Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill — House of Commons, 2016-11-25
Topic: Defense
Philip Andrew Davies (Conservative, Centre-right): Before the urgent question, I was making the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has said that the challenge in drafting the Bill was where to stop. I am sure he knows where he wants to stop, but, as with so many things, once something has started it is very difficult to stop because people always want to extend it. There may well be the slippery slope towards including other medals and certificates. Surely the principle would be the same; it might one day be extended to long-service medals, private medals and all sorts of other things On who should be allowed to wear medals, clause 1(3) the Bill states: "For the purposes of this section (subject to subsection (5)), ‘personally entitled’ means being the person to whom the award in question was made." Clause 1(5) states: "A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if the item is worn, or the person represents themselves as being entitled to wear it— (a) as part of a reconstruction or representation of historical events; (b) as part of a filmed or theatrical or other live entertainment or production; or (c) in honour of a family member who meets the requirements of subsection (3)." The Library briefing on the Bill quotes the Royal British Legion’s advice on the wearing or not wearing of medals: "Can I wear medals belonging to members of my family The official position regarding wearing medals other than your own is that they should not be worn. However, it was generally accepted from soon after the Great War that widows of the fallen wore their late husband’s medals on the right breast on suitable occasions." My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham made that point in an intervention. The advice goes on: "More recently it seems to have become the custom for any family member to wear medals of deceased relations in this way, sometimes trying to give a complete family military history by wearing several groups. Although understandable it is officially incorrect, and when several groups are worn it does little for the dignity of the original owners." That is the official advice from the Royal British Legion In its written evidence to the Defence Committee inquiry, the Naval Families Federation quoted the views of its members. It asked the question "If criminalisation of wearing unearned medals was introduced, should there be specific safeguards for family members who wear the medals of deceased relatives?… If yes, which family members should be safeguarded? Please tick all that apply." It received these replies: "Husband, wife or civil partner" was the most popular; "Unmarried/civil-partnered"; "Parent"; "Guardian"; "Child"; "Step-Child"; "Grandchild"; "Extended family"; and "Other". By the look of the chart, "Other"—not including any of the others—had about 14% of the responses The Royal Air Force Families Federation said in its written evidence to the Defence Committee: "Yes, there should most certainly be safeguards for family members. The key question is who ‘qualifies’! The definition we use is ‘anyone who is a blood relation’ but this may not be appropriate in these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions. Interestingly, the MoD is struggling with its own definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any definition for these circumstances with the MoD definition if and when they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it’s probably a matter for common sense." In the Bill, there is an exemption for a "family member", but we are none the wiser about who is a family member. Does it cover those categories, such as "Guardian" or someone who was "Unmarried"? Does it include someone who is married, but not a blood relation?