Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many members of the UK Armed Forces who served as members of the British Commanders’-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany during its years of operation between 1946 and 1990 are still alive; and how many of those individuals received either a commendation, gallantry award or state honour as a result of their service on BRIXMIS.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
The requested information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 13 April (HL6933), what assessment they have made of the decision by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2022 to overrule the Cabinet Office Advisory Military Sub Committee's decision not to award medallic recognition to UK Nuclear Test Veterans.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) adheres to the same principles and rules for defining risk and rigour as set out in the independent Military Medals Review (2012). As per paragraph 12 of the review ‘the idea is that campaign medals should only be awarded where deployed personnel have been exposed to a significant degree of risk to life and limb, and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties, whether deployed or in the home base’. There will always be a subjective element of judgement involved when determining what constitutes appropriate risk and rigour, on a case by case basis[1].
The AMSC’s recommendation on the case for retrospective medallic recognition for all those who participated in the British Nuclear Test Programme 1952 - 1991 was not to award a military service medal. This followed the AMSC’s assessment of the evidence provided against the longstanding framework for military medallic recognition. The HD Committee reviewed the conclusions reached by the AMSC and was in agreement that this programme does not meet the criteria of risk and rigour required for a military service medal.
However, despite the decision not to award a military medal, and after considering inputs from other stakeholders, the HD Committee felt that there was a case for alternative recognition outside the remit of AMSC. The service given by the nuclear test veterans - both military and civilian - was significant in providing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the Cold War.
The HD Committee agreed that an official commemorative medal, which recognised both military and civilian contributors to the nuclear tests, would be most appropriate. This commemorative medal was approved by His Majesty The King.
[1] The full report can be found on GOV.UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61398/Medals-Interim-Report-July-12.pdf
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Cabinet Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 13 April (HL6933), what are the official definitions of 'risk' and 'rigour' as used by the Cabinet Office’s Advisory Military Sub Committee.
Answered by Baroness Neville-Rolfe - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) adheres to the same principles and rules for defining risk and rigour as set out in the independent Military Medals Review (2012). As per paragraph 12 of the review ‘the idea is that campaign medals should only be awarded where deployed personnel have been exposed to a significant degree of risk to life and limb, and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties, whether deployed or in the home base’. There will always be a subjective element of judgement involved when determining what constitutes appropriate risk and rigour, on a case by case basis[1].
The AMSC’s recommendation on the case for retrospective medallic recognition for all those who participated in the British Nuclear Test Programme 1952 - 1991 was not to award a military service medal. This followed the AMSC’s assessment of the evidence provided against the longstanding framework for military medallic recognition. The HD Committee reviewed the conclusions reached by the AMSC and was in agreement that this programme does not meet the criteria of risk and rigour required for a military service medal.
However, despite the decision not to award a military medal, and after considering inputs from other stakeholders, the HD Committee felt that there was a case for alternative recognition outside the remit of AMSC. The service given by the nuclear test veterans - both military and civilian - was significant in providing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the Cold War.
The HD Committee agreed that an official commemorative medal, which recognised both military and civilian contributors to the nuclear tests, would be most appropriate. This commemorative medal was approved by His Majesty The King.
[1] The full report can be found on GOV.UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61398/Medals-Interim-Report-July-12.pdf
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what recent assessment they have made of the Overseas Territories White Paper, published in 2012; and what plans they have to review it.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
This Government remains committed to upholding our constitutional responsibilities towards the Overseas Territories. While the commitments in the 2012 White Paper remain relevant, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is leading UK Government Departments in the development of a new Overseas Territories Strategy.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government for what reasons they decided to institute the Bomber Command Clasp.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Following Sir John Holmes' independent Medal Review in 2012, the Bomber Command Clasp to the 1939-45 Star was introduced for aircrew who served in Bomber Command. Sir John concluded that Bomber Command had been treated inconsistently with those who served in the Battle of Britain, and his recommendation of the award of a clasp to Bomber Command air crew brought them into line with Fighter Command veterans, who were awarded a Battle of Britain clasp to the 1939-45 Star.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government for what reasons they decided to institute the Arctic Convoy Star.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Following Sir John Holmes' independent Medal Review in 2012, the Arctic Star was introduced for veterans of the Arctic Convoys to Russia from 1942-1944. Sir John concluded that a separate Star for the Arctic was warranted on the basis that this comprised a distinct theatre of war in its own right, and his recommendation of the award of a bespoke campaign medal brought Arctic convoy veterans into line with awards for other distinct campaigns, such as the Africa and Italy Stars.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to reconsider the decision not to award a clasp to the General Service Medal for service in BRIXMIS.
Answered by Baroness Goldie
Cases regarding historic medallic recognition are a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider.
In 2020, the AMSC considered the issue of awarding a clasp to the General Service Medal for service on the British Commander-in-Chief's Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany (BRIXMIS), and the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was that BRIXMIS did not meet the criteria for medallic recognition. This recommendation was accepted by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. Any review of this issue would be for the AMSC to consider in the first instance.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park on 28 March (HL6679), whether they will (1) break down Governors' reserved powers in each of the Overseas Territories, and (2) identify which government department is responsible for supporting the Governors in exercising each of these powers.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The Inhabited Territories have varying powers and responsibilities devolved to them which are set out in their constitutions. In most Overseas Territories the Governor retains responsibility for external affairs, defence, and internal security. Governors work closely with the elected leaders of the Territories to discharge reserved powers. Each UK government Department has responsibility for supporting the Territories within their areas of competence, including supporting the Governors in exercising reserve powers.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government why British Citizens who are subject to taxation by HM Revenue & Customs and are living in a British Overseas Territory are not eligible for an uplift in their state pension.
Answered by Viscount Younger of Leckie - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
There is no connection between State Pension uprating and taxation.
An individual’s UK State Pension is based on the number of qualifying years on their National Insurance record.
The Government has a clear position, which has remained a consistent policy of successive Governments for around 70 years. UK State Pensions are payable worldwide and are uprated abroad where we have a legal requirement to do so; for example in the European Economic Area, or countries where we have a reciprocal social security agreement that allows for State Pension uprating which include the British Overseas Territories of Gibraltar and Bermuda. We have no plans to change this policy.
Asked by: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what contingency plans they have in place to exercise their reserve powers in overseas territories.
Answered by Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
The UK maintains reserved powers to carry out its obligations under international law and in line with our constitutional relationship. While the UK maintains the responsibilities of the sovereign power, the Overseas Territories are largely internally self-governing. HM Government has plans in place to support the Overseas Territories in a range of scenarios where assistance may be required - such as in providing relief following a natural disaster - and keeps these under review, including in consultation with the Territories as appropriate.