HC Deb 11 March 1996 vol 273 cc759-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Dr. Liam Fox.]

10.49 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford)

I wish to take up the case of my constituent, Mr. Jack Conn, which is linked to the cases of many constituents of other hon. Members.

Mr. Conn served in the Royal Medical Corps from 1 November 1939 to May 1946 and rose to the rank of acting corporal. He saw service in the middle east from 1942, and spent most of the time there until he left the Army.

Mr. Conn had, by all accounts, a fairly uneventful war, although, being in the Royal Medical Corps, he dealt with many casualties of battles such as El Alamein and beyond. Interestingly, his wife Sheena was the operator who sent the signal that conveyed from General Eisenhower's headquarters in Rheims the historic words: unconditional surrender of all Gennan land, sea and air forces in Europe … all active operations cease". That is a small by the bye for my hon. Friend the Minister.

On 13 June 1994, Mr. Conn, worried that he would have no medals for the 50th anniversary of VE day because they had been stolen from his son's house, contacted the Ministry of Defence medal office, requesting that his 1939–45 star, defence medal, Africa star and war medal be replaced, as they had been stolen in a burglary. They were being stored at his son's house at the time. The property was not insured because he had not believed that he had enough money to insure the medals.

Mr. Conn received a standard response, advising him that his records would he checked and that he would have to pay a charge to have his medals replaced. He had already sent his AB64 book and he thought that that would cover the search. He received another letter from the Ministry of Defence on 11 October 1994, saying that his records had not been found and asking that he fill in a further questionnaire, although he had already sent his AB64 which he had thought would be enough. The Ministry of Defence still needed more information.

Mr. Conn contacted me on 5 April 1995, and I went to the MOD and contacted the medal office, enclosing a copy of Mr. Conn's AB64, which he had sent to the MOD the previous year without much success.

Eventually, on 11 May, I received a letter from my hon. Friend Lord Henley, then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, saying that Mr. Conn's service records were still unavailable, but that he expected that his application for replacement medals would be finalised by July. That was during the 50th anniversary year and obviously it was important that Mr. Conn had the medals in the year.

On 18 August, I had to write to my noble Friend Earl Howe, who had replaced Lord Henley, asking what had happened to the application as Mr. Conn had heard nothing further from the MOD. On 8 September, my noble Friend responded, confirming that the medals that Mr. Conn was entitled to receive were there and saying that it would cost him £56.95 plus postage to have them sent to him.

Mr. Conn contacted me again to say that, unfortunately, he was unable to afford that sum at that time and would therefore be unable to claim his medals. Like many people, he was under financial restraints as a pensioner and the charge would, he believed, add to his outgoings and he could not justify it.

It is interesting to note that when the local pensioner group of which Mr. Conn is a member took up his case, the secretary received a letter from the medal office saying: Free replacements would be an unfair burden on official finances and it would be impossible to manage such a procedure and effect control to avoid abuse. It was that statement that annoyed, if not concerned, Mr. Conn, as he felt that he was being dismissed as a problem rather than being seen as part of a previous solution.

I was subsequently asked by my constituents to petition Parliament. There were 1,400 names on the petition, which I lodged behind the Chair. Many of those names came from outside the constituency and I received a flood a letters at the time from many people laying out similar cases and problems. The petition requested that the House urge the Ministry of Defence to consider the plight of Mr. Conn and others of like disposition, having been awarded medals in recognition of their service in the armed forces of Her Majesty the Queen or her predecessors, and having been deprived of them by unlawful means or by misadventure and now being unable to replace them, and to endeavour to replace those medals. In essence, that is what tonight's debate is about; it is about the spirit behind that petition.

There was a small press campaign in The Sun to gain support for the cause. I received some fascinating letters as a result of that campaign, and I should like to draw the attention of the House to just one of them. It was from Mrs. Marie Meikleham of Andersonstown, Belfast, who had just paid the same sum for her husband's RAF medals. That amount of money constituted her weekly income from her pension and she felt that, although she had paid it, she had had to make some serious savings elsewhere. Her letter stated: I recently paid £56.89 to the RAF to have my late husband's medals replaced … He died 19 years ago after suffering five heart attacks in six years. Professor Frank Partridge, who was also a prisoner of war in the Far East, and a very well known heart specialist, told us that my husband's heart problems were probably caused by a lack of B1 while a prisoner. I do not intend to draw on that letter too much, but it strikes me that Mrs. Meikleham's husband had died and she wished to have some memento of her husband, whose medals had obviously disappeared. She found herself in an invidious position; despite the fact that her husband, like many others, had put his life on the line for this country, she found that she had to pay for the medals. She had to pay what seemed to me to be a reasonably small sum, but was, to her and many like her, a large sum.

Realising that the problem was so widespread, I presented an early-day motion. To date, about 122 hon. Members have signed it; I asked only about 50 to do so but, remarkably, over the following few weeks, more and more hon. Members went to the Table Office and added their names. That is unusual; I did not chase them, but clearly the cause struck a chord with many of my colleagues.

I later received a letter from Earl Howe in response to another letter that I sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the cost of the medals. Once again, the Ministry of Defence stayed with the line that the cost of replacing those medals must be borne by the recipient.

I should like to raise a few thoughts with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Are we going to go through this saga every time we come up to the 50th anniversary of important military actions in which our constituents and their parents have fought—such as those in Korea or Malaysia? If many of those dismissive letters are sent out, it augurs ill for the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and pensioner groups, many of whom include veterans.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State is perhaps unique in Government in that he is one of a dwindling number of people who have seen service in the armed forces. I hope that he understands the importance of medals to many people—I am pleased to see him on the Front Bench to respond to me tonight.

Many like Jack Conn were not boy's own heroes, but simply went out and served their country. But it is that very sense of service that is at stake tonight. It is the fact that when their country called on them, they were not found wanting. Many of their friends and colleagues, who will be remembered through the medals, are not here today, because they were not as lucky as Mr. Conn and his like. The medals are a doorway to the past—a way of opening up memories and handing them on to their children.

As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, I am the last person to ask for increased Government expenditure, and I am not making an exception here. Such a small amount could probably be saved from any number of administrative budgets in almost any Whitehall Department.

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 which Mr. 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.

I hope that all Members of Parliament, from our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister downwards, will consider it fair and reasonable for my hon. Friend the Minister and other Ministers to understand the true nature of the sacrifice made by these men and women, and will make recompense by giving them what they deserve—their medals—as soon as possible.

11.1 pm

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 rime 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 replacement at public expense will not be recommended unless the loss is proved to come under (a)", that is, when the soldier was on duty and from causes entirely beyond his control". 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.

As I have said, no one is better qualified or more suited to raise such a matter than my hon. Friend. I hope that he will understand that I deeply regret that I am not able to accede to his request in this case. He has done a signal and valuable service in raising the matter. We have dealt with Mr. Conn's case, as we deal with all medal cases, with great care and diligence. I am most grateful, as I am sure is the House, to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter of behalf of his constituent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.