National Defence Medal

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Rob Wilson

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Wilson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is true that we have a long service and good conduct medal, which was introduced as far back as 1830. It rewards other ranks who have completed 15 years of regular service, but not officers—I think it started at 21 years, and over time has come down to recognise those levels of service.

I will directly address the hon. Lady’s concerns later in my comments, but first I want to go back to something I have already referred to. Medals are one way, but not the only way, of addressing the concerns that some veterans have. Another method is memorials. Memorials are lasting public reminders and are places of pilgrimage for veterans and their families, the latest example of which is the memorial to Bomber Command, which was opened on 28 June 2012 by the Queen. There was a huge campaign for a memorial of that type. We also have the world war two memorial, the National Memorial Arboretum near Tamworth, which contains a number of other memorials, so we should not treat this issue in isolation. There are other ways of recognising the massive contribution that the military and their families have made to this country over many centuries.

Let me also say, however, that there is no simple way of doing that. It is impossible to satisfy all who have served their country. It is no easy task to set the limits or where the line falls for who receives a medal and who does not. There will also be disappointment on the borders of such decisions. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said that Churchill addressed the matter directly on the Floor of the House back in 1944, and she was good enough to put on the record part of what he said. I would like, however, to add the first part of what he said:

“The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time a distinction is something which everybody does not possess. If all have it it is of less value. There must, therefore, be heartburnings and disappointments on the border line.”—[Official Report, 22 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 872.]

Those words ring as true today as they did then, and in many ways the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire has today encapsulated the anguish involved in trying to make decisions that are fair to everyone. There will never be a perfect solution regarding the distinction between those who deserve medallic recognition and those who do not.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about those who deserve, yet the litany of those whom many would argue are deserving—from nuclear testing and Northern Ireland to suffering through front-line service in the cold war—should not be dictated by a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons in 1944, but by the lived experience of personnel who have served their country and the Crown with distinction, based on how we perceive our community today, not in 1944.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wilson]

Of course there is a clear difference between what happened in the second world war and what happens today, but Churchill’s comments summarised the issues that needed to be carefully weighed up when making the decision. There is a strong lobby in the military for not making the changes, as well as the one we are getting from veterans about the national defence medal. The Government’s job is to try to make decisions about where the line falls in a fair and honourable way, and that is not easy. We will upset one group of people whichever decision we come to.

Although the Ministry of Defence instituted the armed forces veterans lapel badge in 2014 as a way of identifying all those who had done military service, it has never been the tradition here in Britain to consider service in the armed forces as the sole justification for a medal. It was right, therefore, that in 2012 the Prime Minister gave medallic recognition its appropriate attention, by commissioning Sir John Holmes, a retired senior diplomat, to review the awarding of military medals. I can assure hon. Members that great thought has already been given to all the points raised this morning. Sir John’s review team received more than 200 submissions and spoke to more than 50 people, including representatives of various veterans’ groups. Sir John independently reviewed a number of cases as possible candidates for changed medallic recognition, one of which involved Arctic convoy personnel and led to the Arctic convoy medal being given.

The national defence medal was worthy, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire pointed out, of full consideration in the 2012 review. Its supporters seek recognition for all those who have served, irrespective of where they were called upon to do so. The review estimated the cost of the medal at £475 million, and although it went far beyond the narrow consideration of cost, there would be implications for other activities and choices if the Ministry of Defence had to take that burden.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

The Minister talks about the veterans badge. I am sure it must be clear—it has been mentioned in this very hall before—that the badge is not officially sanctioned and is therefore not a medal.

[Mr Wilson]

No, but as I made clear earlier, there are different ways of recognising the sacrifice that people have made for their country. Although the badge is not a medal, it is a recognition of service.

British campaign medals are not awarded as a record of service as in some other countries, but as a result of particularly difficult circumstances of service life—risk and rigour, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said. Although some Commonwealth countries have their own equivalent of the national defence medal, namely Australia and New Zealand, the review felt that that did not present a strong enough case for us to do so. Sir John’s proposals were considered by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, and the Committee could not see a strong reason for introducing such a medal at this time. Sir John published his final report in the summer of 2014.

The Government have taken unprecedented action to support our military, investing in areas from housing to social and medical care, and we will continue to do that. Unlike what happened under previous Governments, in recent years we have seen major investment in mental health, veterans’ accommodation and veterans’ hearing. We have seen multimillion pound investments in supporting our veterans, something done under no previous Government. We value all our military as brave heroes who keep, and have kept, our country safe, but following the most complete and far-reaching review of military medals for a generation, Sir John Holmes recommended not to introduce a national defence medal. That was no easy task, and I repeat what Churchill said: that there will be

“heartburnings and disappointments on the border line.”

Sir John’s review was published less than two years ago and, given that the circumstances remain exactly the same, we do not feel there is significant value in revisiting the matter. That position is not in any way intended to disparage those who have served their country. As I said at the outset, the Government have the highest regard for all those, past and present, who have served in the armed forces, and we will continue to do all that we can to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Martin Docherty-Hughes and Rob Wilson

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wilson]

The hon. Lady makes her case strongly, and it is absolutely right that she should do so here in the UK Parliament. I hope that she will also make her case strongly to the devolved Administration, which many people in Northern Ireland wanted, and got as a result of the actions of subsequent Governments.

New clause 4 would fundamentally change the division of responsibilities between the new fundraising regulator and the Charity Commission. If we were to propose that the commission hold public hearings on matters of charitable fundraising, this would effectively amount to a form of statutory regulation. The commission does not believe that it currently has the resources effectively to exercise the power to hold hearings on fundraising, as suggested in the new clause. It can, in theory, already hold hearings in relation to statutory inquiries under section 46 of the Charities Act 2011, but it does not do so because it would not be an effective means of undertaking its casework. Unlike with other powers in the Bill, the commission does not ask for this ability.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex may have intended in new clause 4 to offer to witnesses giving evidence to the Charity Commission in public hearings on charity fundraising the protection of not having their evidence used against them in other proceedings, rather than legal professional privilege. Legal professional privilege protects the lawyer-client relationship and is not what I think he is looking to achieve. However, the proposed hearings would be proceedings undertaken by the commission, not proceedings in Parliament, so parliamentary privilege would not be appropriate, either. The reserve power to regulate fundraising in section 64A of the Charities Act 1992 is a power to make secondary legislation that is necessary or desirable or in connection with regulating charity fundraising. If the commission were to assume statutory responsibility for the regulation of fundraising and this included holding public hearings, we would need to consider, at that point, what protection for witnesses would fall within the scope of the power.

My hon. Friend’s new clause 5 would prematurely task the commission with becoming the primary regulator for fundraising activities. The Government have provided for this already, but through the stronger reserve powers we introduced in Committee. We would also risk undermining public confidence, if self-regulation were to fail while under the oversight of the commission, particularly if the solution to that failure was statutory regulation by the commission. We would also need to do a lot more detailed thinking about whether, and if so how, witnesses could or should be protected by an equivalent to parliamentary privilege, which is what I think he might have been seeking with the new clause.

However, I completely agree with the finding of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs that

“It would be a sad and inexcusable failure of charities to govern their own behaviour, should statutory regulation became necessary.”

Perhaps I can reassure hon. Members that, under the reserve powers in the Bill, it would be possible for the Charity Commission to be given statutory responsibility for the regulation of fundraising, but to deliver that through a third party such as the fundraising regulator. New section 64C(2) of the Charities Act 1992, as introduced by clause 14, already specifically enables that.

[Martin John Docherty]

I am sure the Minister recognises the comments that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made in relation to Northern Ireland, which I also raised during the general debate in relation to fundraising. This legislation should not impact on the right of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on fundraising for charities. Will the Minister reiterate that here on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Wilson]

The representatives for Scotland were at the fundraising summit recently. This is a devolved matter, and it is up to them what rules they set for Scotland. They do not have to follow; this is an England and Wales Bill, which does not affect Scotland. It is therefore up to the Scottish regulator how they wish to proceed.

I maintain that it is important to keep a clear division between statutory and self-regulatory powers to ensure better regulation of fundraising. The best way to achieve that is to support the new fundraising regulator and, if it should fail, make a decisive and clear move to statutory regulation. Should self-regulation fail, the Government will not hesitate to intervene, which could include tasking the Charity Commission with the regulation of fundraising. However, we think it is too soon to commit the Charity Commission to an enhanced statutory role in fundraising, so I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex will understand why I do not support his new clauses 4 and 5.

Let me turn finally to Government amendments 6 and 7. It would not be fair to ask the taxpayer to carry the cost of fundraising regulation if it is the result of a failure by charities to protect the public from their own poor practices. Government amendments 6 and 7 would therefore enable the fundraising regulator or the Charity Commission to charge fees to those it regulates for that purpose. Many of the charities signed up to and paying for the old system of self-regulation were those that followed best practice, and there was a problem of free riders. To guard against that risk, the Etherington review suggested that any charity with fundraising expenditure beyond a certain level should be subject to a levy, requiring the large and medium-sized fundraising charities to pay for regulation.

Should the Government need to compel charities to register with the charity fundraising regulator, it is important that the fundraising regulator is able to levy fees for registration. That is exactly what amendment 6 would enable. Government amendment 7 deals with fees, should the reserve power be exercised for the Charity Commission to regulate fundraising. It would ensure that regulations could provide for the Charity Commission to charge fees across the range of bodies that it would regulate as the fundraising regulator.

I hope my explanations suffice to convince hon. Members that these amendments are an important part of the backstop to self-regulation and will help to ensure the effective regulation of fundraising in future, but I would of course be happy to provide more detailed responses. The main point is that I hope that these amendments are not needed and that charities will support the new, tougher self-regulatory system being established under the leadership of my noble Friend Lord Grade of Yarmouth. I commend these Government amendments to the House.