| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): The£30 million of compensation to Spanish fishermen, for instance.
Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend places yet another amount on the table. I should be grateful if that were taken into consideration.
We set great store by entertaining overseas dignitaries and others. I wonder who comes first at the end of the day, when the budgets come up for grabs.
I make no apology for calling the debate, or for detaining the House longer than necessary. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is unlikely to accept my suggestion that the Government should find some way of paying for the medals, I urge him to accept the natural justice of the case, and to find some way in whichMr. Conn and others like him can receive their medals so that they need not, in exceptional circumstances, make the invidious choice of doing without medals which are important to them and which they may wish to pass on.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames):
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate, and on presenting his case in such a measured and moving manner. As a former Scots Guardsman, he is a worthy and eminently well-qualified champion of the cause of our service veterans--and this is not the first representation that he has made on their behalf. He has written to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, laid a substantial petition before the House and tabled an early-day motion which has--as he said--commanded substantial and largely unsought support. I am sure that those who have given a great deal in the service of their country welcome his support, and the robust, clear and sensible way in which he presented his case.
Campaign medals have been awarded to officers since the Armada, and to other ranks since the battle of Waterloo. Gallantry awards have a similar history: the Crimean war saw the introduction of the distinguished conduct medal for other ranks. All medals are a tangible reminder of gallant exploits, and are naturally a source of considerable pride both to those to whom they are awarded and to their families. After all, they represent public recognition of dedicated and honourable service to the Crown, sometimes in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances. Any of us who saw it need only recall the unbelievable, very moving and memorable sight of the massed ranks of veterans marching on the VE and VJ day parades last year to realise the wholesome pride and inestimable value that veterans rightly attach to their medals.
Before I deal with the points made by my hon. Friend, let me point out that--as he said--he sees the issue in a broader context than that of Mr. Conn. I trust that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I set out a little of the background. He outlined the details of one case, but I know that he will not wish me to limit the scope of my response. I hope that what I say will clarify the position of Mr. Conn, whose interests he has represented so tenaciously.
Our policy on the issue of medals is clear, and has been followed by all Governments. First-issue medals are issued free of charge to recipients; replacements are issued in certain circumstances on a pre-payment basis. All who have qualified for medals receive their awards free of charge. If they are still serving--as is the case with many medals awarded for service in the Falklands, with the coalition forces in the Gulf, in Northern Ireland or, most recently, with the United Nations protection force and the implementation force in Bosnia--service men are given their medals to wear with their uniform by their commanding officers.
In the case of service rendered during the two world wars, campaign medals were issued after the majority of service men were demobbed. After the first world war, medals were issued to individuals or their next of kin automatically. The situation after the second world war was slightly different, as ex-service men were invited to apply for their medals. Many did and received them at the
time. Others did not, and it was not until the celebrations last year stimulated, for obvious reasons, wonderful, happy old memories--and not such happy old memories--that many finally came forward. Although,I regret to say, because of that there have been inevitable delays in issuing medals--delays caused by the sudden, immense demand--all those who have made their first application are entitled to free issue of their awards.
Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the medal offices in Droitwich, Innsworth and Gosport, who have dealt with a huge number of applications in a very short time. Their work has brought great pleasure to many veterans and their families.
I should stress that, once issued, medals are, in common with any other personal belongings, the responsibility of the recipient. We expect those who are entrusted with their safety, whether veterans or their families, to take reasonable care of them and ensure that they are safe from casual loss. Most people have their medals insured as part of their house contents policy and do not leave them lying about or loan them to others without first considering their safety.
If an individual chooses not to take such care, or not to take out such a policy, it is entirely his own decision.To do so is not mandatory; nor, of course, am I suggesting that it should be, but there are always those who trust to luck that they will not suffer the unspeakable and unfortunate invasion of privacy or unforeseen disaster that might result in the theft of their valuables and do not make adequate provision for that possibility. My hon. Friend and I would not disagree about that, and such an event is, of course, a tragedy. I have every sympathy for those who suffer what is undeniably a trauma, but we cannot escape the fact that it was entirely due to their free choice.
I entirely understand and accept that medals will be lost in wholly unforeseen circumstances. Unfortunately, it is a fact of life that, despite the very best efforts of those looking after them, some medals will be mislaid through theft, fire, flood or other natural disaster. In such cases, my Department does all that it can to provide replacements where entitlement has been confirmed from surviving service records and where proof of loss has been provided by the claimant. We ask for copies of police reports or insurance claims to prove genuine loss.
Regrettably, when records are not to hand, the process of reassessment of entitlement can take many months to complete. To ensure that all are treated fairly, claims are dealt with in the strict order that they are received. Nevertheless, we are happy to provide replacements in such cases.
My hon. Friend will be aware that this policy extends, where medal stocks allow, even to veterans who served as long ago as the first world war. That alone is an extraordinarily remarkable feat--let us not forget that this is for service rendered some 80 years ago. In addition, if the circumstances are as I have outlined, my Department may supply replacement medals to first-generation next of kin.
I come now to the point of my hon. Friend's complaint. My Department does charge for the costs of replacing lost or stolen medals. Although we freely and willingly issue medals in the first place for nothing, we do not consider it appropriate for the taxpayer to foot the bill for replacements, although I accept what my hon. Friend said about the sum of money involved.
Replacements for medals lost in circumstances beyond the owner's control are therefore supplied only on pre-payment of the appropriate charge. I understand that this position is shared by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, which has confirmed that it is its practice to issue replacement insignia or medals only on pre-payment.
I fully understand and acknowledge the splendid efforts made by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituent,Mr. Conn. I understand that Mr. Conn lost his medals, the 1939-45 star, the Africa star, the defence medal and war medal--all of which are very honourable and form an impressive line-up by anyone's stretch of service--during a burglary at his son's home. The House and I have every sympathy for him. He is, as he knows, entitled to have his medals replaced on pre-payment of £56.95, the cost of the medals and postage. Unfortunately, we cannot make an exception in his case, since to treat an individual specially would be to treat many others unfairly.
I hasten to add that our policy of charging for the replacement of lost medals is not a new one dreamt up by a wicked, parsimonious Government. As early as 1899, paragraph 2042 of Queen's Regulations stated that
that is,
We expect that the costs of providing replacement medals, whether to the recipient, serving or non-serving, or to relatives should not be borne by the defence budget.To do so would be a foolish waste of money.
I make it abundantly clear that, as my hon. Friend will understand, the Ministry of Defence is not in the business of selling campaign medals for profit. We leave that business to independent medal dealers. The charge for replacing medals represents the unit cost of doing so and is carefully costed from different elements.
Medals are manufactured for us by the Royal Mint, which invoices my Department for its services and for its material costs, including any bullion charges involved. Most campaign medals are, of course, made from base metals, but others have a precious metal content. On top of that, my Department makes a small administrative charge, which is intended to cover purely the staff cost of checking medal entitlement from records kept at the appropriate medal office, or, more expensively, of recovering an individual's service records from the archives. My hon. Friend will know better than me that that is an appallingly difficult task. Finally, value added tax will be charged if the recipient resides in the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend may be aware that the value of medals can vary widely, even though the prices charged by my Department for certain categories of medal do not.For example, second world war campaign stars, which are issued in significant numbers, like the 1939-45 star or the France and Germany star, have only a marginal "collectors" value once they appear on the open market. In contrast, medals that were issued far less frequently, like the Aircrew Europe star, are worth more than £100 in a dealer's window, yet all three medals are issued as replacements on the pre-payment of just under £13.As my hon. Friend will realise, that is hardly the action of an organisation that seeks to amass profit.
In recent years, an increasing number of veterans have reported the loss of their medals for a variety of reasons. Apart from those such as theft or fire, for which little blame could be attached to the owner, other reasons cited have been house moves, medals being pawned or sold by the family or, understandably, medals being mislaid over the passage of time. I regret that, where the loss was avoidable or through simple carelessness, replacement medals clearly cannot be provided.
That will appear harsh on the face of it, but there are sound reasons for that stance. British campaign medals are highly prized, not in monetary terms, but because of what they represent. They are approved by the sovereign and granted for specific service where the rigours and hardship of campaigns justify national recognition. If we were to supply replacement medals on demand, without thought or care as to how the originals have been lost, the honours system's integrity would be undermined.We know that some individuals seek to abuse the system by falsely claiming replacement medals as spares, or more cynically for monetary gain. That is clearly unacceptable.
The onus must be on the owner to take good care of medals awarded by the sovereign on the nation's behalf in gratitude for loyal service. It would be wrong, after all, to use up stocks of medals by issuing them to people who had mislaid them at the expense of people awaiting their first issue.
I am glad that I have had the chance once again to pay tribute to the people who have given such service to this country over the years. I am grateful to my hon. Friend
for allowing me the opportunity to set out my Department's policy. Although some medals have a high collectors value, it is the emotional and sentimental attachments of those emblems of past honour that are so important and I accept that they are what is so important to Mr. Conn and to his family. I am pleased to report that medals for service rendered many years previously are still available to people entitled to receive them. I confirm that it is the policy that first-issue medals are distributed by a grateful nation free of any charge and I hope that that will always happen.
It is entirely reasonable, however, for the Ministry of Defence to seek pre-payment for any replacement medals that are issued to recipients or their next of kin, following loss beyond their control. I do not consider it an appropriate charge to the taxpayer to pay for such replacements. If people choose not to protect their valuables through a simple insurance policy, that is their choice. If they do not take out insurance, they must be prepared to pay for replacement medals.
"replacement at public expense will not be recommended unless the loss is proved to come under (a)",
"when the soldier was on duty and from causes entirely beyond his control".
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |