25/11/2016 House of Commons

Waldouck, order. Point of order, Mr David Tredinnick. I am most grateful

to you for correcting me with my most overhasty manoeuvre there. I

beg to move that the House to sit in private. The question is that the

House do sit in Private. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

the contrary, "no".. The noes have it. The Clerk will now proceed to

read the orders of the day. The Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

second reading. Thank you, Mr Gareth Johnson. Mr Speaker, I beg to move

that this bill now be read a second time. To undermine our veterans is

wrong. To claim your military hero when you are not is wrong. To steal

valour is wrong. That is why I am introducing this bill and can I

thank the Ministry of Defence and the Government for their prompt and

fulsome support for this bill and also Her Majesty's opposition. In

addition, can I thank the Defence Select Committee for their

professional report and also to colleagues for going -- for forgoing

their constituency commitments to be here today to debate this bill. The

whole point of this bill is to protect genuine heroes. People

should not be able to claim that they are heroes when they are not.

There is quite rightly a heightened respect for veterans and the service

they have given this country. This, coupled with the increased

accessibility of second-hand medals and insignia, has led, in my

estimation, to an increase in people stealing valour from genuine he tees

-- genuine heroes. The so called Walter Mitty is parading themselves

at remembrance parades and elsewhere sporting models -- medals they have

not earned is wrong. As someone who served in the military years ago as

an officer, I'd like to just say how important this bill is to all

service men who deserve badges of rank and decorations as sacrosanct

and I think you're doing a great service to although there is in the

Armed Forces bringing forward this bill. I'm grateful to the honourable

gentleman for his contribution. Since I introduced this bill, I've

been touched by the number of ex-service men and current

servicemen who have contacted me to express exactly that sentiment, who

feel they are being undermined and that the value they have somehow

being chipped away at and eroded by those people who are undeserving yet

claim that they are. People must have confidence when they see the

magnificent sight of veterans proudly wearing their medals at

remembrance parade services and elsewhere that those medals were

legitimately awarded to those that bought them. Can I give the House

one categoric assurance about this bill? That nothing in it will cut

across the wonderful custom that has become established of families

wearing medals that their loved ones have earned out of respect and

honour of the recipients. Yes, certainly. Does my honourable friend

agree with me though that there must be a clear definition of a family

member to ensure that there was no room for manoeuvre or loopholes

within the system for people to abuse it? My friend raises a very

interesting point. There are two ways one can approach a bill like

this, when trying to preserve the right, I would say, family members

to sport medals. One is to be very definitive, so literally list

everybody who qualifies as a family member. We see it in the children

act, for example. The other is to keep it open and allow the court 's

discretion. The difficulty comes with trying to define exactly what a

family member is, because he was always this people out. Is the

boyfriend of a niece a family member? It probably depends on the

circumstances. The list goes on and therefore I have deliberately taken

the view that they should be a wide definition of family in order to

allow the court to decide whether or not that actually applies. This is

something though that would be debated in committee. This is

something I am open-minded about. I am not being overly descriptive

about this. I want to make sure that we are

maintaining a situation whereby family members can still sport the

medals, often on the right breast, but still wary medals that they are

rightly proud of. I give way. Often on the right breast. It is the only

position for medals that you have not earned to be worn on the right

breast. Anyone who is wearing a medal, Mr Speaker, on the left

breast has earned that medal. I am very aware of that custom. What this

bill doesn't want to do is deal with people who have wardrobe

malfunctions when looking in the mirror. We only want to keep those

who deliberately deceive others. Does my honourable friend agree with

me that when our service men and women showed great courage, they

should be able to wear the medals if they want to, but Marines in my

constituency have been told they cannot wear their Nato Africa medals

because they do not fulfil the rigour standards. The honourable

lady touches on something very important but this bill only touches

on those who are being fraudulent. If people have legitimately and and

worn these medals, they will not be caught out by this bill. I am

grateful to my honourable friend for giving way and I support his bill

but I wonder, could you just provide a comment or an assurance, this may

be something that needs to be dealt with in committee if it progresses

that far, about those who have mental health difficulties and

problems who are not being malicious but just out of ill health find

themselves often wearing a medal to which they are not entitled and we

should deal with people in that category who have no maliciousness

in the action in a particularly sensitive and understanding way? The

honourable gentleman raises a very, very important part and this bill

does not intend to criminalise people who have very severe mental

health problems. The criminal law in particular is used to dealing with

this situation. I will come onto this in more detail later in the

speech but this is not an attempt by this bill to criminalise people who

do not have the mental capacity to form the necessary intent to commit

the offence. This is a specific intent offence and therefore

somebody who is unable to mentally create that intent in their own mind

will not be caught. There is also an overarching provision that no

criminal proceedings would follow unless it is in the public interest

to do so. That applies in all elements of criminal law and

therefore that is often used when people are they mind that gentleman

explains. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. Mr

Speaker, my constituent, Surgeon Captain Rick Jolly, was decorated by

both sides in the Falklands War, but had to get the permission of Her

Majesty to wear both medals. Doesn't this show that we should respect the

medals that are given for valour and I completely agree with my

honourable member's bill and I would support everybody in the House to

support it today. I am grateful to the honourable lady and I think she

quite rightly raises the issue that it would be a travesty if people

were to have that bravery that was clearly shown in the Falklands by

that gentleman, if that were to be undermined and devalued somehow by

people who are claiming, with maliciousness, very often, that they

are equal, that they have eaten -- that they have also served, they

have put their neck on the line when that is not the case. I believe we

need a change in the law, as is often seen around the world. My

honourable friend is making a powerful and very persuasive

argument. Can he just confirmed that they used to be an offence for this

kind of behaviour, for stolen valour, and it was inadvertently

repealed? I think it within the Armed Forces act 2006. The gentleman

is absolutely right. The Armed Forces act 2006 did reveal that and

back came into effect in 2009 and therefore we currently do not have

any law of a nature that is seen very often around the world to

protect veterans. If I can, Mr Speaker, come back to the point that

was mentioned by one of my honourable friend earlier and

reiterate this point about family members being able to wear medals

that have been won by loved ones. Can I say quite categorically that I

would not, in any way, introduced a bill that were to cut across that

very excellent custom. I would not introduce a bill that did that. I

think it would be an worthwhile to do so. It would also be completely

contrary to common decency. Mr Speaker, you will know that medals

are not permitted to be worn in this chamber. But if I were to be wearing

a medal, then I would wear my great-grandfather's medal. He served

in the East Kent Regiment. He was killed at the Somme. He was given

that medal and I would wear that, Mr Speaker, if it were permissible to

do so, which it is not and I appreciate that. I would wear that

and I think that illustrates that actually my intentions are to

preserve the customs that family members are able to sport loved ones

medals without fear from this bill. The tradition of doing that is such

that it should not only be protected, it should be enshrined in

custom within this bill. For those who deliberately attempt

to deceive people, they will be caught, and I make no apology for

that. People who commit this act to -- do so for a variety of reasons,

some because they are affected by serious mental health problems and

this bill will be an offence of specific intent so anybody with a

serious mental health problem to the point that they cannot form that

intent, cannot be convicted of this offence and of course, as I

mentioned, the Crown Prosecution Service would have to satisfy a

public interest criteria test before any prosecution could even begin

against somebody who carried this out. It has been brought to my

attention that there are occasions when people who have mental health

problems do commit this act but as I say, there will be those safeguards

in place in this bill. There are people who are very manipulative and

use medals for their own advantage, seeking the respect that comes from

them in order to advance their own cars that might cause. I'm thinking

of a councillor in Thanet who wore medals he had not found in order to

help with his election campaign. I'm sure we will hear more from the

honourable member for Thanet South later. He walked past veterans and

their families winning numerous medals he had not won yet no

prosecution could be brought against these people and many others because

quite simply, as things stand it is not against the law for people to do

that. Estimating exactly how widespread this problem is can be

very difficult. There are no arrests and therefore no records. The naval

families Federation recently surveyed over 1000 of its members

and found that around one third of them had experienced these Walter

Mitty types. The Walter Mitty Hunters club, although I have no

connection or association with that club, they claim to have received

something in the order of 20 to 30 complaints on average per week. I

understand they are also currently investigating 70 different cases

that have been brought to their attention. I am president of my

local Royal British Legion group intent and there have been two

instances there are people pretending to be decorated veterans

when they haven't even served on Her Majesty's Armed Forces. This cannot

go on. If we leave things unchecked, it will lead to a situation where

trust and the whole medals system, trust in valour purely evaporates. I

come back to the point, I was contacted on numerous occasions by

veterans who have recounted to me their experiences of witnessing

imposters at the remembrance services. They feel insulted and

heard by the actions of these individuals so the problem is

genuine and anecdotal and it does actually seemed to be increasing. We

need, therefore, the deterrent factor that this bill would be able

to provide. I believe it is right that the offence would also carry a

term of imprisonment and I have suggested a three-month period which

would actually met the legislation the member for Dover alluded to

earlier on that previously was in place in this country but is no

longer available. Of course, any sentence would be up to the court,

but making the offence imprisonable allows for community-based penalties

to be imposed by the court, which otherwise would not be available if

this were an offence that was fined only. Therefore, it is right,

proportionate and appropriate that in the worst cases there is a term

of imprisonment available to the court at their discretion, shouldn't

be necessary, -- should it, but I make a clear statement that a

three-month imprisonment is available for the bill, a youth

court in prison would not be available. If a youth is taken

before the youth court under this bill, custody would not be available

and I am content with that. I think it is quite rare for 17-year-olds

and under to fall foul of this, however, I think it is right that we

do not leave open a term of imprisonment for 16, 17-year-olds,

purely because of their age. I am endeavouring to bring into law

something that has previously applied in this country but isn't

available today. The issue of stolen valour has a history in this

country. After the First World War, Winston Churchill into just the

offence at his dispatch box as secretary of war and at the time he

commented, we want to make certain that when we see a man wearing a

medal, that we see a man who everybody in the country is proud

of. That was Winston Tuttle's words at the time and he was absolutely

right -- Winston Churchill. It applies today to the men and women

who serve our country. The Armed Forces act in 2006 repealed this

offence, essentially because it was a bit messy and uncertain but

unfortunately it wasn't replaced at the time and I know this decision

has been criticised by the defence select committee. As a consequence

of this decision not to replace legislation it has not been an

offence ever since. Whilst it is currently possible to prosecute for

fraud where monetary gain applies or under the uniforms that, if a fool

regiment uniform is worn, the law does not currently cater for people

stealing valour in the way I have described and therefore public

confidence can be shaken -- fool regiment -- full. I have met many

people wearing an SAS beret. It is astonishing amount of people who

have been in the air force when you see them walking around this street

-- the streets! I would think one in 20 of them has been in the special

air service. An important point by a distinguished and experienced

veteran. In pretending to be a member of the special air service is

the most common form of people stealing valour to curry favour and

win respect for themselves and it can be done in a way that is deeply

insulting. I have also experienced that veterans have a very good nose

for picking out when somebody is actually stealing valour from others

and I have seen it in my British Legion club where veterans have

noticed that something just isn't right and their ability can be used

to identify these Walter Mitty character is and could be used to

bring prosecutions against these individuals -- characters. The

Americans recently adopted their own stolen valour act in order to

protect recipients of the purple heart. There is a huge problem in

America of people pretending they were recipients of the purple heart

when they were not. In fact, there are very few countries around the

world that don't have an equivalent of this bill and I'm not aware of

any of those countries feeling it necessary to repeal the legislation

and therefore I think we can deduce from that that the law has worked

well in other countries, so why, Mr Speaker, why not us? Why can we not

have our version of the stolen valour act that has worked well in

America and around the country? I think we could be confident with it

in the UK too. We have a proud military history in the UK. Each of

the regions that make up the United Kingdom has contributed

significantly to our Armed Forces and had excelled in wars over the

years. It therefore seems wrong to me that we do not afford veterans of

the protection that we see so often in other countries. Mr Speaker, many

people braver than I have put their necks on the line for this country.

We owe the freedoms we enjoy in this chamber to those who have fallen and

those who risk their lives for us. Indeed, we are overlooked Ike Shilts

at either end of this chamber -- by Shilts, colleagues of those who gave

their lives for us in both world wars. We cannot allow that valour

and therefore to be stolen, we cannot allow the public to lose

trust in our veterans and we cannot allow their memories to be

undermined. I therefore ask that this bill be given a second reading

today. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I pay

tribute to my friend back for bringing this bill before the House

today -- honourable friend. It is Black Friday today and I notice my

honourable friend from Shipley and the honourable member from Barry

North, make take a discount in their interventions and go shopping

because we have much business to conduct today. Much has been said

about the nature of those wearing false medals and winning them

falsely. They are here primarily to deceive and whilst we may have a

view of the Walter Mitty Hunters club whose activities can be perhaps

a little aggressive at times, the nature of such people is that they

are trying to advance themselves in the community to create a sort of

standing in the community that they simply haven't earned. My honourable

friend from Dartford has said how manipulative these people are. They

seek acceptance into an exclusive club of which they have not found

the right at all -- not earned. That is often seen on Remembrance Day

when people join parades were us as the public pay a particular tribute

to what people who have earned their medals have done in the service of

this country. There is a certain amount of legislation that can help

us already and that is when fraud, financial fraud results from such

standing that has not been earned. Perhaps when it has been

obtuse where the fraudulent method has been applied to people who have

used medals for their own advantage but I'm sure there are cases out

there and my honourable friend mentions a man who is no longer a

councillor who had perhaps used that to his advantage. Other members had

mentioned mental health issues and I'm sure many of these people who

used medals to their own advantage who have not earned them, trying to

gain some standing, do have a degree of mental health issues but we have

lots of the criminal code and it would be up to the police to decide,

then the CPS and then of course the courts to determine the mental

attitude of such people. We find that to be very normal and used in

the right way in other parts of the criminal code and I feel there is no

problem whatsoever in supporting my honourable friend's bill because I

do not think there would be an issue on mental health because there are

other parts that would come to bear, but the main reason I am supporting

my honourable friend's bill is the deterrent effect because currently

we have no deterrents following the 2006 Armed Forces Bill which sadly

dropped the old 1955 and prior to Winston Churchill's act after the

First World War, but rather more than that, not just the deterrent

effect of my honourable friend's bill, it will actually create a

certainty to the public. People like myself and others in this House and

the general public. We could be absolutely sure that when we do see

veterans, we can pay appropriate tribute to them, because we will

have a greater certainty that these are the real deal and they have

errand what they are displaying -- earned. And we can on them

appropriately. So I think there are two benefits to the bill today.

There is discussion about the appropriate penalty and three months

imprisonment has been suggested. Possibly more likely, depending on

the case, there could be an opportunity for community payback, a

certain number of hours work in the community and I would be, it would

probably be the more likely outcome through the courts, but it would be

on a case-by-case basis. What greater thing?

I can add to that. Roger Day was the last person prosecuted under the

previous act in this country, although the act had actually

expired if you do is beforehand but they gave him community service and

I think that shows that this is the court reading in this case. They

feel that... This has to be an imprisonable offence. My honourable

friend gives a good account of his knowledge of the law in such cases.

What greater community payback could there be that such people are

convicted under my honourable friend's proposed bill is community

payback to do service to war widows, to the great memorials around our

country, to actually be paired them and cleanse them. I can seem no

greater payback to the community under this bill. I really do want to

just mention very briefly to the House the case of Kevin Connor

Collins in my constituency. He was elected as a UK councillor last

year. He claimed to have served in and this is quite a remarkable array

of claims, he claimed to have been awarded an MBE, claimed to have been

awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, a military Cross and a

distinguished service Cross. If that had been true, he would have been

the most decorated veteran in the entire country. He was outed by

online... I will give way. He also had had to serve in practically all

three services to have got those medals. Yes, my honourable friend

does highlight the ridiculousness of the situation. He was outed by

campaigners and later resigned as a planet councillor. Further been

found out to be a bigamist, just the most Walter Mitty character in

enormous proportion. I wouldn't usually mention cases such as this

and rely on the privilege of this House but Sky News have covered

this, the Son and even he himself has belatedly offered an apology for

his lies and deceit. Now, how could we solve this in the united states

under the 2013 act, they have created an online database. That may

be a route that could be considered. It may be a sensible route to take.

All over the great Internet it does afford us already a great deal of

information about such people who claim to be what they are not. In

the closing, Mr Speaker, there is an international dimension to this. We

would not in this country be doing something unusual, we would actually

be aligning ourselves with what happens, particularly across the

rest of our friends in the EU, it would also be a commonality with

what we see in Australia, the United States and I certainly think that

the deterrent effect, such an act that was taken away in 2006 is long

overdue and I am very much support his efforts here in the house and

hope it makes progress today. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very

much, Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you. Can I start by commending my

honourable friend for Dartford are bringing forward this bill? I can't

be as enthusiastic about it as he was or my honourable friend for

Thanet south. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, to be in the typical

tradition of private members bills, which is what I would say has two

things usually in common. The first one a worthy sentiment, it comes on

a Friday and has a worthy sentiment and you cannot deny the worthiness

of the sentiment. The other thing they usually have is an element

great or sleight of gesture politics. This one falls into that

particular tradition as well. I want to be clear from the start that the

idea behind this bill is absolutely admirable, all veterans deserve our

upmost respect, appreciation and support. I hope that goes without

saying. I hope it also goes without saying that I want to be crystal

clear as well that seeking to help them, given all that they've done to

make their sacrifices for us, should be an absolute priority. But

unfortunately I do not see this bill as being either necessary or

actually helpful. I am most concerned it will disproportionately

affect people with mental health issues and even veterans themselves,

which would be a very unfortunate unintended consequence of an

admirable aim. Apple come onto the Defence Select Committee's report

later but I want to mention the title now as I think it is highly

relevant. The Defence Select Committee called the report into the

bill exposing Walter Mitty, it didn't The Awards for Valour

Protection Bill. Unfortunately, exposing Walter Mitty is not all we

are doing here. We are talking about criminalising Walter Mitty and he

could face three months in prison. I have to say, in passing, Mr Speaker,

it astounds me that I stand here, week after week, as you will have

heard fire too many times own good, we should be sending more people to

prison, people who have committed burglaries, robberies, all these

sorts of crimes, community sentence after community sentence, never get

sent to prison and everyone always tells me we are spending far too

many people to prison, we should be sending fewer people to present and

then here we come along for we are trying to send somebody like this

that is making up some boastful exaggeration and we talk about

sending them to prison. Everybody in this House that marvellous, never

mind the burglars and the robberies and all these people who will never

be sent to prison but let's have them in prison. Let's make it a

imprisonable offence, I am astounded by this change in people's way. I am

very grateful to my honourable friend for forgiving way. But

doesn't that underscore the seriousness and the sensitivity of

this point that our honourable friend the member of Dartford is

trying to deal with this bill and so many of us are supporting it. We are

dealing here with a special category of people, those who have given all

their lives in many instances to protect and preserve all that we

hold decent in this country and therefore to try and lump them in

with as important Mr Speaker, as they are victims of Burghley and the

is actually trying to compare apples and oranges. I'm not surprised

Marylebone friends think this is more serious than a Burghley

robbery, we are going to to disagree. I'm not sure many people

are in the country would agree with him. If that's the case, Mr Speaker,

then the question that then begs is why is it only three months in

prison? Presumably if it's such a serious thing, one of the most

terrible crimes that anyone could possibly commit, why are we not

giving them ten years in prison or three years? Three months for

something that is such a heinous crime. The honourable members can't

have it both ways, they can't say this is the most obnoxious crime

that will ever be put before the country on the one hand and then say

on the other hand actually we only want to three months in prison as an

absolute maximum. People are going to have to decide whether this is a

serious offence or it isn't. I will give way. I thank the honourable

gentleman forgiving way. Would you not agree with me that it sends a

message to our Armed Forces that we not only respect them but we value

the work that they do? My honourable friend is absolutely right. If I had

a pound for every time on a Friday I heard somebody say, we want to pass

this bill to send a message, well, actually, we can stand here and send

a message. We are seeing how terrible it is, somebody goes round

wearing a medal they are not entitled to and we think that's a

terrible thing to do the maths sending a message. We are not

sending a message, Mr Speaker, we are passing an act of Parliament. We

are actually putting somebody in prison potentially. That doesn't

sending a message. That is doing something far more drastic. I will

give way. Is he aware that domestic Burghley carries 14 years as a

maximum sentence, robbery carries life imprisonment, this carries

three months, therefore I do believe it is proportionate. I don't agree

with the honourable gentleman when he says this is boastful

exaggeration, it's far worse than that. It is insulting, indignant and

undermine the confidence that people have in our medals and downhole

veteran system. Three months imprisonment is an appropriate way

of dealing with such a problem I appreciate that that is his view. I

want to set out that is not my view. If we look at the current legal

position, it is neatly summed up by the Ministry of Defence who in

response to any petition said in May last year this, the Government does

not believe that the UK requires an equivalent to the USA's stolen

valour act. The stolen valour act 2013 makes it a federal crime to

fraudulently claim to be a recipient of certain military decorations are

medals in order to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit.

Under UK law, the making or attempting to make a financial gain

by fraudulently wearing uniforms are medals or by pretending to be or

have been in the Armed Forces is already a criminal offence of fraud

under the fraud act 2006, as is the pretence of being awarded an

official medal. The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years

imprisonment. It is also an offence under that act carried up to five

years in prison meant for a person to possess or have under his control

any article for use in the course of earning connection with any fraud.

It is also an offence against the uniforms act 1894 for any person not

serving in the Armed Forces wearing a uniform, any of the Armed Forces

under such circumstances likely to be in contempt upon that uniform.

However, it is not automatically against two-way veterans badge or

decorations are medals which have not been earned and there are no

plans to make it an offence. There are many instances where winning

medals of deceased relatives as a mark of respect on the right breast

and we would not wish to discourage this practice. As far as current UK

prosecutions are concerned, Mr Speaker, the details we have very

bit sketchy to say the least. The bit sketchy to say the least. The

Defence Select Committee report says written evidence that the MoD has

provided... Data on a number of other offences was regrettable but

was either not held are not held in the form that allowed the types of

offences requested to be distinguished. To give you an

illustration that the number of people against the Magistrates'

Courts and found guilty under the uniforms act of 1894, the were none

at all in 2011, 20 132015 and one was found guilty in 2012 and one in

2014. It is hardly a big issue on that score. Next to none, I think

would be the best phrase to use. I also sent a Freedom of information

request to the Metropolitan Police to see what information I could

gather about the existing legislation by their forces. The

reply from West Yorkshire Police said, is that was conducted by which

were made between the 1st of August 2011 and the 31st of July 20 16th

inclusive and contained any of the keywords, medal, military and

uniform. Within the arrest circumstances description. As well

as the search for arrests between the 1st of August 2011 and the 31st

of July 2016, there was an offence under the uniform act 1894, Anna

says was then carried it find any records which related to individuals

waging war valour medals they were not entitled to work and no such

records were found. Searches were conducted, the searchers fail to

locate any information relevant to your request, therefore the

information you requested is not held by the Metropolitan Police

Service. If existing legislation appears to be used infrequently as

we think they're made to consider carefully the extent of the problem

that this bill seeks to address. I give way. I am grateful to my

honourable friend forgiving way and I always like the breath of fresh

air that he blows on anything smacking of political correctness.

As he has referred to the committee report, May I draw his attention to

the testimony of the chief executive of veterans aid, one of the longest

lasting charities to do with veterans affairs, set up just after

the First World War and he says that incidence of false metal wearing

art, and I quote, a daily occurrence and, he says, that we have no sense

of the enormity of it. Wearing uniforms incorrectly or not current,

that is not this bill is about. And coming onto the point that my

honourable friend makes because I want to praise the Defence Select

Committee who have done a brilliant job in looking at this. I am going

to give them much praise throughout my speech because there are certain

points of his report that I want to draw attention to, including the

fact my honourable friend for Dartford said this to the Defence

Select Committee enquiry. He said we have had a couple of

instances of people pretending they have received honours when that is

not the case. I do not think it is a not typical for people to act that

way. Hundreds of people have behaved in a way that the bill seeks to

address. The Royal British Legion in its present evidence to the

committee says in the Legion's own experiences, instances of Walter

Mittys appeared to be rare. Spoken to people in the Legion's welfare

Department, who have been approached by individuals reporting to have

served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces but had no service number, only a

handful of instances can be recalled. They were no reliable

statistics to reveal the true scale of the problem although the media

will from time to time expose individuals who have been caught

impersonating a member of the Armed Forces. The Royal Air Force families

Association in their written evidence to the defence select

committee, is it a growing problem? Their answer was, we have no

evidence either way but we would not instantly say it was not widespread.

-- we would instinctively say it was widespread. It is hard to judge if

it is a growing problem. Any preceding these might be down to

wider exposure of incidents via social media. On the other hand,

public awareness and extensive campaigns may encourage some

individuals to claim they have been awarded medals to which they are not

entitled. It seems to me this is not as big an issue as my honourable

friend would have us believe. I'll give way. I'm very grateful. If I am

understanding my honourable friend correctly I think he is taking us

down a particularly dangerous path whereby saying that things should

only be made illegal if there is a trigger quantum that makes that act

necessary. This House could easily pass or make illegal something for

which there is only evidence of one occurrence, it doesn't make it any

less heinous if it is only one, truly. The problem is that my

honourable friend who moved the bill actually made the point that this

was so important because this was a growing problem. I didn't notice my

honourable friend intervened to say whether it was a growing problem not

at that time. If people are making the case we need to pass this bill

because it is a growing problem, I am making the point that there is no

evidence that it is a growing problem. My honourable friend did

not bring up his perfectly valid point to my honourable friend when

he was making the case for this bill as a result of that particular

session. In terms of the past Government positions, the historical

context of this is very interesting. It was an offence of the army act

1955 for people to wear medals and decorations that were never awarded

if they were used in a way as to be calculated to deceive. This changes

the result of the Armed Forces act 2006 which repealed the Army act

1955 and the air force act 1955 in which the offence was originally

specified and the defence select committee enquired after the

Ministry of Defence to as wide sections like 197 of those acts were

repealed and not replaced, what was the rationale behind that decision?

The answer to that was that section 197 created three separate offences

including two offences of winning any decoration, badge, stripe or

emblem of the lies for whereby the sovereign or anything closely

resembling them without authority. It was not clear who could give the

necessary position. The need for authority in all cases suggests

these could be worn in -- these could not be worn in a film or a

fancy dress without permission. Current badges, states and emblems

have also precluded the wedding of historic ones. Requiring specific

authority was considered to be excessive and was no longer insisted

on. The third offence was a falsely represented entitlement to wear such

badges and emblems. It would also require considerable amendment,

section one 97. The minister said these provisions in the 1955 acts

were not included in the 2006 act not only because of the

inconvenience of the need for authority to wear them but also

because it was considered an important part of people making

financial gain or representing themselves dishonestly to being

entitled to a medal. It was decided this was compress -- comprehensibly

dealt with. It carried a sentence of ten years before the Crown Court. It

was also decided an offence based on an intent to deceive which did not

involve fraud, for example where there was no attempt to make a

financial or property gain or cause someone lost, was likely in practice

to cause difficult questions of proof which I think is perfectly

relevant to the debate that we are having today, Mr Speaker, and the

example that we have been given, to bring for this bill as I understand

it, about the clearly disreputable councillor who was making claims

that were preposterous in order to become a counsellor seems to be

perfectly covered by the acts in which she wanted to take a job that

came with paid through dishonest means. -- he wanted. That is already

covered by the fraud act and therefore this bill would make

absolutely no difference apart from the fact it would mean that he could

not be as severely treated by the court that he was prosecuted under

this as he could be under the fraud act 2006. It seems to me that

honourable members who are using that case to make the case for this

particular bill are actually saying that they want that person to be

treated less severely by the courts than they could be at the moment

under the current legislation, which seems to be a rather bizarre way of

making the case for this bill. We've also been told what happens in other

countries and that we must fall in line with other countries, which was

another reason I heard for making the case for this bill in the

previous speeches. I asked the Commons library to let me know what

happened in other countries around the world about this and they came

up with some very detailed research on the subject, which is

enlightening, and they have summarised some of this in their

excellent research paper that goes with this bill today. I suspect, Mr

Speaker, that you wouldn't want me to read out what happens in every

other country in regards to this matter. I expect you want me to make

a more slick approach than that. Tempted though I am, to actually

highlight what happens in other countries, given of course this is a

reason why we need to have this in this country. I hope the honourable

gentleman would speak as freely as he normally does. I'm very grateful,

Mr Speaker, for that. There are massive variations in what other

countries do. It is not one-way traffic as others might have thought

from the speeches that we heard earlier. For example, in Australia,

the maximum penalty for fraudulently weeding a medal is six months in

prison or a fine of 5400 Australian dollars. In Austria, for example,

the maximum penalty is a 220 euros fine for fraudulently wearing a

medal. In Belgium, it is 1000 euros. Most of the countries that I can see

here, the maximum penalty is actually a fine rather than a prison

sentence and so I don't think people should actually get carried away

with the idea that if we are not sending people to prison for this

offence, that we are out of step with the rest of the world, that is

not actually... In order to save my honourable friend a little bit of

breath I could just put on the record. Then as an appendix to the

report that sets out the long list of countries that have criminalised

this fence, several of which go from a fine up to periods of six months

or a year in prison. Surely the point is that this is a debate on

whether or not the bill should be given a second reading. If my

honourable friend feels strongly that a prison term is

disproportionate, then it is up to him to apply to join the bill

committee and are due to amend it, rather than to prevent something

from becoming illegal, which so many countries have made illegal, whether

it is a fine or whether it is a prison or whether it is a sliding

scale between the two. I don't just object to the sentence, as I been

setting out, I've been objecting to the purpose of the bill. The

sentence is actually part of the bill, as my honourable friend nose,

and he said he's got two pages of countries that have made this an

offence. Given the number of countries there are around the

world, you must accept the number of countries around the world have not

made this an offence. Just for the sake of it, Australia has made it an

offence, Austria, Belgium, Canada, it is not known whether Croatia has

made it an offence. The Czech Republic has made it an offence,

Denmark has an unknown fine scale, Estonia has made it an offence.

Finland has not made it an offence. France has made it an offence,

Germany, an unknown fine, Greece, and unknown fine, but still an

offence in both cases, Hungary has made it an offence, Ireland, Latvia

has not made it an offence nor Lithuania, Luxembourg has made it an

offence, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania,

Russia, Slovakia is not an offence, Slovenia is, Sweden is an denatured

states is. I think that covers most of the main basis -- the united

states. Can I say to the honourable gentleman who chairs the defence

select committee with such aplomb and distinction that his

intervention was somewhat longer than the list. What my honourable

friend said is right but if he thinks that is the full list of

countries around the world, he is doing his geography knowledge at

disservice -- a disservice. There are far more countries and around

the world! I'm grateful for giving way but the long list that has been

read out, does that not indicate that so many countries have offences

listed there and imprisonment and fines? They act as a deterrent but

as our bill today shows, we have nothing. My honourable friend says

we have nothing but the one case we have heard that is the basis for

this particular bill, we already have something, it's called the

fraud act 2006 which actually covers people who are trying to make any

kind of financial gain from their fraudulent use of medals. The point

of the deterrent, what are we trying to deter? We've not heard any other

credible cases so far, apart from one already covered by the fraud act

2006. The added range of offences covered here in all these countries

and it is a distinction between winning medals, winning medals with

an attempt to deceive in any way and winning medals with a view to making

a financial gain and I'm not going to encourage my honourable friend to

get up again to outlive laid down the list he read out to make the

distinction between those three different categories of offence

because he was gripping them all convenient together, but as he will

knows, they can't all be grouped together so neatly because they have

different categories of offence and as I made clear, there is already

protection in this country for fraud legislation. Some countries that do

not appear to have any offence related to the winning of medals as

my honourable friend said include Finland, Lithuania, and Slovakia. I

want to deal with the penalties in this bill later but it appears

they're all different in these countries. For the countries that do

have a penalty of this kind, some are fines and some are imprisonable

once and at the Royal British Legion notes in the evidence to the defence

select committee, they say we are aware that the awards of valour

protection Bill is based on the stolen valour act that was

introduced in the United States in 2005 before being repealed but

amended in 2000 -- 2015. It is close to false representation found in the

UK's fraud act 2006. Both pieces of legislation state that the

impersonation of members of the Armed Forces is only a criminal

offence if it is used to make a financial gain or cause a financial

loss. In short, simply claiming military awards, service or injuries

to gain sympathy or recognition well clearly disappointing -- while

clearly disappointing is not in itself illegal under US legislation.

The 2005 stolen valour act sought to punish all those who lied about

military service but it was struck down by the Supreme Court as it was

deemed to violate the first Amendment. This bill today seems to

extend the scope to arrest someone for winning a medal beyond those who

aim to benefit tangibly via fraud to those who aim to benefit in an

intangible way such as to gain respect. The case in America is a

very good example of how this could be unworkable as well as a step too

far. The stolen valour act of 2005 came into US law in 2006. The

purpose was to amend title 18, United States code, to enhance

protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the medal

of honour and other military decorations and awards similar to

the purpose of today's Bill. The law made it a federal misdemeanour to

falsely represent oneself as having received any US military decoration

or medal. If convicted, individuals could be imprisoned for up to six

months, except for falsely claiming to be a medal of honour awardee in

which case imprisonment could be up to one year. But in 2012, the law

was struck down by the US Supreme Court as a result of the case of

United States versus Alvarez. He falsely claimed he had received a

medal of honour and due to this lie he ballot -- violated the act

resulting in a $5,000 fine. Three years probation and 416 hours of

community service. The penalties in the US tend to be staring out that

they are in the UK for most offences, Mr Speaker. However,

subsequent appeals eventually reach the United States Supreme Court to

eventually ruled that lying about military heroics was

constitutionally protected speech unless there was intent to gain some

benefit or something of value by fraud. Justice Kennedy wrote, the

nation well knows that one of the costs of the first Amendment is that

it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.

Though few might find respondents statement is anything but

contemptible, his right to make those statements protected by the

Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and -- expression, the

stolen valour act in teachers upon speech protected by the amendment.

We are trying to go the opposite way to the US. New legislation was

introduced after the stolen valour act in 2013. This made it a federal

crime for an individual to claim to be the recipient of specified

military decorations or are medals with the intent to obtain money,

property or other tangible benefits. This was in an effort to make the

Supreme Court's objection to the 2005 act. This protection is already

covered under UK legislation as they made clear by fraud legislation. It

makes no sense whatsoever to leave ourselves open to challenge which is

obviously flawed piece of legislation which has already been

proved unworkable in another country. The Defence Select

Committee's report says in the US situation, whereas he was concerned

that the offences related to false representation, the position in the

US concerning the physical wearing a medals remains uncertain. As well as

amending this book -- scope of the offences related to fraudulent, it

also removed the word wares from the federal code. It's currently ongoing

to decide whether winning medals also violates the same -- first

Amendment as fraudulent representation. In my honourable

friend's overly lengthy intervention, Mr Speaker, he was

there saying that the United States was one of those countries that he

was seeing having the law and a year in prison, the United States to not

have this law in place. The select committee made this abundantly clear

and as that particular case stated, the law in the United States and the

exact same as the law in 2006 fraud act in the United Kingdom that is

already in place, which I'm sure he must have known when he made his

intervention trying to praise the United States. I very much believe

in freedom, warts and all, as the US Supreme Court judgment says, Mr

Speaker, that sometimes means the freedom to Dudas, stupid and even

annoying things without the threat of being criminalised. I would

rather hear it for a key like this to be taken to the European Court of

Human Rights to have to be engaged, not only because I would rather have

nothing to do with such a court but also because it is also unavoidable.

We managed to stop insulting words and behaviour from being

criminalised under public order legislation and it seems that

criminalising people from pretending the serviceman is something of a

similar nature. We heard that the reason for this is because people

rather take offence by what people do. Mr Speaker, there are all sorts

of things that go on in this country that people take offence at. Far too

many things, in my opinion, that people seem to take offence out. I

get very offended at how easily other people are offended. But I'm

not entirely sure where that particularly takes us in wanting to

pass a law. Are we going to pass a law to stop any offence ever been

taken by somebody? Back to me is a ridiculous state of affairs. That is

the motivation behind this bill today. Wants to pass a law because

some people are offended by this. If that's the way we're going to go in

this House, Mr Speaker, into many cases I fear we already have, if

that's it we were going to go in the House, that is a very, very sad day

for the House of Commons. Even the Defence Select Committee commented

on this point further on freedoms of expression that arose in America.

They say the case of Donaldson versus the United Kingdom

demonstrates it is possible for the outward wearing of or devices to be

considered as expression for the purposes of article ten. Although

embassies in this was placed on the devising question of war as the

expression of the applicant's political views which may not be so

straightforward for a medals are concerned. Even over the rights in

Article ten one are engaged, article 10.2 sets out that is legitimate for

these rights to be restricted, including for the purposes are

preventing disorder or crime, such as fraud, or to protect the

reputation rights others. That could include the blue recipients of these

awards. The inclusion of the intent to deceive is an element of the

defence and the defence is later to family members will also be likely

to assist in a legislation passing the court putt tester

proportionality. It is clear to me, we already have the offence for the

purposes of actual fraud but if the intent to deceive is simply to

impress a woman in a bar, the threat of three months in prison might all

of a sudden seem a rather extreme. In terms of the effectiveness of the

legislation, aisles or ask the House of Commons how effective the

legislation was in other countries and how often it was used? The

answer to this is even more illuminating. Looking at some of the

countries with the stiffest penalties it's interesting to see

hammy times the are committed. Again, Mr Speaker, I'm not going to

be trim every single country, that would be testing your patience

beyond what I would wish. But I think it's pertinent to point out

some of these points for the purpose of this debate. According to the

House of Commons library in terms of the United States, the federal

prosecution statistics are published each year by the US Department of

Justice. The latest published figures which were released last

year for 2012, even then it has not been possible to ascertain specific

figures for successful prosecutions under the stolen valour act. The

library can find any specific date on convictions with little only

examples they could prosecutions or instances where individual had been

arrested but not charged or those reported in the media or on websites

dedicated to exposing these individuals. The thrust of my point,

Mr Speaker, throughout this is that actually the media highlighting

these people's behaviour is sufficient enough to actually expose

these people for what they are and to open them up to public ridicule.

That is the best way of dealing with these things, rather than actually

going through a whole Crown Prosecution Service, prosecutions

and ending up with these people in prison, which strikes me as being

rather ridiculous. In Canada, similar to US, there are statistics

are compiled and criminal code offences by the prosecution service

of Canada and are grouped into categories. It is difficult to

obtain figures offences of this type as it is an insurance whether the

information is held. The only examples of prosecutions they could

find in Canada were those that were reported in the media again. There

was one particularly high-profile case in 2014, 15, which related to

impersonating a soldier at a remembrance day ceremony in uniform

and not visibly wearing a medal. I will give way. I am grateful. My

honourable friend has asserted the right of this House in this country

to be independent and computer is why my honourable friend is looking

at what other countries do is to validate what we do in this country.

I'm not entirely sure my honourable friend has been following the debate

as but it seems to me that what I'm doing for the benefit of my

honourable friend and others as demolishing the points made by the

people who are proposing this bill is by bit. All of the arguments we

have had for this bill, this is yet another argument for this bill. We

should be doing this because this is what other countries are doing. This

was one of the key planks of my honourable friend's opening remarks.

I didn't hear him pulling him up on that particular point to say that

was irrelevant. If it actually said at that point, what on earth are you

on about? RFU to meet a similar intervention after my honourable

friend for the New Forest East had made this point, I would've had of

December before him but he's no clutching at straws to try and

defend a bill which is increasingly becoming indefensible. It is

becoming complete unnecessarily and H point that's been made at the

knocking down and my honourable friend can't actually add to those

points. He can only see the point that we raise to start with about

why this bill is so necessary isn't really one of the main point is that

we have anyway. I can't second-guess what the real point is worth. I can

only base my points on the arguments that were given by people who

proposed the bill. If people want to make other arguments, and prepared

to listen to them. Thus far, haven't heard any other arguments apart from

that other countries are doing. My that other countries are doing. My

honourable friend for New Forest East was making a point of self.

Moving on to Australia, the library said the Australian Federal

useful figures but it's difficult to useful figures but it's difficult to

say with certainty be related to the stolen valour. In 2012, 13, the

latest available figures, they said they dealt with two cases under the

defence act of 1903. The statistics don't state what those specific

offences were and again much of the information found has been the

result of media sectors. For example an article in the Herald on

September 2014 said the state of Victoria over the last ten five

people have been charged with impersonating a returned soldier,

two people have been charged with impersonating a member of the

defence Force, seven people have been charged with improper use of

defence service decoration. In New Zealand, again, statistical

information of this nature is also presented in the same way. An

offence of wearing an authorised military decoration could be

included in fraud, public order or miscellaneous offences in their

database so it is difficult to pinpoint the extent of the problem.

In Australia and New Zealand, there is a group called Australia and New

Zealand military imposters group which is dedicated to exposing

military imposters. They have a section on their website which lists

individuals that they consider to be military imposters. The information

you provide is not official information and is not necessarily

lead to prosecution and, therefore, it should be treated with some

caution. It does not appear that there are lots of prosecutions for

all offences, never mind for the offence of wearing a medal. Some

people who were medals to deceive will be evil characters, most likely

with the intention of doing something for themselves, financial

I would have thought in a lot of cases or it may be to impress other

people. The ones who set out to deceive for nonmonetary purposes

must therefore have a different reason for doing so. Maybe to gain

respect, to pick themselves up to attract a member of the opposite sex

are made of the same sex. Who knows? I am however concerned people with

mental health issues may be disproportionately affected by this

particular offence rather than the fraud offence. The Royal British

Legion in the written evidence to the Defence Select Committee said...

I thank my honourable friend for the list of countries that have already

enacted similar legislation that has been composed here and he find very

few cases of people being taken to court because of them. Isn't that

entirely the purpose of this bill, to have a very powerful deterrent

effect and given the few number of cases abroad, it has obviously been

shown to have worked? A problem with that argument, attractive though it

is superficially, we have not been able to find a great many cases

where its existing the UK. Happening without the legislation in place. It

seems to me it is just as rare in countries that have the legislation

as it is in those countries like I was that don't have a legislation.

In fact, I suspect one of the reasons why many countries don't

have the legislation is because nobody has ever find it being a

problem in the first place. That's the whole point of why many things I

legislated for an countries. Things tend to be legislated on any country

when there it seems to be a problem, something needs to be done. I would

make the point to my honourable friend that actually the fact that

there is actually nothing happening in those countries with a lot would

indicate there must be even less happening in those countries without

the law. Because those countries that want to pass the law in the

first place. I don't follow the logic of my honourable friend's

position. Yes, of course. in the this as a layman but my

honourable friend is bringing the bill and is indicating there are

serious cases and a problem with people winning medals when they

shouldn't be. Doesn't it clearly indicate that whatever legislation

we've got isn't working and that we do need something stronger? I don't

share my honourable friend's confidence in our honourable

friend's evidence. I haven't heard the evidence, I've heard an

assertion that this is a big problem but an assertion is very different

to evidence. In the evidence given by people like the Royal British

committee, I won't repeat myself committee, I won't repeat myself

from earlier, but I made clear in my speech that the Royal British Legion

gave evidence to the defence select committee saying they didn't think

this was a very big problem at all. Just because somebody comes to the

House and assert it is a big problem is not what I call evidence enough

in order to pass an act of Parliament. Coming back to the point

I was making about people with mental health problems, Mr Speaker,

the Royal British Legion in their written evidence said the Legion is

not presently clear if the proposed awards for the valour protection

Bill is opposed to replicate the 2005 by 2013 stolen valour act in

the US. If based on the former, careful consideration may need to be

given as to how vulnerable people claiming to have served in the Armed

Forces are punished under the terms of this bill. My honourable friend

said during the inquiry, from my understanding that are different

types of Walter Mitty character is, people with serious mental health

problems who need help -- characters, and he went on to say

someone with a serious mental health problem or sports medals should not,

as often the case with criminal law in this situation, fall foul of a

lot of the point they are incarcerated. The court would pursue

a hospital order route. This for me is still quite worrying and open to

all sorts of risks when the case comes to court. Someone may have a

mental health issue but there might not be suitable for a court hospital

order. The fact they have simply won medals that were not there -- their

medals to wear could mean them facing anything up to a custodial

sentence and that is disproportionate in my opinion.

People to be criminalised in this way is also a step too far. It might

actually be more difficult in some cases for someone with mental health

issues to show that they not intend to deceive if they have no other

explanation for the wearing of the medals. I've tried to contact a

number of mental health charities in recent days to see what their

opinion might be on this subject. Unfortunately none of them were able

to get me a firm answer as they have not been made aware of the bill but

I will be very interested to know if they have any concerns or views on

this. One of the issues of the bill is that those mental health

charities clearly haven't been engaged to give their particular

perspective on whether or not this is proportionate or not and yet

today we had in danger of passing three piece of legislation which may

cause those problems for people with mental health issues without proper

scrutiny and giving them the opportunity to have their say on

that troubles me greatly, Mr Speaker. Then there's the issue of

Army veterans themselves winning medals that they did not actually

win. Not a civilian wearing a medal, but an ex-serviceman wearing one. In

this case, you could call it stolen extra valour, maybe. Do we really

want to be prosecuting veterans under this legislation? That would

surely be an ironic, unintended consequence of the legislation, but

there is nothing to stop somebody being prosecuted who actually did

serve in the armed forces, did gain some medals, being prosecuted for

not wearing the right medals! That surely would not be what this House

would want to see happen. This is something that the Royal Air Force

families Association also touched on in their submissions to defence

select committee inquiry. In reply to the question, what is the

attitude of current and former seven members of the Armed Forces to

imposters, they said we think the attitude of our people would depend

on individual circumstances and would range from mild irritation and

perhaps even amusement where an aged World War II veteran has upped his

awards in an attempt to garner respect recognition, through 20

outrage and anger at individuals who are trying to defraud people and

profit from deliberate encapsulated actions in claiming awards to which

they're not entitled, more so when the individual has not even served

and I think that is a marvellous point that they make, because what

they're saying is that if those people who are just begging up what

they've or something is something that former service people see with

mild amusement and can have a laugh at. The people that they get really

angry about are the people who are doing it to try and defraud people I

claiming these things, -- defraud people who are claiming these

things. I think people who are promoting this bill are actually

using the Armed Forces as justification to try and support

something that actually this bill is not dealing with. They are the ones

who are actually confusing apples with oranges as my honourable friend

was trying to make the point earlier about the comparison between apples

and oranges, what the armed forces get angry at our people trying to

defraud people through being an impostor. That is already covered,

so we have mild irritation and perhaps amusement at the other end

and yet in these cases, if this bill is passed, the individuals in

question because mild irritation and even amusement will be facing

certainly a criminal record and very possibly a custodial sentence. Mr

Speaker, should people have a criminal record and go to prison for

causing mild irritation and perhaps even amusement for the people who

this bill is setting out to defend? Surely that is disproportionate. I

also want to touch on the difference between impersonating a police

officer and wearing a medal. The defence select committee report says

we believe an offence with the intention to deceive but not defraud

may raise practical difficulties on questions of proof. Such offences do

exist. For example, the offence of police impersonation under section

90 of the police act 1996, therefore we conclude that the legal concept

of deception is sufficiently well established for this not to cause

major difficulties. Some people say they impersonating a police officer

offence is not a dramatic departure, but I disagree, these things are

completely different issues. Wearing a medal to gain respect or kudos is

one thing but impersonating a police officer is different thing. Police

officers have actual powers which could be used in a most sinister

way, that is surely got to be any differently to someone wearing a

medal the just not entitled to wear -- they are just not entitled to

wear. This week there was a report about the difference between this

and impersonating a police officer. Apparently a man pretending to be a

police officer used a flashing blue light on the front of his car to

signal to a woman to pull over as she drove in Glenrothes in Scotland

at about 11:20am. He then told to get out of the car and she became

suspicious and drove off to call the real police who confront this was

not one of their officers. What could have happened as she got out

of the car does not bear thinking about. Surely that cannot be classed

in the same way as wearing a medal to which you are not entitled. There

are a view other things I want to mention about the actual detail, Mr

Speaker. The bill says that the offence of winning medals or

insignia without in title is clause one. Subsection one, subject to

subsection five, a person who, with intent to deceive, where's

represents themselves as being entitled to an item specified by,

which they're not entitled to wear, is guilty of an offence. I just want

to emphasise the important part of that, a person who with intent to

deceive where's represents themselves as being entitled to wear

an item. . This means that somebody does not have to be wearing a medal

to commit an offence under the bill, which is the point we have been

hearing. People who were medals and things they're not entitled to wear,

this bill does not just stamp out the wearing of medals, Mr Speaker,

it is for somebody who represents themselves as being entitled to wear

a medal who would be guilty of an offence. An exchange between my

honourable friends during the defence select committee inquiry

deals with this point graphically. -- perfectly. My honourable friend

said with seek to criminalise the false representation of entitlement

to a declaration medal without a person even wearing it? Let me give

you an example, any links to any members of this committee are purely

coincidental. I should say that given to the honourable member in

front of me is. But say you got a corporal going down the pub and

racking up a not insignificant bar tab and gobbling off about winning a

military Cross in Normandy or whatever, with this legislation

apply in that case? My honourable friend replied, it would. The first

subsection of this bill indicates that someone who wears represents

themselves as being entitled to wear would be covered, so someone goes

along and says I won a Victoria Cross and look what has happened to

me, it's dreadful, I need help and assistance, they would fall foul of

this law because they are making a false claim and the dialogue between

my honourable friend, the member for new Forest East and Dartford, is

very start. The chairman of the select committee said he is not only

there for trying to gain something, or is it just out of boastfulness

that they would still be caught? My honourable friend said if it was

carried out in a way that was intended to deceive people, he would

be covered by this bill. My other honourable friend said, even just to

get the prestige of the credit? Yes, said my honourable friend for

Dartford. This could mean, Mr Speaker, that someone who gets drunk

and start pretending they have a medal, in any circumstances and in

front of any other person, could be guilty of this offence and face a

prison sentence. Do we really think that that is proportionate for

somebody who has had too much to drink in the pub and start

pretending they've got a medal that they haven't earned? Are we really

going to criminalise these people and potentially send them to prison?

Is that really what this House is intending to do today? Which medals

Mr Speaker, when it comes to the medals that will be covered, the

bill says in subsection two, those items are a military medal or

insignia meeting the requirements of subsection four, the George Cross,

George medal or queen's gallantry medal, or any medal or insignia

awarded for valour and given by the Secretary of State or an article or

emblem resembling an item specified. For the purpose of this section,

insignia means a class, ribbon or bar or equivalent authorised by the

moniker defence Council awarded to a member of the United Kingdom's Armed

Forces in connection with an act or acts of valour. The Royal British

Legion in the written evidence to the defence select committee said

that although the precise wording of the bill is yet to be printed, at

that time it was, the Legion understands that it aims to prohibit

the wearing of public display by a person not entitled to do so will of

medals or insignia awarded for valour with the intent to deceive.

As the bill is further developed, the region would welcome assurances

that those who were the medals of deceased relatives will not be

captured by the provisions of this bill and we now know that they are

not captured by the provisions of this bill. The committee may also

want to consider how the bill will accommodate the practice of winning

commemorative medals as committee members will no doubt be aware, many

veterans feel strongly that their service during particular military

campaigns are periods of operation should be formally recognised, yet

there is often no official medal commemorating their service.

Veterans have been known to commission and purchase

commemorative medals that highlight their involvement any particular

campaign or demonstrate their service, although they are not

officially recognised. Whilst the Legion does not condone the wearing

of commemorative medals on parade, we would not like to see individuals

punished under proposed bill, provided their service record

support their involvement any particular campaign. The definition

of medals does appear to be fairly narrowly drawn, but this definition

could easily be changed by regulations in future and it is not

just restricted to actual medals, it includes clasps, ribbons, bars, etc,

but more importantly, anything resembling these items. My

honourable friend for Dartford said, where do you stop? He might know

where he wants to stop, but when something has started, it is very

difficult to stop. Urgent question, Diane Abbott.

To ask her if she will make a statement on the recent review

conducted by Her Majesty Constabulary into the Metropolitan

Police handling of child sex abuse cases. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today,

Her Majesty Constabulary published the findings in its child protection

of the Metropolitan Police Service. The findings of this inspection are

extremely concerning. The indicate that the Metropolitan Police has

been failing in its duty to protect children from harm. These are

serious issues that this Government is clear must be urgently addressed.

It is not acceptable that almost three quarters of the child

protection cases reviewed have needed improvement or were

inadequate. Nor is it acceptable that officers focused on tackling

child exploitation with no training on how to deal with that crime. It

is simply shocking to hear that the Metropolitan Police had to be

prompted to take action on cases even after serious issues had been

identified which meant that a child could be at risk. Honourable member

is, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke to the Mayor of

London about this report yesterday. I also spoke to the deputy yesterday

and we were reassured that it doesn't tend to take swift action to

address these appalling failures. We are also clear that improving the

police response to child protection will be a priority for the new

commissioner when he or she is appointed. In light of the severity

of each MIC's findings, the Home Secretary has commissioned Her

Majesty expected of Constabulary to provide a quarterly update on action

by the Metropolitan Police to address the issues and

recommendations in the report to help the mayor to ensure immediate

progress is made. The public will rightly expect to see progress being

made quickly. They will want and need reassurance that clear

improvements are being made now. That is why these reports will be

published so that the people of London can hold there are thought to

account for those improvements. I am sure everyone in this house will

join me in demanding swift progress in the Metropolitan Police to the

opportunities protect children not missed and any child who goes

missing or who is at risk of child sexual exploitation gets the

protection they need and deserve. The Home Office in its annual report

and accounts the 2015, 16 Z, we have already recognised child sexual

abuse as a national threat in the strategic policing requirements. We

are obliging forces to maximise specialist skill and expertise to

prevent offending and resolve cases. It seems the only force that it

wasn't obliging to maximise specialist skill and expertise was

the Metropolitan Police force, the largest force in the country. I

appreciate that technically this is a matter for the mayor and for the

mayor's officers policing but this is a force that the Home Office had

responsibility for as recently as 1999. And the public will not

understand why the Home Office never asked questions about how it the

largest force in the country was preventing offending and revolving

-- resolving child sex abuse cases. This report comes weeks after the

damning review finding numerous errors in Scotland Yard's operation,

these revelations come in the week in which the largest group of

survivors have withdrawn from the child sex abuse enquiry, which makes

you wonder how long the Metropolitan Police has been failing victims of

child sex abuse in London. This is a shocking report. The Home Secretary

cannot hide behind the mayor. Looking at child sex abuse in its

totality, looking at how the child sex abuse enquiry seems to be

crumbling. The public would be forgiven for asking how seriously

does this Government really take the issue of child sex abuse. Mr

Speaker, there is an extent to which I'm not quite sure what the direct

questions were in the right honourable lady's statement just

now. I would just say to her show is referred to a time when she herself,

mention 1999, I'm not sure she's read the full each MIC report. Maybe

she should do that. She is referring to the period when was the start of

the Labour governments are not quite sure she's good at surviving the

Government. As I said, the Home Secretary herself has commissioned

each MIC, she has spoken to the Mayor of London, they have got a

plan of how they want to hold the Metropolitan Police to account. It

seems to me we have got more confidence in the Mayor of London

than the honourable lady does but I'm slowly surprised about. It is

important we are focused on this issue and it is important this hack

House is a unified statement that we should be united on which is that

the Metropolitan Police who are responsible for this are in a

shocking situation that nobody in senior management in the

Metropolitan Police had a grip on responsible for this comic get to

grips with it, deal with and do it now. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my

right honourable friend agree with me that child sexual exploitation

shouldn't require any force in the land, particularly the Metropolitan

Police, given its size and the geopolitical location of London and

its access to major airports and ports, etc, but it seems and an

extraordinary defence that some seem bidding for that because there

wasn't a memo or an e-mail or an explicit instructions it was felt

that this in some way could be a lower priority for policing. My

honourable friend makes a very good and powerful point. When we consider

particularly in London arguably the best funding and resourced police

force in the country with the largest and of police officers, the

idea in the Metropolitan Police or anywhere in this country is quite

right, we should have to specifically say to police force

that this is clearly an issue that should be dealt with, that anyone in

the public profile, the fact that the first port of call for the

police is to defend its citizens, the most vulnerable are the core of

that, goes without saying. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Problems in this

area go well beyond London's what discussions has the Home Secretary

had with the majesty expected of Constabulary identifying their

similar feelings being made in other police forces in England and Wales

and there haven't been taking place, will be be taking place in? I can

give the honourable gentleman 's comments on this issue. The report

into London as part of an ongoing series of works of the HMI sea is

doing. It has been commissioned to do everything the police force in

the country. The London report has just been published but there have

been others already published and more will be going ahead over the

next year. We have to be unequivocally clear about this. This

is the most damaging report the HMIC have given on any police force in

the country. Mr Speaker, Lancashire Constabulary has very much focused

as we saw some professionalising training for its officers on child

sexual exportation. Can my right honourable friend confirm that the

office, College of policing, was specifically set up to

professionalise the police and provide them with better training?

My honourable friend makes a very good point and is absolutely right.

This is exactly why this Government and the now Prime Minister Home

Secretary has set up the College of policing to make sure we

professionalise the police and also able to make sure that across the

country we share best practice and that along with the National police

and Chief constables coincide exactly how we should be making sure

the police forces are well equipped across the country to deal with all

issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituents will be very concerned

about this. Can the Minister tell me what steps the Government has taken

to protect vulnerable and young people from abuse right across the

country? My honourable friend raises a very good point and it is

important we remember there is the independent enquiry that is looking

at all of these issues historically right up till now, it is important

that enquiry has its space and the support to get on with and do the

job so we can make sure that we are able to learn and to show there will

be justice for anybody who has been through these horrendous ordeals. We

have to be very clear this is the type of behaviour that simply cannot

be tolerated and is right that we make sure police are trained

officers and is shocking to think the Metropolitan Police are simply

not getting that training place. Does this report today not show that

the critical work of the independent enquiry into child sexual abuse must

continue amine must stop trying to find fault pick holes in it? We need

to allowing give space for that enquiry to hear all the evidence and

bring the perpetrators to justice. My honourable friend is as always

absolutely right. It is important that enquiry is able to do its work,

have a space to do its work and know that it's got the support right

across this House to do the important work of getting the bottom

to some of the problems that we need to get to the bottom of. Whilst

we've seen much higher prosecutions as a result of this issue being much

higher profile, all my honourable friend agree with me that this

report shows the ethos but that the ethos of Crosby will country's

police forces me to change to protect the most vulnerable as well?

He makes an important point. There is an issue across the country. Many

police forces are getting to grips and changing the culture in how we

make sure that vulnerable people and people at risk of any kind of hidden

crime have got the confidence they can be protected and come forward,

as with enquiry's workers about. He is absolutely right. It is shocking

to think the Metropolitan Police and vulnerable people were not getting

the kind of protection, the opposite and have the training, nobody any

senior position to converse of this issue and that has to change and is

a culture change the Metropolitan Police takes on and any other police

force in the country needs to think about. My right honourable friend is

right to describe this report as a shocking. Are there any actions that

he believes as a result of this that the Government and Parliament need

to take? Mountable sound mixer very reasonable point and reasons an

important question. In the conversations we've had with the

mayor's office and the deputy mayor, I am confident we work they want to

do will hold the Metropolitan Police to account and there is a meeting on

Monday that the public can attend and sit in on. The deputy mayor is

determined to bring around people from the country, College of

policing working with the newly appointed Metropolitan Police to

work on this. Their absolute right to do that. From the Government

point of view, it is right that we do what we can and we have

commissioned HMIC to have quarterly inspections and reporters publicly

said that people can hold the Metropolitan Police to account. We

returned to the The Awards for Valour Protection Bill. Thank you

very much, Mr Speaker. I was making the point before the urgent question

that my honourable friend for Dartford had said the challenging

draft to the bill had been that where do you stop? My point is that

he knows where he wants to stop. With so many things, once something

started it is very difficult to stop as people always want to extend

things. This could well be the slippery slope to other medals and

certificates being included. Surely the principle is the same. Maybe it

should one day start be extended to private medals, and all sorts in the

future. In terms of who should be allowed to wear the medals, the bill

says in subsection three for the purposes of this section, subsection

five, personally entitled means the person to whom the award in question

was made. And then it says, a person does not commit an offence under

subsection one if the item is worn or the person represent themselves

as being entitled to wear it. A ASBO TV reconstruction representation of

historical events, B, as part of the films or theatrical production, or

see as a family member who make the requirements of subsection three.

The library briefing on the bill to because the British Legion and their

advice on the wearing or not wearing of medals. The Royal British Legion

has the following advice. Can I wear medals belonging to my -- members of

my family? The official position regarding wearing medals other than

your own is that they should not be warning. However, it was generally

accepted from soon after the Great War that widows water late husband's

medals on the right breast on a suitable occasions, such as my

honourable friend from Beckett made in an earlier intervention.

Recently, it seems to become the cost of any family member to wear

medals of deceased relatives in this week, sometimes trying to get a

complete family military history by winning several groups. Although

understandable it is officially incorrect and when several groups

does little for the dignity of the original owners. That is the

official advice from the Royal British Legion. The naval families

Association in their written evidence for the Defence Select

Committee enquiry quoted the views of their members. In answer to the

question, if canalisation of wearing medals was introduced, should be

safeguards, for family members who we are the medals of deceased

relatives? The received the following replies. If yes, which

family members should be safeguarded please click all. These are the ones

in that particular survey from the naval families Association actually

ticked. Husband, wife, or civil partner was the most popular, then

we have an married civil partner, parent, guardian, child, step child,

grandchild, extended family and then we have other, which actually had by

the looks of this chat about 14% wherever other. The Royal Air Force

families Association said in their written evidence to the Defence

Select Committee there should definitely be the guard their family

members. The key question is who qualifies? The definition we use is

anyone who has the blood relation but this may not be appropriate in

these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions.

Interestingly, the Ministry of Defence is struggling with its own

definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any

definition for the circumstances with the MoD definition if and when

they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it is properly a matter

for common-sense. Looking at the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is

an exemption for a family member but we are none the wiser as to what a

family member is. Does it include someone who is

married but not a blood relation? I will give way. I'm sure he will

realise, like everyone else in The House has realised, the member

bringing the Bill has already explained that in the committee

process, the definition and the discussion around families will be

discussed at length. I have no doubt it will, but we are on the second

reading and there's no reason why it shouldn't be discussed at length in

the second reading as well as at the committee stage. The Defence Select

Committee say in their report a number of our witnesses... Will the

honourable gentleman give way? I thank my honourable friend for

giving way. Can we be precise on this so that there is no lack of

clarification. The Elizabeth Cross, awarded to widows and close family

members who have lost someone, everyone who is given that is

entitled to wear red wherever they like on body. My honourable friend,

who is expert in these matters, is absolutely right, but we are talking

about all medals that are in the Bill and what the definition of a

family member is and we don't have such a definition of a family member

as far as I can see. I think that people who are entitled to wear

these medals should be afforded the knowledge of actually knowing

whether they can or can't and whether or not they would be

breaking the law. As things stand at the moment, people would not have

that certainty and we could be in the ridiculous situation of someone

who we intend should be able to wear a medal doesn't wear a medal through

some effect because they don't know whether they would be breaking the

law. That would be a terrible unintended consequence of this

legislation. The report goes on to say that term "Family member" must

be defined in terms of the proximity of the relations it is seeking to

include. It is not a legal term but a single definition. Acts of

Parliament which use the term commonly carried definition of

family within them to be used in the purposes of that Act. It says in the

report that Mr Johnson was minded this definition should be quite

narrow, so that a nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the

defence by claiming they were his uncle's awards. Do we really want to

be criminalising a nephew who with his uncle's medals? Do we want to be

sending that person to prison? I can tend that we should not. It also

goes on to say, the inclusion of a defence to ensure that family

members representing the deceased or incapacitated family relations

Warren recipient of medals is vital but family member should be defined

to make sure there is no room for uncertainty or abuse. We request a

definition of family member in order to provide certainty over who will

be covered by this category. While the exemptions covet reconstructions

of historical events and productions, perhaps we could know

how does this exempt people in fancy dress? If my honourable friend's

point is that they are not intending to deceive, why are there specific

exemptions for reconstructions and productions, as though there is

clearly no attempt to deceive in there, but no exemption for people

in fancy dress? I would also like to make a point about actors. One

unfortunate scenario could be with someone starts off legitimately

wearing a medal but then it turned into an offence by accident. Imagine

an actor goes to the pub for a drink after whatever it is they were

acting in and someone mistakenly assumes they are entitled to wear

the medal they have forgotten to remove when they came off the set.