Dr Andrew Murrison
MP for South West Wiltshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is good to hear that the Government plan to replenish the dwindling stocks of Patriot missiles in Ukraine, which I suspect it will need this winter. However, Patriot is low volume and high cost. What the Ukrainians need is high volume and low cost.”
“Currently, the Royal Navy has an offshore patrol vessel permanently stationed in the Falkland Islands, but given the threat that is being faced and our need to demonstrate resolve—the sort of thing that, sadly, we did not demonstrate in the early 1980s, which led to miscalculation—will the Minister consider speaking to her MOD colleagues…”
“Since the Foreign Secretary is not going to get the co-operation, fulsome or otherwise, of the Israeli state in differentiating goods and services made in the settlements from those that are assembled, repackaged, produced and grown in Israel itself, how is he going to distinguish the one from the other?”
“The Government insisted on applying the social time preference rate to the disastrous Chagos deal to make an appalling deal look slightly better.”
“Will the First Secretary of State’s exercise in delivering democracy and local accountability and empowering local people include a look at large organisations that cannot be described as governmental or as quangos but that nevertheless exist firmly within the public domain, are established by statute, serve the public and are big employe…”
“I congratulate the Government on the hiring of Alistair Burt—he is a good hire and will do great things for some of these most complex of cases—but does the Minister agree that many of these cases are extremely difficult and exceptionally traumatic, and that it is far better to prevent them happening in the first place?”
The complete record
Every one of 4,639 lines we hold for Dr Andrew Murrison, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 79 of 93.
“Joyce) railed against retired top brass. I have one or two things to say about the top brass, but in a slightly different vein. I thought that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) would refer to early-day motion 2030, which he tabled in the previous Session. It related to a windfall tax on our defence suppliers and the impact it may have on our defence community. It is important to place what we now call the military covenant in a proper historical context. Rudyard Kipling talked about the trials of Tommy Atkins in 1892. He was observed to be the saviour of his country in wartime but at other times was denigrated by an ungrateful and unappreciative public, who misunderstood him. A hundred years on, it seems as though Tommy is still being slighted in some quarters.”
“Baron) spoke authoritatively about his battalion and its return to Hounslow barracks. The Secretary of State said that he was interested in Hounslow barracks—I am, too, and I would like to visit. Perhaps we can all visit together and the Secretary of State might like to give us a lift. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) talked about health care, which is close to my heart, and the importance of taking a balanced view of the military covenant. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) rightly paid tribute to the Royal British Legion, which has done so much to highlight the military covenant in the past few months. He spoke knowledgeably about suicide and post-traumatic stress disorder, which is related to overstretch and harmony guidelines. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr.”
“Certainly, things such as sport and adventurous training, which have deteriorated in recent years because of operational commitments and pressures, are not quite as obvious an attraction to our young men and women as they were 20 or 25 years ago when I joined up. It is right that we paint an accurate picture of what the future holds in store for our recruits. My right hon. Friend also echoed Lord Guthrie’s remarks about the now Prime Minister’s apparent disinterest in military matters when he was Chancellor. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the importance of logistics. Again, that is understandable, given his constituency interest. He was right to mention the importance of in-theatre tracking. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr.”
“Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) was greatly exercised about training, quite obviously, because MOD St. Athan lies within his constituency. He did not mention the voids and cancellation rates that apply to much of our training effort at the moment as a result of operational pressures and undermanning. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) rightly took exception to the Rowntree report. However, when we recruit people to our armed forces, it is appropriate that we highlight the positive aspects that represent a truthful reflection of what they are likely to be exposed to.”
“Touhig) said that he was concerned about cadets and how people’s exposure to the military may have been reduced in modern times. He might have mentioned the abolition of the Government’s school visits teams, which were doing a great deal to increase the profile of the military in our schools but have been replaced by a compact disc. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) talked about mental health problems. I sincerely recommend that he visit the medical assessment programme at St. Thomas’ hospital, which I did on Tuesday. I say in all sincerity that if he did so, he might gain a slightly more profound understanding of some of the extremely complex—and in many ways highly technical—issues that relate to mental health, and of the occupational implications of service in the armed forces. The hon.”
“I begin by drawing the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I would also like to add my expression of admiration for our men and women in uniform, their long-suffering families, veterans and the organisations that look after them and their interests, often unsung. Veterans Aid, an organisation that I visited on Tuesday with my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), is a drop-in centre near Victoria station, and many such organisations are doing similar work unsung, day in and day out, and we must pay tribute to them. We have had an interesting and varied debate. A total of 11 Back-Bench speakers have all added, in their individual way, to the debate on this important subject. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr.”
“My hon. Friend knows that I have a particular interest in the village of Chitterne. I should be grateful if he added it to his list of villages likely to suffer from increased rat-running, particularly with the advent of satnav. On a more positive note, will he commend the Ordnance Survey, which will now inform those who make satnav instruments, for consulting with local government to determine preferred routes and freight routes? Does he agree that that cannot come soon enough? It will prevent vehicles from clogging up villages, often getting stuck down lanes where they have no business being.”
“Does my hon. Friend share my mystification about what appears to be the Post Office’s lingering death? I refer to outreach services, which have been proposed as a way not of closing post offices but of downgrading services in many parts of the country, including mine. Does he share my concern that people cannot really know what those outreach services will be, and so cannot contribute meaningfully to any consultation? That is symptomatic of the cult of consultation, in which the Government are involved in a major way; my hon. Friend mentioned the health service.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend that the evidence base is vital. Does he perceive any adherence to the evidence base in respect of rural-proofing the closures? Notwithstanding his comments about the coastal strip, about which he is particularly concerned, the rural-proofing on which the Government are so keen is completely ignored in the proposals. Furthermore, attention has not been given to indices of deprivation in deciding which post offices are threatened with the axe. I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the lack of attention to the evidence base. Does he perceive that Ministers have given any attention to it?”
“In the abbreviated debate on armed forces personnel, will the right hon. and learned Lady ensure that her part-time colleague comes to the House prepared to talk about the military covenant in general and to address specifically the raw deal that service children get from a funding formula that completely fails to recognise the cost drivers that apply to schools with a high proportion of service children? I tried to raise this matter during yesterday’s debate, but unfortunately the Minister for the Armed Forces largely ignored my remarks.”
“I fear that the hon. Gentleman might be getting a little confused. I am certainly concerned that he seems to think we should have a military hospital for 13,000 servicemen. He should understand that, in America, a clinic with a few beds counts as a military hospital. We have many of those already in this country.”
“Gentleman is talking to, but those to whom I talk say that the covenant needs fixing now, not in seven and a half years’ time.”
“On the second page, in very small print—I can barely read it—it says: “Some policy proposals published by the Liberal Democrats may imply modifications to existing government public expenditure priorities.” I spent some time puzzling what that might mean. I think that it means “cuts elsewhere”, yet, try as I might, I could not find anything in the hon. Gentleman’s speech that shed any light on precisely what those cuts would be. The document goes on to say: “The Liberal Democrats recognise that it may not be possible to achieve all these proposals in the lifetime of one Parliament.” In the hypothetical case that we have a Liberal Democrat Government following the next election—perhaps in May 2010—that could mean seven and a half years hence. I am not quite sure which soldiers, sailors and airmen the hon.”
“Gentleman’s endorsement of many of the ideas that we have been pursuing for some time. Clearly, he has read the policy report that we published in July—and, judging by his document, much of which is eerily familiar, a lot more besides. Given that spirit of happy consensus, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying how much I enjoyed something that I imagine will become a standard caveat on all Liberal Democrat spending commitments— [ Laughter. ] The Minister is giggling, so I suspect that he, like me, has read the document that the Liberal Democrats published at the weekend.”
“I declare my interest as a medical officer in the Royal Naval Reserve. Our armed forces are second to none and we are all intensely proud of them. We should also salute the organisations that champion their cause. I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on using half their Opposition day to discuss the broken military covenant. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) used much of his speech to discuss the proposals that his party apparently launched at the weekend. I say “apparently” because the event appears to have passed the media by, which was possibly because there was little new or distinctive in what was said. However, heaven loves a sinner who is brought to repentance, so we must welcome the Liberal Democrats’ new-found enthusiasm for defence and the hon.”
“I would not expect the Government to welcome such a plan, but for different reasons entirely, neither would I. Generals are very fine people. Many of them are my constituents. But where would the views, experiences and insights of squaddies and their families be articulated in such a lordly committee of the top brass? Although I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman’s good intentions, he needs to go back to the drawing board.”
“The poor attendance by Liberal Democrats at defence debates in Opposition and Government time is borne out by the official record, notably on 16 October, an occasion that was distinctly Liberal Democrat-lite. The Liberal Democrats say that they want to set up what they call “a military covenant committee”. They go on to explain, in a breezy sort of way: “Such a committee could perhaps be established in the House of Lords.” We learn that “As a cross-party body, it would be well-placed to provide credible recommendations drawing on the expertise and experience of its members.” That sounds to me like a job specification for Lords Guthrie, Boyce, Craig, Bramall and Inge. Ministers are, I hope, still smarting from the broadside that the noble and gallant Lords delivered in the other place on 22 November.”
“I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) gave earlier. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not shed any light on where the cuts implied by the statement will fall. I have been studying the Liberal Democrat election manifesto closely, as well as the contribution that the party has made to defence debates recently. Others might say that that is a pretty sad thing to do, but as many hon. Members would point out, time spent on reconnaissance is rarely wasted. The manifesto effectively contains just one paragraph on defence. The rest of any reference to defence-related issues has to do with the arms trade.”
“The Secretary of State’s prior appointment is a perfectly good reason for being absent today. I am grateful to him for explaining yesterday the circumstances that take him away from the House today. We learned from General Lord Guthrie about the Prime Minister’s disinterest in defence as Chancellor, which he appears to have carried over into his new job, obliging photo calls in hot, sandy places notwithstanding. The Prime Minister must do the decent thing by our armed forces and ensure that the person whom he appoints as captain of the ship is able to devote his attention full-time to his vital defence duties. None of our troops in action, regulars or reserves, are part-timers. Why is their boss?”
“I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he has not already read the document that was published at the weekend, I suggest he does. There are more committees in the document than one can shake a hairy stick at. The military covenant appears to have taken form relatively recently, when it popped up in an Army book of reference, perhaps influenced by the more overt expression by our allies of their special debt to their armed forces, notably the US. I suspect that it was scripted by an Army staff officer, who thought it was a good idea at the time. There is nothing wrong with that. We should adopt it and work on it. I hope that we now understand that the military covenant is not simply the bailiwick of the Army, but that it extends in common usage right across our armed forces.”
“Had the Liberal Democrats been there, they would have learned about community mental health pilots and perhaps shared my concern at the apparent desire of the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency further to reduce its exposure to the health care of veterans by shifting responsibility to our NHS, which with the best will in the world has struggled in identifying and prioritising the health care needs of members of a small and shrinking defence community.”
“The common factor appears to be the consequences of overstretch, with harmony guidelines being routinely breached. The Under-Secretary of State and I on Monday, at an all-party group meeting on mental illness in servicemen, learned how important time between tours was for the mental health of our troops. Overstretch and the habitual breaching of harmony guidelines is undoubtedly making some of our people ill. I expect the Minister is as surprised as I am that none of our Liberal Democrat colleagues was at that meeting, particularly given their professed interest in the welfare of servicemen and the reference in their motion to mental health.”
“I am grateful to the Minister. I thought I had done that, in what I hope he will accept was an acknowledgment of the validity of the Secretary of State’s absence from the House today. The leaked 2007 Chief of the General Staff’s briefing team report told us: “The tank of goodwill now runs on vapour; many experienced staff are talking of leaving.” It is backed up by this summer’s continuous attitudes survey, which revealed that many of our crucial middle-ranking people were considering leaving over the next six months. The most recent set of Defence Analytical Services Agency figures published in November show that that was no idle threat, as 1,344 Army officers have indeed left in the past six months alone. That is twice the number for the year before, and three times that for 2004-05.”
“It is surely right that in the 21st century our young men and women should not have to endure a degree of squalor in many cases that would have a college hall of residence condemned. Yet in 2006-07 £13.5 million was sliced from the five regional prime contractors, putting basic maintenance on hold. At the same time we have seen £2.3 billion spent on filling MOD main building with more marble, gilt and wood panelling than Saddam enjoyed in his Basra palace, as those of us who are familiar with that building will attest. We find more poor prioritising in the resurfacing of tennis courts and the construction of sports pitches, priorities that now seem questionable, in the view of the Public Accounts Committee and the MOD.”
“The Chief of the General Staff’s leaked briefing tells us, on the subject of accommodation: “Estates are becoming less safe and more run down”. Those of us who have the honour and privilege of representing garrison towns will know that from our casework. Both as an MP and, before that, as a medical practitioner, I have been truly appalled by the service accommodation in my constituency. The commanding officer of 3 Para, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Tootal DSO, cited the abysmal state of soldiers’ housing as one of the reasons for his resignation last month. Ten years after it came to power, the Labour party still likes to blame long-term under-investment, but bed spaces that were acceptable a decade ago will have deteriorated massively in the interim, while expectations have risen in parallel with those of the general population.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record, but I did not see him at the meeting on Monday. He would have benefited greatly from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and I are familiar with Selly Oak and supportive of it. It is clearly right that our injured personnel are treated with the very best that our NHS can offer in an appropriate tertiary care centre. However, we continue to receive reports—I received one only a few minutes ago—of badly injured people still being nursed on mixed general wards. I seek the Minister’s assurance that he is doing everything he can to ensure that the military managed ward is of sufficient capacity to accommodate our injured service personnel.”
“I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I understand it, the tennis courts in question were run for the benefit of the Royal Military Police.”
“Even with the guaranteed income payment, to which the Minister referred, it seems that many of our young men and women face a frugal existence that contrasts, I am afraid, with the financial outcomes for people with relatively minor occupational injuries. Meanwhile, the PAX life insurance and compensation scheme, pushed by the MOD, intends to bump up premiums by at least 30 per cent. to mitigate the losses incurred through the current level of combat injury and death.”
“CGS staff believe that it is bringing a Pot Noodle and sandwich culture and say that they have even seen soldiers cooking ration packs over gas burners in their rooms. That is not a good situation to be in. Little wonder that soldiers are cynical; what was sold to them as a ritzy new line of restaurants and exciting eating opportunities has turned out to mean little more than the introduction of a till. We have expressed our concern at the armed forces compensation scheme and I know that the Minister is reviewing its application. I await the outcome with great interest, but I am not convinced that the deal that our wounded soldiers get reflects the enormous debt that we owe them.”
“As ever, my hon. Friend has made a good point. The Government have at their disposal any amount of fine artwork, and it seems a pity that they have invested public funds in that way. Nothing is more important to morale than pay and food, yet the joint personnel administration system has managed to churn out 55,000 cases of underpayment from January to September. We learn that this Christmas, soldiers have become dependent on the charity of regimental associations to tide them over. Where does the Minister think that fits in a military covenant that he maintains is not broken? The Chief of the General Staff’s briefing team’s leaked report pops up again to criticise strongly the new way of charging people for food. Ministers know it as “pay as you dine”, but soldiers call it “save as you starve”.”
“The children involved are great kids who deserve the very best, but they are handicapped by a funding formula that ignores their needs and the results of turbulence in particular. Such children are invisible in the pupil level annual school census; if they join and leave during the school year, it is as though they never existed for the purposes of the funding that their LEA gets. What effect does the Minister think that has on school finances? Is it any wonder that service children’s results are so relatively disappointing?”
“Research by Wiltshire local education authority, which is very much at the forefront of the issue, reveals that children from forces families perform worse in all subjects—particularly maths, interestingly—at all levels than their civilian-family neighbours. In Warminster in my constituency, 59 per cent. and 50 per cent. of pupils at the Avenue school and the nearby New Close primary school respectively come from service families. In Wiltshire overall, the figure can go up to 80 per cent. in some primary schools. That picture is repeated across the country in areas where there is a large military presence. The problem is the turbulence that is caused and the other special factors that act as cost drivers in schools with a high proportion of service children.”
“Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and others, who have asserted that the circumstances are exceptional. Those of us with children know what a preoccupation education becomes; we worry far more about our children’s education than we ever did about our own. The Liberal Democrat motion fails to mention families explicitly or education at all; those are serious omissions. However, this summer’s continuous attitude survey for Army members, whose children find themselves particularly exposed to turbulence, reveals that half the families feel that Army life is having a negative or very negative effect on their children’s schooling.”
“Once too often, as my hon. Friend says. I have an interest in coroners’ inquests because the Wiltshire coroner is basing his work at the old Trowbridge town hall in my constituency. I have spoken to the coroner, Mr. David Masters, about these issues. I hope that the Minister will agree with the Prime Minister that having 122 inquests outstanding from Iraq and Afghanistan is unacceptable. I hope that he will be able to say what he will do to relieve what I regard as the avoidable stress being caused to bereaved families. Surely our military covenant should cover them. Other Members have mentioned the issue of legal support for bereaved families. If the MOD feels it necessary to be represented at the inquests, it is surely right that families should be represented as well. I entirely endorse the remarks of the hon.”
“As most of us here contemplate Christmas at home with our family and friends, is it any wonder that our troops feel let down by a Government whose first instinct is to spin, even at the expense of our men and women engaged in two major conflicts? Those conflicts were unforeseen by the planning assumptions of a now laughably out-of-date strategic defence review and financed only in part by a heavily caveated urgent operational requirement. I end on a slightly more conciliatory note. Four years after the publication of the well intentioned but largely ignored overarching personnel strategy, the Government’s understandable focus on military hardware may well have unwittingly squeezed what used to be called the greatest single factor in Britain’s armed forces—their people. The time may have come to reappraise the balance.”
“I am sure that there is an element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman has said. October 2 was a day of significant speeches from sandy places. In a reversal of what presumably was intended, the Prime Minister’s Iraq address was completely eclipsed by the barnstorming speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in Blackpool. Back in October, Christmas seemed such a long time away, but it did not seem so for service families. The Prime Minister said from his desert soapbox that 1,000 troops would be home for Christmas, but he failed to say that the pledge was backdated to June. In fact, since the beginning of September, the number of troops has fallen by just 120.”
“I was simply bringing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise me had I not done so.”
“Where was the hon. Gentleman on the last occasion we had an opportunity in Government time to debate defence, which was on 16 October, and where was he on Monday night when we discussed the mental health problems that face our servicemen and veterans?”
“As I understand it, approval was given to wear the medal by Her Majesty following recommendations made to her as Head of State of those countries. She cannot be bound to make the same determination in respect of the United Kingdom. To use the vernacular, I am arguing for some “chilling out” on medals to avoid the blind alley down which the HD committee has been forced, by virtue of the 1969 Foreign and Commonwealth orders and regulations, which have been so unnecessarily proscriptive and caused so much unhappiness, bewilderment and misunderstanding, and which, I suspect, have had diplomatic consequences in respect of the PJM.”
“It might be far more helpful to replace those rules with a more permissive line that might run: “UK citizens may wear awards from foreign powers at their discretion unless they are requested not to.” That would get the Government and the HD committee out of the fix in which they unwittingly find themselves. It would be a sensible way forward. The sovereign must remain the fount of all honour. That lies at the heart of the matter and is the bedrock of the work of the HD committee. However, those strange little rules generated in 1969 are standing in the way of what, to most of us—including friends and allies abroad who have approved this medal—appears to be common sense. However, just because New Zealand and Australia approve of its wearing, we are not necessarily bound to follow suit.”
“The committee’s determinations appear to be inconsistent, and although the rules that govern it suggest that it is not necessarily a problem that precedent does not guide or dictate future decisions, if we do not rely on precedent, I am afraid that we are likely to fall into the trap of randomness that gives rise to a sense of injustice on the part of veterans when they find that their medal has not been officially endorsed. That endorsement is important to veterans, for reasons pointed out by the hon. Member for Romsey. They are ex-servicemen, accustomed to abiding by rules, and they feel uncomfortable if approval is not given to what they did, particularly when that concerns medals. The rules, which state that one may not wear a medal unless it has been officially approved, are standing in the way of common sense.”
“One of my principal concerns about the HD committee is that it appears to have been inconsistent in its judgments, which I suspect might be partly the result of political interference. It seems that two major rules override its considerations in this arena: double medalling and five-year retrospection. However, we have heard about the commemorative Russian 40th anniversary medal and how that event was marked by the British war medal. More specifically we might consider the Malta 50th anniversary commemorative medal, which is similar, but covered directly by the British Africa star.”
“Many will look on our country, perhaps from Malaysia, and ask, “What on earth are the British playing at? Why are they failing to give any official endorsement of the award of this medal?” We heard eloquently from the right hon. Member for Islwyn and from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) about the possible effect on Malaysia. At a time when we are trying to build bridges, particularly with countries with a substantial Muslim population, it seems churlish to open ourselves up to the accusation of being unhelpful and unfriendly. The committee resides within the Foreign Office, which is why a Foreign Office Minister is replying to this debate, but we seem to be scoring a diplomatic own goal.”
“In the context of our armed forces that is very clear: a person cannot wear any item on their uniform unless it is contained within uniform regulations. However, this is not a debate about whether servicemen and women representing this country in uniform may wear particular awards or decorations—one would assume that they may not, unless they bear the image of the sovereign or specific permission is given. We are talking about veterans and civilians. It seems strange, particularly given the plethora of badges, medals and awards of various sorts that veterans are accustomed to wear, to forbid, in those regulations, the wearing of the PJM. That seems rather odd and a little capricious. Mention has been made of Sir Humphrey. Although I would not accuse the committee of acting like Sir Humphrey, this situation appears somewhat Humphreyesque.”
“In the context of a partly political committee, we need to discuss whether we should reconstitute the way in which honours and decorations are recommended to Her Majesty the Queen. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister feels that, informed by some of the issues raised in this debate, we could look again at the committee to see how it can be brought up to date. The rules that the committee is obliged to work to are contained largely in Foreign and Commonwealth Office orders passed in 1969, which have since been updated. The first rule prohibits UK citizens from accepting or wearing a foreign award without the sovereign’s express permission. In a sense, we are making a rod for our own back, because, unusually for British law, those orders state that a person may not do something unless given permission to do so.”
“There are representatives of the Prime Minister, the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. They are senior officials. To say that there is no political input may be a little wide of the mark. Indeed, they can feed in the views of Ministers, according to a letter of 20 December 2005 sent by Mr. William Chapman, the secretary of appointments at No. 10. That is clear evidence that the committee is influenced by politicians. In considering whether the committee is fit for purpose, we need to remember that. I suspect that the right hon. Member for Islwyn, when he was a Minister at the Ministry of Defence, will have had some input to the HD committee through the MOD official.”
“Some of them are foreign awards and decorations, and some have the status of emblems or badges; some can be bought, for not very much money, but they have no official endorsement. We need to consider the subject in that modern context. I want to put on the record my thoughts on veterans badges. Like many innovations, one has to reserve judgment initially to see how things work out. Having presented some, and having been eligible for one myself, like my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East, I am pleased with them. They were a good innovation and a positive move, something that was appreciated and warmly welcomed by veterans. I congratulate the Government on introducing them. The make-up of the HD committee is curious. It has eight officials.”
“It is by no means a trivial issue, and the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) fleshed out some of the problem. The feeling that the veterans have for their medals cannot simply be dismissed by saying, “”Well, you can wear them anyway.” People can wear whatever they want. Indeed, those involved with Remembrance day services of one sort or another, which includes most Members here, will have noticed in recent years an increase in the number of medals, emblems and badges—we heard earlier about the veterans badge—which are all worn with a great deal of pride by veterans. Some of them, of course, are officially awarded and endorsed by the HD committee; some are not.”
“I congratulate the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) on obtaining the debate and on the manner in which he introduced it. I express slight surprise at the vitriolic way in which he attacked the HD committee. At the end of the day, it operates to rules that effectively are handed down by Parliament, and it is to those rules that officials work. If we are unhappy about the committee and how it works, we need to address the way in which it is structured. I shall say a few things about that later. It is important to establish that medals are important to servicemen and to veterans. Those of us who have not served need to discuss the matter with veterans fully to appreciate the part that medals play in service life and the way that veterans view themselves and their service.”
“I cannot wait. Of course the committee will not reconsider the matter, because it is obliged to work to the rules that are set down in the 1969 regulations. It is the business of Ministers to amend those regulations, so I am afraid that the Minister cannot get off the hook.”