The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this important debate to this place today. It is really important that we shine a light on this issue. I have the greatest respect for the sustained and passionate advocacy in support of a posthumous Victoria Cross for Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne. I would also like to fully associate myself with the powerful tribute the hon. Member has paid, as have many in the House today, to Lieutenant Colonel Mayne, who was without doubt one of the greatest heroes of the second world war. His legacy lives on in the spirit of the Special Air Service today, and his courage and accomplishments were rightly celebrated for our generation by the portrayal—slightly dramatised, perhaps—in the recent BBC drama “SAS: Rogue Heroes”.
It is particularly pertinent that Lieutenant Colonel Mayne was recognised for his bravery at the time. He is one of the very few recipients of the rare third bar to the Distinguished Service Order—I only have one; he had three—in recognition of his actions as commander of the 1st SAS Regiment during Operation Howard in April 1945. It should be remembered that this made him one of the Army’s most highly decorated officers of that time. While it is possible to give gallantry awards posthumously, it is a key tenet of the British honours and awards system that they are not granted retrospectively. This ensures that awards are timely and clearly linked to specific actions or activities, and in particular that they are awarded within the context of the time.
As I have mentioned many times, specifically when talking about Northern Ireland and various inquests and inquiries, it is the responsibility of those investigations to understand the context of Northern Ireland at the height of the troubles. It is also up to us, sitting in this warm place on these wonderful Benches, to understand the context in which the senior generals made those decisions around gallantry medals. For gallantry awards, as well as for civilian and military honours, the guiding principle is that they will not be considered more than five years after the incident in question.
It is worth recalling that all significant battles and operations that took place in the second world war were discussed in great detail in the context of medal recognition at the end of the war. It is worth noting that, out of all the years of war, it was only in 1945 that more Victoria Crosses were awarded posthumously than to those living. After years of war, many had seen conflict, courage and commitment to service, and while it is not necessarily fact, the bar—no pun intended—for VCs was statistically higher at the end of the war. It is worth noting that it was recommended in June 1946 that no further recommendations for gallantry awards should be considered after 1950.
From what we know, from the paperwork that exists about Lieutenant Colonel Mayne’s recommendation for a Victoria Cross, there is lots of speculation that appropriate processes were not followed or that an administrative error took place. The evidence we have suggests that Lieutenant Colonel Mayne’s citation passed through the correct chain of command and was properly considered by a succession of senior officers, all of whom had a lot of combat experience in leadership and in the field, and were experienced in the consideration of medallic recognition and gallantry awards after many years of hard fighting during the second world war.
I thought it might be worthwhile bringing forward some of that correspondence. Certain correspondence—held by the Canadian National Archives—from the Deputy Military Secretary to his counterpart in the first Canadian Army reveals some doubt about the VC in the discussion between members of the VC committee. It states that the VC committee considered it not quite clearly up to VC standard, and that it was not a single-handed act of heroism—that goes to the point about “single” or “signal”. In the letter, the Deputy Military Secretary also suggests the award of the third bar to the DSO. It cannot be known for certain whether that is the reason why the VC was amended to DSO in third bar form, but it is likely.
It is clear that, at some point in the process, it was considered more appropriate for Lieutenant Colonel Mayne to be awarded a third bar to his DSO, which is itself an exceptionally high honour. That decision was signed off by Field Marshal Montgomery, who had considerable combat experience throughout the whole of the conflict. We also know that it was not uncommon at the time for the recommended level of award to be changed as the citation went through the consideration process.
Today, the process remains relatively similar. I sat on many such honours and awards committees in my time in the military. Such committees, at unit, brigade and division levels, will rank awards against the context from their own particular perspectives. A unit may have 20 to deal with, a brigade 60 and a division 100. We do not necessarily know the totality of the picture at the time Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne’s citation was considered at each level. There may have been stiff competition across the military, particularly in the Army.
I fully respect all those who disagree with the decision made in relation to Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne. However, I believe it credible to conclude that he was a war hero of the highest order while also concluding that, in some cases, it is not appropriate for officers, officials or Ministers working today, some 80 years later, to overrule the decisions made by senior officers at the time, who were steeped in wartime experience and had a contemporary appreciation of the brave actions of Lieutenant Colonel Mayne and, importantly, his peers.
Fantastic points have been made in this important debate. Winston Churchill casts a shadow over those who perhaps did not get a medal. For everybody who did get one, there are probably 100, if not 1,000, who did not get one but definitely deserved to. Interestingly, the Australian precedent was mentioned twice, including by the hon. Member for Strangford. However, Australia’s separate honours system does not have any impact on UK policy. Australia not only bestowed one VC retrospectively for Vietnam, but, as was rightly mentioned, a second retrospective VC to Ordinary Seaman Edward Sheean, who was killed in 1942. That speaks to the VC having no boundaries across services or domains.
The remarks about the Falkland Islands were news to me. I am sure that Paddy Mayne enjoyed the isolation and camaraderie of a small team wandering around those pretty barren but amazing places. The Bomber Command medal highlights how divisive the medals and honours system can be. I am sure that those with military service can remember multiple conversations about who got awards and who did not.
As we talk about honouring those who served in the second world war, it is worth noting that many world war two veterans were up on the main screens of Piccadilly Circus today for thousands to see, honouring their service during that war.
Combat can bring the best and worst out of us. As I have said several times in the House, courage is a decision, not a reaction. It was clear to me that Lieutenant Colonel Mayne made multiple decisions that were deeply courageous rather than just reactions or habit—indeed, they probably became habit because he made them so often.
To conclude, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the opportunity he has given us all today to mark and lionise the incredible bravery, leadership and spirit demonstrated by Lieutenant Colonel Mayne some 80 years ago. Robert Blair Mayne was simply one of the greatest from our greatest generation —a man of audacity, ingenuity and fearsome courageousness, whose raids behind enemy lines and courage in rescuing injured comrades under fire is the stuff of military legend; a man whose spirit lives on in the “Who dares wins” motto of the SAS. The proud history of the SAS marks it out as one of the most battle-hardened and professional organisations of its time, and the very tip of the spear. Paddy Mayne is not only a hero within his regiment but a national hero, and he reminds me of the saying, “In times of peace, we must protect the mavericks.”
It is recognised that clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, or errors arising from any accidental slip or omission in language, can explicitly be fixed—and there is no time limit for doing so—as long as the intent of the original decision holds. As a Member of Parliament who has a mention in dispatches, a Military Cross and a DSO, I will take note of the new evidence that has been highlighted, its context, and the exceptional circumstances of this debate, and I will ask the honours and awards committee to review the evidence and find a decision. Once the decision is found by that independent body, it will be finalised. That will provide an answer, once and for all, on how Paddy Mayne’s service is recognised.
There was lots of mention today of looking at the evidence with fresh eyes in the context, and having a cool, calculated review of the historical facts. The honours and awards committee will do that, and we will present that evidence in the House. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for our debate. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne is a man whose spirit and legend will remain recognised in the annals of the mother of Parliaments in perpetuity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Jim Shannon to wind up the debate.