Blair Mayne: Posthumous Victoria Cross
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Like everybody in the Chamber, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on the final day before Easter. We have really enjoyed listening to the stories he shared as well as those shared by many others across the Chamber. Although I have never wanted to be a commando, I have many of them as constituents who I call friends, and there are many hon. and gallant Members across the House who are also my friends. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I will refer to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission during my speech.
I thought that I would start my remarks by mentioning the one Victoria Cross that I had a direct interaction with—albeit a posthumous one—while I worked for the war graves commission. In 2020, an Australian ordinary seaman—the great thing about the Victoria Cross is that it knows no record of rank; it is open to everybody—was awarded that posthumous VC by the late Queen. What was lovely about it was that when the naval memorial was undergoing a renovation a year later, the initials VC were added after the name. To be able to watch the lettering being created and soldered into place was particularly moving. That is another example of a posthumous award that has been given.
What was striking about the comments made by the hon. Members for Strangford, for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) was the repetition of the word “leadership”. Anybody in the Chamber who is like me would have been thinking, “Gosh, this man was a brilliant example of some of the things that we need to show as politicians.” I felt quite inspired listening to the things that Paddy Mayne did. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, he was a leader of men, he was born for that time, he dominated the scene and none of the enemy remained. We do not want to be too political, but perhaps those are some great mantras for us as we head into the local elections. He defeated and destroyed the enemy, indeed. However, we are here to talk about him.
I particularly enjoyed the more modern references to screenwriting and to our journalistic colleagues from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), as well as the link to the Falkland Islands made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). It is particularly important to understand what Paddy Mayne did after he left the SAS. We also heard reference to Corporal John Harper VC and that reminder of Winston Churchill’s words—and indeed the King’s words—from my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp).
May I take this opportunity to place on the record my and His Majesty’s official Opposition’s unwavering support for our special forces as they exist today? They continue to play a vital role for our country. While we will always respect the requirement for operational secrecy, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House sleep soundly knowing that we have such a highly trained and brave set of soldiers protecting the nation.
It is a real honour to speak in the debate, representing as I do a constituency that is home not just to many veterans but to many serving personnel, some of whom I know take part in the most daring and dangerous missions. The life story of Robert Blair Mayne, or Paddy Mayne, is, as we have heard, by all accounts exciting, brave and just a little controversial. He operated in some of the most unforgiving locations in the world—for example, north Africa and the Normandy landings—highlighting the vital work of the new elite commando force, the Special Air Service, that came into being during the second world war, of which Blair Paddy Mayne was such an important member.
It is in no doubt that Lieutenant Colonel Paddy Mayne served gallantly and with distinction. That is something that his military record clearly highlights, having received his Distinguished Service Order and three bars—even if one of those is the whole point of the debate—as well as Officer of the Legion of Honour from France and the Croix de Guerre from Belgium. However, evidence may now exist to suggest that that third DSO bar should indeed have been a VC all along. I know how important securing the appropriate level of honour for Paddy Mayne and others is to many today: those who are still alive and served at that time and those who fight on their behalf. Indeed, I have spent hours with one of my constituents, Ivor Foster, who believes deeply that his service as part of Bomber Command should be recognised with a distinct medal rather than with a clasp on the 1939-45 star. Even though I do not entirely agree with him, to this day he will not apply for the clasp, such is his desire to be recognised for his work. In contrast, it seems that reopening Paddy Mayne’s case may indeed be in order.
That specific case aside, our overarching position as a party is that we continue to support the independent medallic recognition process. It is an independent honours and awards committee’s job to decide the nature of gallantry awards; in the case of the Victoria Cross, it rightly remains in the gift of the sovereign. Equally, I remain reluctant about the process becoming politicised or there being a precedent towards either overlooking history or second-guessing it. Hon. Members will be unsurprised that, having worked for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, I am particularly interested in the historical facts that we need to ensure that we follow.
Having spent six years working for the commission across the south-west, I want to touch on one story that I think is helpful to what we are discussing this afternoon. Anyone familiar with the iconic CWGC headstones may be aware that many have a small inscription at the bottom—always worth a look if hon. Members are ever in a cemetery. It is known as the personal inscription. Unfortunately, I did not think to write any examples down in my speech, but there is a brilliant website where they can be found. The inscriptions were instituted as a way for families to personalise a headstone. Interestingly, they came about after much debate in this place about the uniformity of the headstones decided on at the end of the first world war and the lack of choice for families in how their loved one was to be commemorated. That is definitely a story for another day, but I recommend a deep dive into Hansard if hon. Members are at all interested.
As the work of the commission has continued over the decades, in some cases headstones have had to be replaced due to wear and tear. With that often comes contact with the descendants of the casualty, who by definition generally did not know the person and often did not know their relatives either. The commission has therefore set in place a policy for what to do when modern-day relatives wish to add a personal inscription to a replacement headstone. Essentially, they are not allowed to add one if there was none or change what was put there at the point of the original installation. The decision was reached that there was a reason why the family at the time chose not to inscribe or, indeed, chose the form of words that have been there for decades, and because the commission does not have records of why an inscription was added or not, adding or changing it, in the commission’s belief, would alter the integrity of the commemoration.
I share that story as I believe it has some bearing on how posthumous gallantry awards are considered. It is my view that something that significant must reflect historical fact. Television shows such as “SAS: Rogue Heroes”, as we have heard much about this afternoon, and indeed the latest must-see “Adolescence”—albeit on a very different topic—do so much to bring untold stories to the fore and get the country talking about issues that have previously not been discussed. Even though such stories can promote debate, the policy and decisions made around the issues they raise must be evidence-based and consistent and must not set an unhelpful precedent. However, in this case, it seems that compelling new evidence is coming to light that prompts a rethink.
At its core, this debate is about an individual soldier—a Northern Irish soldier from Newtownards who stepped up when his nation needed him. I mention his birthplace because I am sure it will not go unnoticed by those in the Chamber that while we stand here today celebrating the heroic actions of one SAS veteran, many veterans of that service are currently living in fear of vexatious legal action.
Most recently, the Clonoe verdict has shone a spotlight on our Northern Ireland veterans again, and I take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks to the Minister for Veterans and People for his support for a judicial review of the Clonoe inquest. Protecting our veterans is something that I hope carries unanimous support and I know the Minister is a passionate advocate for veterans’ affairs. I hope that his experience and judgment are already being sought by his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office; perhaps he may advise them to reconsider their plans to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
As already mentioned, this debate also provides another opportunity to discuss our country’s record on veterans’ affairs. The previous Conservative Government set a new standard for supporting veterans with the creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, a Veterans Minister around the Cabinet table, the introduction of veteran ID cards and Op COURAGE to support mental health services for veterans, no doubt many of whom would have been the colleagues of Paddy Mayne had that service existed back then.
Our backing of those who stand up and serve is a matter of public record, and I welcome Labour’s commitment to much of that work. However, before I conclude, I want to highlight just one issue relating to these second world war veterans that the Government might like to give some attention to. As we approach the 80th anniversaries of VE day and VJ day, it is vital that we keep in mind the fewer than 70,000 veterans of world war two who survived, unlike some of the colleagues of Paddy Mayne, and who are still alive. As we know, these men and women are likely to be fast approaching, or indeed to have reached, the incredible age of 100.
That brings me back to my constituent, Ivor Foster. Just a few weeks ago, I visited Ivor at his care home as he remains exercised about the cost of his social care. Having lived to the ripe old age of 99 years and eight months, he is spending £5,000 a month to live in a local care home. There are a range of reasons for that, but I believe that ahead of 8 May, Ivor’s case highlights that we are fortunate enough to be living in the midst of men and women who, as in the case of Ivor, not only lived through the war but took part in active combat, fortunately survived and then contributed to society afterwards. I gently ask the Minister, in a slightly cheeky way, what consideration has been given to how we will acknowledge and show our gratitude to those fewer than 70,000 individuals who are still alive, as we mark the anniversary of the liberation that they and Paddy Mayne fought for.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, given both my constituency links to our commando forces as the home of Royal Marines 42 Commando and my previous career with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I am a passionate advocate for veterans’ affairs, so it has been an honour to stand at this Dispatch Box and debate such an important topic. Cases such as this rightly cause a debate, and I am pleased that we have been able to have this conversation today, not least because it has given us another opportunity to express on the record the commitment and gratitude that we share across this House for the brave men and women who serve and have served our country in the armed forces.
We owe it to all serving personnel and veterans to ensure that gallantry medals and awards at all levels are presented where the evidence is irrefutable, to ensure that their intrinsic value is maintained. It seems that the story of Paddy Mayne may do just that, and I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
Neither HMS Albion nor HMS Bulwark were due to go to sea ahead of their out-of-service dates in 2033 and 2034. The Royal Navy is exploring options to sell both HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark in a Government-to-Government sale. Several potential customers have shown interest, but no final decisions have been made.
Rebecca Smith
Given that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are reportedly being sold to another navy for a figure that could well undervalue previous spends on refits and maintenance, how does the Minister justify the economic impact of their sale on Plymouth and Devonport dockyard, let alone the reduction in amphibious capability in the Navy, when the promised multi-role support ships are at least half a decade away from service?
Maria Eagle
I do not recognise any of the figures that have been bandied around in the newspapers; it would not be accurate to take them as anything other than speculation. The disposal shows that we are delivering for defence by divesting ourselves of old capabilities to make way for the future, as the First Sea Lord Admiral Ben Key put it. Those ships were effectively mothballed by the previous Government, so I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members on how to deal with these matters.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
On this first day after the recess, I thank all armed forces personnel who worked over Christmas, including the nearly 10,000 personnel deployed overseas, and the crew of HMS Somerset, who were recalled on Christmas day to shadow Russian vessels around our shores. I also congratulate the many exceptional servicemen and women and veterans recognised in the new year’s honours list for their outstanding contributions, including the Minister for Veterans and People. My new year’s message to everyone working across defence is that this Government will continue delivering for defence throughout 2025, making the UK secure at home and strong abroad, stepping up support for Ukraine, boosting the UK defence industry, strengthening ties with allies and improving service life for armed forces personnel and their families.
Rebecca Smith
We have long-standing, cross-party support in Plymouth and Devon for ensuring the future of the Royal Marines, including 42 Commando in my constituency. Given the amphibious assault capability gap that we have as a result of scrapping—or, should I say, retiring—Devonport ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark, what commitment can the Secretary of State give that the green light will be given to building six multi-role support ships, and can he give a firm indication of when he hopes they will be in service?
Defence Programmes Developments
Rebecca Smith Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
My hon. Friend puts his finger exactly on the button. At the heart of the SDR is an assessment of the increasing and diversifying threats we face, the rapidly changing technology and nature of warfare, and therefore the capabilities we require for the future and the sort of forces we require for the future. Those are at the heart of the work the reviewers are doing at the moment. They are doing that in a thorough way and at pace. I expect them to conclude early in the new year.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
While it is deeply disappointing to hear the decisions around Devonport’s surface fleet today, in particular as the MP for a proud home to the Royal Marines and 42 Commando, it does provide, as has been alluded to by some colleagues on the Labour Benches, an opportunity to raise again the need for a Devonport deal, and in particular Plymouth and Devonport’s role in refitting the Royal Navy’s submarines going forward. As a member of that south-west posse, it is great that the Secretary of State has already offered a meeting. However, what we are specifically looking for is cross-ministerial commitment. We are getting plenty of meetings, but we want to know that the Ministers are joined up and having conversations cross-departmentally, and that the Devonport deal might be able to offer Plymouth and the wider south-west a future as we see these armed forces changes.
John Healey
I regard defence as largely beyond party politics, so I am happy to extend, on a cross-party basis, that invitation to a meeting to the hon. Lady. What I cannot undertake to do is to promise to deliver a cross-ministerial meeting, but if she is happy to start with me, then that is what we can do.