Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Gareth Johnson

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

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]

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]

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.

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Gareth Johnson

2nd reading: House of Commons & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

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)]

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]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

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]

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]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

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]

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]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

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]

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.