§ 41. Sir W. Davisonasked the Prime Minister when the question of extending the system of posthumous awards was last reviewed; by whom was the review carried out; what was the reason for confining posthumous awards to the Victoria Cross, the George Cross, the Indian Order of Merit and the Albert Medal; and whether he is aware of the strong feeling which exists that the number of decorations which can be posthumously awarded should now be increased?
§ The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)This question was reviewed in October, 1939, by the Committee on the grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals in time of war, and in February this year by the Chiefs of Staff Committee. The main purpose of decorations is to reward the living, and it has always been felt to be fitting and, dignified that posthumous grants should be limited to the very highest awards for gallantry. Moreover, a high proportion of fatalities occur when acts of heroism leave no surviving witnesses. To extend the system to other Honours would make it extremely difficult to justify in the eyes of the next-of-kin the great numbers of necessary exclusions.
§ Sir W. DavisonCould my right hon. Friend say why a distinction should be made between the posthumous award of, say, the George Cross and the award of such distinctions to officers and men as the D.S.O. and the D.C.M., which are also high distinctions?
§ Mr. AttleeThe reason is that it was thought that it should be limited to the very highest awards. Those are not quite so high as the awards which are granted posthumously.
§ Captain PluggeIs my right hon. Friend aware that many months and sometimes years elapse before an award for gallantry is made, and could he arrange that such awards should be made within a reasonable period of the performance of the gallant action giving rise to them?
§ Mr. AttleePerhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that question to the Service Ministers concerned.