Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2017-02-24
Topic: Law and Crime
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): As I said on Second Reading, I do not support the Bill. In fact, as I went through it with a view to amending it, what struck me was that, in many respects, I was trying to amend the unamendable. I cannot emphasise enough, however, how much I understand the sincere intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) in introducing the Bill, the effort he has put into it and his efforts to find a compromise that suits everyone. I commend him for his sincerity and for his attempt to find a way forward with which everyone agrees. I just cannot agree with him on this occasion. Should the Bill proceed, I hope that my amendments will be accepted, as I believe they will save it from having some unintended consequences and reduce the chances of criminalising people who may be unintentionally caught by it as it stands The Bill is considerably different from the one that appeared on Second Reading. That is very much to my hon. Friend’s credit and shows how much effort he has made to find a workable solution. I am grateful to him for taking on board many of the points that I made in the Second Reading debate. However, I still feel that the Bill is deficient, so I will go through the amendments I have tabled. I hope that they may find favour New clause 1 would ensure that "The offence of wearing awards with intent to deceive is triable only summarily." It implies that the offence must be dealt with in a magistrates court only. Some may think that the new clause is unnecessary, but it would mean that people had to think twice before amending the legislation to increase the sentence. That is the purpose of new clause 1: it is a safeguard in that respect. That was specifically mentioned by the Select Committee on Defence in its report on the Bill New clause 2 would ensure that "A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are wearing the ‘award’ in a public house." The "intention to deceive" element of the offence could be committed in a variety of circumstances. Seeking to deceive for financial gain would already be covered by fraud legislation. This Bill is clearly supposed to include other types of deception. That could be the intention to deceive to gain respect or to impress a potential future partner. The new clause deals with people in a pub We all know that pubs are places where all kinds of rubbish are talked at times by people—not just in pubs, I hasten to add, but particularly in pubs. To think that someone could have a few too many, boast about something to which they have no right with a cheap replica medal bought off eBay or wherever and end up with a criminal conviction is rather over the top. The new clause would remove that possibility. When my hon. Friend conceived the Bill—again, I applaud his sincerity—it was about people who turn up at Remembrance Day parades and events such as that purporting to be someone they are not. Therefore, ensuring that the provision does not apply to people in a public house would help to get us back to the Bill’s original intention New clause 3 would ensure that "A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are not wearing the ‘award’ in a public place." Therefore, it would provide the defence of the offence taking place in private. It is important, given the Bill’s intention, to limit the offence to a public place. If someone gets a medal out and uses it to impress someone in their own home or in private property—a private club or somewhere like that—I do not see why that should be an offence. I cannot believe that that is what people think of when they think of people with criminal convictions. If someone wants to argue that some private places should be covered, I would ask, what about the unintended consequences? Is it not time that we stopped ignoring the foreseeable consequences of legislation? Someone who boasts to a woman he has met in a pub that he has a medal, which turns out not to be his, is a copy or is something that looks like an award, could find himself in court with a criminal record for the first time. Some people might not care about that—they might think, "Well, they had that coming"—but I do care. I think we have enough people committing serious offences that we do not deal with properly, and to create offences for those who are likely to have issues anyway, probably including mental health ones, to be committed in the privacy of their home strikes me as being rather over the top New clause 4 would insert: "A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are entitled to wear any of the other awards listed in the Schedule." The defence would be that they are entitled to wear a medal named in the long list at the end of the schedule, but they just happen to be wearing the wrong one. If someone is allowed to wear one medal but wears a different one—not an additional one, but just a different one—even if it is a case of enhanced valour, why should they be criminalised if they were entitled to wear a medal on the list? I do not think that that should be a criminal offence. It might not happen often, but it is certainly not impossible, and, assuming it did happen, would we really want to criminalise that person? Would it not be better to make it clear in the Bill that that person would not be criminalised New clause 5 would insert: "A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces for more than 2 years." As with the amendment on existing entitlement, I do not think people really had it in mind to criminalise former or current members of our armed forces for this offence. I return to the point about an intent to deceive to gain respect—added respect, I guess. Do we really want to go down that route? We should not want to risk criminalising someone who has risked their life serving our country just because they might have tried to embellish their record in some way. This amendment would remove that possibility for those who have served for two years or more in the armed forces New clause 6 would insert: "A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they have served in the Armed Forces and as a result of front line service have been medically diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder." In a similar vein to the amendments about serving or former members of the armed forces, this amendment would protect, in many respects, many of the most vulnerable people—those with diagnosed PTSD. Those who have been seriously affected by frontline service and who have this condition as a result could be more susceptible than those without to fall foul of this proposed legislation, and I would not want to see that person either intentionally or unintentionally caught out. I would rather make it abundantly clear in the Bill that they could not be caught by the legislation New clause 7 would insert: "(1) A person is not guilty of an offence under section 1(1) if they are a family member of the person given the award (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), someone is a family member of the person if— (a) he is the spouse or civil partner of that person, or he and that person live together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners, or (b) he is that person’s parent, grandparent, child, grand-child, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece (3) For the purpose of subsection (2)(b)— (a) a relationship by marriage or civil partnership shall be treated as a relationship by blood, (b) a relationship of the half-blood shall be treated as a relationship of the whole blood, (c) the stepchild or adopted child of a person shall be treated as his child, and (d) an illegitimate child shall be treated as the legitimate child of his mother and reputed father." Again, this amendment deals with family members of those given an award. My concern is that they might well have a medal, especially if the person in question has sadly died. Their chances of becoming susceptible to the provisions of the Bill must therefore be greater than for the average person, by definition.