of concerns with it, but, I tell you what, we are on a bit of a tight timescale so we will forget about all that, just nod it through and to hell with the consequences.” Are we saying that, if someone gets sent to prison and gets a criminal record when no one in this House ever intended that they should get a criminal record, then so be it—hard cheese? That might be the attitude that my hon. Friend takes, but it is not one that I take. We must take these provisions seriously.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

rose—

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has not yet made any sensible contributions. He seems to talk a load of old nonsense, so I will press on with the whole point of my amendments, which is to try to turn this Bill into something worth while. We still have other days on which to consider other private Members’ Bills in this Session. I hope that we can conclude this if time allows.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

rose—

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr Chope

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

rose—

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr Chope

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

It is disappointing that anyone should wish to try to use emotional blackmail against my hon. Friend and what he is proposing. In his last intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) referred to people who were wearing medals that they had not been awarded. He did not deal with the issue of them wearing things that had the appearance of being an award. I cannot understand why some of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) are not acceptable to the Bill’s promoter.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps if the Bill had been drawn as narrowly as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is now trying to draw it, it may well have been acceptable to all concerned. Unfortunately, he did not do so, and decided to go way over the top to include all sorts of people who were never envisaged to be included originally. That is why we must try to sort out some of these issues.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

No, I will not. I am going to crack on.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

You’re scared.

Philip Davies

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The idea that I am scared of the hon. Gentleman is bizarre, particularly given that he did not even understand what an amendment was in his first intervention. He has a lot of learning to do.

I have dealt with the custodial sentence part of the Bill. Now, I come to the part on fines. I am trying to reduce the level of fines because they are disproportionate. With the way the Bill is drafted, it seems that somebody could be given an unlimited fine by the courts for this offence. Again, I cannot honestly see how an unlimited fine is appropriate for committing this offence, but that is what it would be in England and Wales following the changes to fines a few years ago. It would be rather different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with a maximum of £5,000, which is still too high. Amendments 16 to 23 are about reducing the level of fine from unlimited to something more manageable. I have suggested a range of options. The lowest I have gone down to is £200, which is a level one fine in the courts, and I have gone up to a level four fine, which is £2,500. At least that sets a limit because an unlimited fine seems rather over the top.

Clause 1(4) provides that the Secretary of State may change the schedule of medals at any point. Amendment 24 would mean that the Secretary of State may not change the schedule of medals. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford introduced the Bill, he said that the challenge in drafting it was knowing where to stop. As I have said before, he may know where he wants to stop but, as with many things, where the legislation stops and where other people might want to stop are the most important. We should not encourage legislation giving the Secretary of State unlimited power to change the schedule willy-nilly. It obviously has the potential to apply to many more medals and other awards for non-armed forces personnel—and, in many cases, why not? But we should not be giving the Secretary of State that power. Amendments 25 to 27 are consequential amendments to that.

Clause 1(5)(b)(ii) states:

“The regulations may add an award to the Schedule only if it is awarded in respect of…a level of rigour significantly greater than might normally be expected in a non-operational environment.”

If the right to include medals in the future remains, it should only apply to those involving danger to life from enemy action, not

“a level of rigour significantly greater than might normally be expected in a non-operational environment.”

I am not sure who would be the ultimate judge of or who would determine the phrase

“greater than might normally be expected”.

Amendment 28 would deal with that issue.

Amendment 29 would delete the wide-ranging provisions regulations. Why do we need to hand over all these powers to make regulations that are in the Bill? Surely these things should be on the face of the Bill. Amendments 31 to 34 would delay the Act coming into force by two months, four months, 10 months or a year and 10 months respectively.

I have been through my amendments as quickly as I could. They would all make the Bill stronger and deal with some of the potential unintended consequences that were not envisaged when the Bill was conceived. I hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford would have taken them in the spirit in which they were intended. I could have gone on at greater length on every single one of those amendments, but I went through them all as quickly as I could. I hope they are helpful because I worry that if we are not careful, we will end up criminalising not the people who my hon. Friend wants to criminalise, but people who we never had any intention at all of criminalising. That is all I seek to avoid in this legislation, and that is a duty that we should take very seriously.

Giving someone a criminal offence is a serious matter; it is not something that should be taken lightly—it can have devastating consequences for people—and the same is true of sending people to prison. Yes, of course we want to expose Walter Mitty, but do we really want to criminalise and imprison Walter Mitty? That is where I draw the line with this legislation. If we think we are sending too many burglars and robbers to prison, surely the solution cannot be to send these people to prison, too.

Gareth Johnson

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

The main purpose behind the Bill is to protect veterans. It is intended to ensure that when anybody sees someone wearing medals proudly at a remembrance service or in any other sphere, they can have confidence that that individual is the legitimate article. That has always been my intention.

I find it grotesque in the extreme that certain individuals—we have had numerous examples of them—can parade in front of others and cause deep upset, hurt and ridicule to those who have actually served and those who have lost loved ones. It is grotesque to see that bravery undermined by those who do not have the courage to put their own neck on the block for our country.

It is because of that that I put forward the Bill. Legislation has worked very successfully in many countries around the world, and it worked successfully in the United Kingdom; in fact, legislation was originally introduced by Winston Churchill after the first world war. He said that when anybody sees a person wearing medals, that should radiate an opportunity to say, “There is a man in whom we can all have confidence and pride.” That is exactly the motivation behind my Bill.

I leave it at that. There is very much more that I could say, but I hope that we can make it at least to Third Reading.

Stephen Doughty

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I just want to add my voice in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has gone about it on a very cross-party basis. It is something we all support. It was gone through at great length in Committee, when many of the aspects that have been raised today were dealt with. Fundamentally, what I cannot understand is why, if the Bill is supported by decorated veterans who have put their lives on the line for this country, and indeed by Members of this House who have put their lives on the line for this country, it should not go forward.

Mr Chope

- Hansard -

Copy Link

- - Excerpts

I want to speak briefly to some of the amendments. It is sad that there is a falling-out among people on the detail of the Bill. I do not think anybody is against making it an offence for an individual to wear medals or decorations that were never awarded to them. The problem is that the way in which the Bill has been drafted goes much wider, and is in danger of having a whole lot of unintended consequences.

If the law prior to 2009 was as simple and straightforward as I have said, why do we have to make it so much more complicated in reintroducing one of its provisions? I am sure everybody thinks it is despicable for anybody to wear medals or decorations to which they are not entitled, and we condemn that behaviour without equivocation, but that is a very different proposition from bringing in a Bill with a whole lot of other technical measures designed to widen the offence far beyond what it was originally.

I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who is promoting the Bill, has not been able to reach an accommodation with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the spirit of consensus. If we do not finish the debate on this group of amendments today, it may still be possible for an accommodation to be reached before the Bill comes back to be considered further. I still hope that that will be so, because we all feel very strongly—certainly I do—that, as the promoter of the Bill says, we must protect our veterans and ensure that there is confidence that people wearing medals on parade on Remembrance Day have in fact been duly awarded those medals. In my constituency, where we have some of the finest remembrance parades anywhere in the country, I do not think there has ever been an incident where somebody who was not entitled to a medal was wearing one.

We have to think about the proportionality of the issue when working out how we are going to address it, particularly if we are to do so through the criminal law going beyond what is already contained in the Fraud Act 2006. I suspect that the provisions that were previously in place on the wearing of medals or decorations that were not awarded were repealed in 2009 because it was thought that the offence was covered by the Fraud Act. Under that Act, it is an offence to make, or attempt to make, a financial gain by fraudulently wearing uniforms or medals or by pretending to be, or to have been, in the armed forces, with a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. It is a very serious offence, and so it should be. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is trying, in a sense, to replicate part of that, and using emotional arguments in support of it, while not drawing the public’s attention to the fact that these are already serious offences subject to a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. So why do we need this Bill? In particular, why do we need a Bill that goes unnecessarily wide in its sanctions and its interpretation of what would be the criminal behaviour?

That is why the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley are well worth considering. Of all his amendments, I cannot understand why anybody would be against amendment 1, because it would mean that clause 1 would read,

“A person commits an offence if, with intent to deceive, the person wears…an award specified in the Schedule”,

and would no longer include a reference to

“something which has the appearance of being an award specified in the Schedule.”

I cannot see why my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford is not prepared to accept that amendment. I hope that given a bit more time for reflection, he may be willing so to do.

Some of the other amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley have a lot to commend them. It is sensible that the offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive should be triable summarily, bearing in mind that under the Fraud Act, as I said, there is a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, and no summary trial, for much more serious offences. We do not want people to be criminalised for what is, in effect, frivolous conduct on their part. That is why the suggestion in new clause 3 that this should apply only to wearing awards in a public place is very sensible. My hon. Friend referred to what goes on in public houses, but I am not so sure that I am necessarily persuaded on that point. Nor am I sure that he is necessarily very knowledgeable about what goes on in public houses, because he is teetotal. I might therefore be able to give him the excuse of not having fully comprehended that matter.

New clause 5 is well worth considering, as is the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder. One issue the whole debate raises is how we deal with private Members’ Bills in Committee, because if they are completely changed in Committee—