LONG SERVICE MEDAL (MR. W. H. SUTHERLAND) (Hansard, 2 February 1968)

§ Mr. G. B. Drayson (Skipton)

The subject I want to raise this afternoon is the question of the failure or reluctance of the Minister of Defence to award a Long Service and Good Conduct Medal to a constituent of mine, Mr. W. H. Sutherland, of 18 Neville Street, Skipton. The facts of the case are as follows.

Mr. Sutherland enlisted in the Royal Corps of Signals in February, 1924, and served as a Regular soldier until February, 1936—that is, 12 years of service. He then enlisted in Section D of the Army Reserve, and in July, 1939, was called up for two months' military training, which, of course, as everybody will see, resulted in his being in the Forces as a Regular soldier in training when war broke out in September, 1939. Of course he remained as a Regular soldier in the Army until the end of hostilities in 1945, after which he was transferred to the Army Reserve, Class Z, in November, 1945, having completed another six years' regular service, making 18 years' service in all. He was then granted a Service pension for this period of service.

Mr. Sutherland contends that he is eligible for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (Military), but the Officer in charge of Records has told him that, owing to the absence of his last commanding officer's recommendation, he cannot be considered for the award. I want to deal with this point about the absence of his commanding officer's recommendation.

When Mr. Sutherland was released from the Forces in 1945 he travelled through North Africa and Italy, and finally arrived in Austria where he was demobilised in, he tells me, an early group, Group 12. At that time, he says, nobody gave any thought to medals as all thoughts were on getting back to civilian life. He feels sure that if the matter of awards had come up his commanding officer, Lieut Colonel J. W. Mills, would have recommended him. Mr. Sutherland 1811 was in fact asked to extend his service and not take his discharge.

The following is an extract from Army form B108 after he completed his first 12 years' engagement: Military conduct: exemplary. Testimonial: A very conscientious clerk, smart in turn out, absolutely sober and honest. He has plenty of initiative, is a willing and hard worker and absolutely reliable. I can recommend him for a position requiring loyalty and trustworthiness with confidence. That was signed by the colonel commanding 9th Division Signals. at Scarborough in January, 1936.

The following extract is from Mr. Sutherland's Army Form X202A, dated 8th August, 1945, on his release from the Forces after the end of hostilities. Again, his military conduct was exemplary, and the testimonial was: A man of the greatest integrity. Responsible and efficient. J. W. Mills, Lt.-Col. 46 Div. Signals". Another point in Mr. Sutherland's favour was that while he was in Italy he was mentioned in dispatches for gallant and distinguished service.

Twenty years passed before Mr. Sutherland worried about this matter and felt that he was entitled to a medal which had not been awarded to him. He submitted his application to the Royal Corps of Signals and his letter was acknowledged on 13th May, 1966. It was passed on to the Records Office of the Corps. Its reply on 17th June, 1966 said that it was fully aware of the circumstances at the time of his discharge—I wonder if that is so—and went on: However, regulations are definite that documentary evidence is not sufficient for an award to be made and in the absence of your Commanding Officer's personal recommendation I deeply regret that the decision, detailed in my letter of 10th June 1966 cannot be altered. That was signed by the officer in charge Royal Signals Records.

Those letters show the importance of trying to contact Colonel Mills, who has not been available for some time. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army told me when I took up the matter with him that Colonel Mills was serving on an emergency commission, that he had been demobilised in 1946, and that as he was not entitled to a pension the War Office had not kept in touch with him. But there is evidence 1812 that in 1946, he was working with Lewis's in Leeds, and it is believed that he later moved to Leicester.

Another former officer, Captain Wain-man, might be able to help if he hears about the debate, because Mr. Sutherland served under him. I think that he was in Leeds after the war, and it is hoped that he may still be in touch with Colonel Mills and will be able to say where he is.

At the time of Mr. Sutherland's release in Austria the appropriate papers were not completed. It is suggested in the Queen's Regulations that a soldier should have all his personal documents with him when he is discharged. If this were a peace-time discharge where all the papers were available in the records office they would no doubt have been readily at hand at the time of his discharge. But as Mr. Sutherland was a soldier who was in the Regular Forces in 1939 and had been fighting in North Africa and Italy, and then through central Europe into Austria it is ridiculous to imagine that his complete Army record going back to the date of his enlistment in 1924 had been following him around throughout the battles.

We all know from our own personal experience how easy it is for records to be lost, for trucks to be blown up, and all the other things which happen in war. It is not the case that this man's records would have been available to his commanding officer at the time of his discharge in Austria in 1945.

Another interesting point arises from Queen's Regulations dealing with the award of this medal, because they say that if a commanding officer does not recommend that a man should be awarded the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal the commanding officer … will record the fact on AFB176A to be treated as a confidential document; he will also forward a signed copy of the AFB176A to the officer i/c records to be retained in the original attestation. The officer i/c records will mark the medal cage of the AFB200 accordingly. When recommendations are delayed owing to the exigencies of the Service, the reason for the delay will be recorded. I do not know whether it is so, but are we to believe that the Army, having moved up through Italy into Austria, would have an ample supply of the form AFB176A to be treated as a confidential document, and that a signed copy of the AFB176A would be forwarded to the 1813 officer i/c records to be retained with the original attestation, with the appropriate AFB200 with the medal cage intact, when he was demobilised in 1945 in Austria, his commanding officer leaving the forces a few months later in 1946?

I suggest that there have been errors and delays on both sides. The Minister is hiding behind the technicality that no recommendation was made by this man's commanding officer who, however gallant his service, was not a regular soldier and might not have borne these matters carefully in mind when he was signing a soldier's discharge papers in Austria at the end of the war.

Army Regulations lay down that if there is a delay in recommending a man who is obviously entitled by the length of his service to a medal, it is up to the officer in charge of records to communicate back to the commanding officer and say "Why has this recommendation not been made? Is there any reason for not having done so?"

I suggest that there have been faults on both sides. This is not only an omission on the part of the commanding officer—who I hope, as a result of this discussion, will come forward if he still exists—but also an omission on the part of Army Records who are trying to dispute the case by saying that they did not take the appropriate action of saying to the commanding officer, "Here is a man With 18 years' service, conduct exemplary, and you are asking him to stay on in the forces. He has been mentioned in despatches. Why has he not been recommended for the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal?"

I hope that by raising the matter today we can rectify the position. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who has been good enough to come to reply to this discussion this afternoon, wrote to me in December saying: In the absence of his commanding officer's recommendation, Mr. Sutherland cannot I am afraid, be considered for the award of the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. I am rather disappointed that the Minister has merely backed up the back room boys who have relied on Army Regulations to prevent giving this man his award. This man has slogged his way through North Africa, Italy and right up into the heart of Europe. If 1814 I were to borrow a phrase from a well-known Yorkshireman, Wilfred Pickles, I would not say, "Give him the money, Barney"; I would say, with respect to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Boyden), "Give him the medal, Boyden."

Mr. Sutherland concluded by saying in his letter to me: It might not mean much to some people, but it means a lot to me. At a time when pride in one's country, and service to it, is not a conspicuous feature of everyday life, it is gratifying to think that there are still some who value an award which pays testimony to their long, gallant, distinguished, and exemplary service to their country for 18 years. To fail to give such men their due awards is no credit to those who rest on a technicality for withholding them.

I appeal to Colonel Mills to come forward and put his signature to the necessary document, and to Captain Wainman to try to help us to locate Colonel Mills if he knows his whereabouts, and better still, to the Minister of Defence to overcome the technical difficulties and make the award forthwith.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden)

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) for the persistence and ingenuity that he has shown over this matter, and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy him.

I can confirm all that the hon. Gentleman said about Mr. Sutherland. I suspect that he is quite a modest man, in addition to all the virtues which have been attributed to him, but I hope that he will be pleased with the outcome of this debate; with the fact that someone with long and gallant service in the Army will be recognised.

I think that I had better say a little about the award of the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal, to show exactly how it is awarded, and to clear up one or two of the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman might have implied were due to bureaucracy in the Ministry of Defence.

The first basic condition of eligibility is that the soldier must have a minimum of 18 years' full-time service. The hon. 1815 Gentleman knows that. Paragraph 1069 of Queen's Regulations says: When a soldier fulfils the conditions laid down in paragraph 1067, a company commander will bring the soldier's name to the notice of the Commanding Officer; but the fact that a soldier fulfils the conditions by length of service gives him no claim to the Medal or Clasp. As well as having served for 18 years, a soldier must be recommended for the medal by his commanding officer. No one else can make this recommendation, and paragraph 1067 of Queen's Regulations, to which I have referred, specifically confirms this. It says: The commanding officer is the sole judge of the standard of conduct required and will be responsible for recommending only those soldiers who are in every way worthy of the distinction, and whose conduct has been irreproachable throughout their service. This is a highly-prized medal. The standard of soldiers who receive it is very high, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like to introduce any arbitrariness or anything of that sort into its award, however worthy the individual may be. It would diminish the esteem in which the award was held if it was felt that there was any kind of intervention of that sort.

I think that the key to the whole matter, as Mr. Sutherland says, is that when the medal should have been recommended and awarded in 1945 people were thinking of other things. However, there is no question at all but that Mr. Sutherland was a first-class soldier, and the technicality—the point at issue—is the recommendation from his then commanding officer.

I appreciate the ingenuity and persistence of the hon. Gentleman and his hope that this debate will bring to light Colonel Mills and produce the results 1816 that he wants. I am pleased to say that following correspondence and research in the Ministry of Defence—and I praise the officers concerned who have gone into this—we have been able to trace Mr. Sutherland's former commanding officer, who is now Mr. J. W. Mills, O.B.E., Q.C., and we have spoken to him on the telephone. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that he remembers Mr. Sutherland after all this passage of time, and he has reaffirmed his view that Mr. Sutherland was of excellent character and a good soldier.

We have explained Mr. Sutherland's case to Mr. Mills and I am pleased to say that he says that he is prepared to make the necessary recommendation. We have, therefore, written to him to let him know just what is needed. When we have Mr. Mills' recommendation we shall be able to grant Mr. Sutherland the Long Service and Good Conduct Medal.

I am pleased that we have been able to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. As the hon. Member has said, Mr. Sutherland was an absolutely first-class soldier and it is fitting that he should be awarded this medal even after all this lapse of time.

Contrary to what the hon. Member has said, I think that this reflects credit on the Ministry of Defence and shows that it cares about these things and takes trouble over them. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Member and that Mr. Sutherland will have, in a very short time, his well-deserved award.