25/11/2016

:00:23. > :00:32.Waldouck, order. Point of order, Mr David Tredinnick. I am most grateful

:00:33. > :00:36.to you for correcting me with my most overhasty manoeuvre there. I

:00:37. > :00:42.beg to move that the House to sit in private. The question is that the

:00:43. > :00:48.House do sit in Private. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To

:00:49. > :01:00.the contrary, "no".. The noes have it. The Clerk will now proceed to

:01:01. > :01:04.read the orders of the day. The Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

:01:05. > :01:11.second reading. Thank you, Mr Gareth Johnson. Mr Speaker, I beg to move

:01:12. > :01:18.that this bill now be read a second time. To undermine our veterans is

:01:19. > :01:24.wrong. To claim your military hero when you are not is wrong. To steal

:01:25. > :01:30.valour is wrong. That is why I am introducing this bill and can I

:01:31. > :01:35.thank the Ministry of Defence and the Government for their prompt and

:01:36. > :01:40.fulsome support for this bill and also Her Majesty's opposition. In

:01:41. > :01:43.addition, can I thank the Defence Select Committee for their

:01:44. > :01:49.professional report and also to colleagues for going -- for forgoing

:01:50. > :01:55.their constituency commitments to be here today to debate this bill. The

:01:56. > :01:58.whole point of this bill is to protect genuine heroes. People

:01:59. > :02:04.should not be able to claim that they are heroes when they are not.

:02:05. > :02:09.There is quite rightly a heightened respect for veterans and the service

:02:10. > :02:13.they have given this country. This, coupled with the increased

:02:14. > :02:21.accessibility of second-hand medals and insignia, has led, in my

:02:22. > :02:28.estimation, to an increase in people stealing valour from genuine he tees

:02:29. > :02:35.-- genuine heroes. The so called Walter Mitty is parading themselves

:02:36. > :02:47.at remembrance parades and elsewhere sporting models -- medals they have

:02:48. > :02:55.not earned is wrong. As someone who served in the military years ago as

:02:56. > :03:00.an officer, I'd like to just say how important this bill is to all

:03:01. > :03:07.service men who deserve badges of rank and decorations as sacrosanct

:03:08. > :03:09.and I think you're doing a great service to although there is in the

:03:10. > :03:15.Armed Forces bringing forward this bill. I'm grateful to the honourable

:03:16. > :03:18.gentleman for his contribution. Since I introduced this bill, I've

:03:19. > :03:22.been touched by the number of ex-service men and current

:03:23. > :03:25.servicemen who have contacted me to express exactly that sentiment, who

:03:26. > :03:30.feel they are being undermined and that the value they have somehow

:03:31. > :03:35.being chipped away at and eroded by those people who are undeserving yet

:03:36. > :03:41.claim that they are. People must have confidence when they see the

:03:42. > :03:44.magnificent sight of veterans proudly wearing their medals at

:03:45. > :03:49.remembrance parade services and elsewhere that those medals were

:03:50. > :03:57.legitimately awarded to those that bought them. Can I give the House

:03:58. > :04:01.one categoric assurance about this bill? That nothing in it will cut

:04:02. > :04:07.across the wonderful custom that has become established of families

:04:08. > :04:13.wearing medals that their loved ones have earned out of respect and

:04:14. > :04:19.honour of the recipients. Yes, certainly. Does my honourable friend

:04:20. > :04:23.agree with me though that there must be a clear definition of a family

:04:24. > :04:25.member to ensure that there was no room for manoeuvre or loopholes

:04:26. > :04:33.within the system for people to abuse it? My friend raises a very

:04:34. > :04:38.interesting point. There are two ways one can approach a bill like

:04:39. > :04:43.this, when trying to preserve the right, I would say, family members

:04:44. > :04:47.to sport medals. One is to be very definitive, so literally list

:04:48. > :04:52.everybody who qualifies as a family member. We see it in the children

:04:53. > :04:56.act, for example. The other is to keep it open and allow the court 's

:04:57. > :05:02.discretion. The difficulty comes with trying to define exactly what a

:05:03. > :05:07.family member is, because he was always this people out. Is the

:05:08. > :05:11.boyfriend of a niece a family member? It probably depends on the

:05:12. > :05:15.circumstances. The list goes on and therefore I have deliberately taken

:05:16. > :05:21.the view that they should be a wide definition of family in order to

:05:22. > :05:25.allow the court to decide whether or not that actually applies. This is

:05:26. > :05:28.something though that would be debated in committee. This is

:05:29. > :05:37.something I am open-minded about. I am not being overly descriptive

:05:38. > :05:47.about this. I want to make sure that we are

:05:48. > :05:53.maintaining a situation whereby family members can still sport the

:05:54. > :06:02.medals, often on the right breast, but still wary medals that they are

:06:03. > :06:06.rightly proud of. I give way. Often on the right breast. It is the only

:06:07. > :06:10.position for medals that you have not earned to be worn on the right

:06:11. > :06:16.breast. Anyone who is wearing a medal, Mr Speaker, on the left

:06:17. > :06:23.breast has earned that medal. I am very aware of that custom. What this

:06:24. > :06:25.bill doesn't want to do is deal with people who have wardrobe

:06:26. > :06:31.malfunctions when looking in the mirror. We only want to keep those

:06:32. > :06:34.who deliberately deceive others. Does my honourable friend agree with

:06:35. > :06:42.me that when our service men and women showed great courage, they

:06:43. > :06:49.should be able to wear the medals if they want to, but Marines in my

:06:50. > :06:57.constituency have been told they cannot wear their Nato Africa medals

:06:58. > :07:10.because they do not fulfil the rigour standards. The honourable

:07:11. > :07:15.lady touches on something very important but this bill only touches

:07:16. > :07:20.on those who are being fraudulent. If people have legitimately and and

:07:21. > :07:25.worn these medals, they will not be caught out by this bill. I am

:07:26. > :07:28.grateful to my honourable friend for giving way and I support his bill

:07:29. > :07:34.but I wonder, could you just provide a comment or an assurance, this may

:07:35. > :07:38.be something that needs to be dealt with in committee if it progresses

:07:39. > :07:43.that far, about those who have mental health difficulties and

:07:44. > :07:49.problems who are not being malicious but just out of ill health find

:07:50. > :07:53.themselves often wearing a medal to which they are not entitled and we

:07:54. > :07:57.should deal with people in that category who have no maliciousness

:07:58. > :08:01.in the action in a particularly sensitive and understanding way? The

:08:02. > :08:08.honourable gentleman raises a very, very important part and this bill

:08:09. > :08:12.does not intend to criminalise people who have very severe mental

:08:13. > :08:15.health problems. The criminal law in particular is used to dealing with

:08:16. > :08:20.this situation. I will come onto this in more detail later in the

:08:21. > :08:25.speech but this is not an attempt by this bill to criminalise people who

:08:26. > :08:29.do not have the mental capacity to form the necessary intent to commit

:08:30. > :08:33.the offence. This is a specific intent offence and therefore

:08:34. > :08:38.somebody who is unable to mentally create that intent in their own mind

:08:39. > :08:44.will not be caught. There is also an overarching provision that no

:08:45. > :08:48.criminal proceedings would follow unless it is in the public interest

:08:49. > :08:51.to do so. That applies in all elements of criminal law and

:08:52. > :08:57.therefore that is often used when people are they mind that gentleman

:08:58. > :09:02.explains. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. Mr

:09:03. > :09:07.Speaker, my constituent, Surgeon Captain Rick Jolly, was decorated by

:09:08. > :09:12.both sides in the Falklands War, but had to get the permission of Her

:09:13. > :09:20.Majesty to wear both medals. Doesn't this show that we should respect the

:09:21. > :09:23.medals that are given for valour and I completely agree with my

:09:24. > :09:28.honourable member's bill and I would support everybody in the House to

:09:29. > :09:31.support it today. I am grateful to the honourable lady and I think she

:09:32. > :09:35.quite rightly raises the issue that it would be a travesty if people

:09:36. > :09:40.were to have that bravery that was clearly shown in the Falklands by

:09:41. > :09:44.that gentleman, if that were to be undermined and devalued somehow by

:09:45. > :09:51.people who are claiming, with maliciousness, very often, that they

:09:52. > :09:54.are equal, that they have eaten -- that they have also served, they

:09:55. > :09:59.have put their neck on the line when that is not the case. I believe we

:10:00. > :10:05.need a change in the law, as is often seen around the world. My

:10:06. > :10:08.honourable friend is making a powerful and very persuasive

:10:09. > :10:13.argument. Can he just confirmed that they used to be an offence for this

:10:14. > :10:18.kind of behaviour, for stolen valour, and it was inadvertently

:10:19. > :10:24.repealed? I think it within the Armed Forces act 2006. The gentleman

:10:25. > :10:29.is absolutely right. The Armed Forces act 2006 did reveal that and

:10:30. > :10:32.back came into effect in 2009 and therefore we currently do not have

:10:33. > :10:38.any law of a nature that is seen very often around the world to

:10:39. > :10:42.protect veterans. If I can, Mr Speaker, come back to the point that

:10:43. > :10:44.was mentioned by one of my honourable friend earlier and

:10:45. > :10:51.reiterate this point about family members being able to wear medals

:10:52. > :10:57.that have been won by loved ones. Can I say quite categorically that I

:10:58. > :11:03.would not, in any way, introduced a bill that were to cut across that

:11:04. > :11:06.very excellent custom. I would not introduce a bill that did that. I

:11:07. > :11:12.think it would be an worthwhile to do so. It would also be completely

:11:13. > :11:17.contrary to common decency. Mr Speaker, you will know that medals

:11:18. > :11:24.are not permitted to be worn in this chamber. But if I were to be wearing

:11:25. > :11:31.a medal, then I would wear my great-grandfather's medal. He served

:11:32. > :11:37.in the East Kent Regiment. He was killed at the Somme. He was given

:11:38. > :11:41.that medal and I would wear that, Mr Speaker, if it were permissible to

:11:42. > :11:47.do so, which it is not and I appreciate that. I would wear that

:11:48. > :11:52.and I think that illustrates that actually my intentions are to

:11:53. > :11:56.preserve the customs that family members are able to sport loved ones

:11:57. > :12:01.medals without fear from this bill. The tradition of doing that is such

:12:02. > :12:03.that it should not only be protected, it should be enshrined in

:12:04. > :12:12.custom within this bill. For those who deliberately attempt

:12:13. > :12:19.to deceive people, they will be caught, and I make no apology for

:12:20. > :12:23.that. People who commit this act to -- do so for a variety of reasons,

:12:24. > :12:29.some because they are affected by serious mental health problems and

:12:30. > :12:33.this bill will be an offence of specific intent so anybody with a

:12:34. > :12:40.serious mental health problem to the point that they cannot form that

:12:41. > :12:45.intent, cannot be convicted of this offence and of course, as I

:12:46. > :12:48.mentioned, the Crown Prosecution Service would have to satisfy a

:12:49. > :12:52.public interest criteria test before any prosecution could even begin

:12:53. > :12:55.against somebody who carried this out. It has been brought to my

:12:56. > :13:01.attention that there are occasions when people who have mental health

:13:02. > :13:07.problems do commit this act but as I say, there will be those safeguards

:13:08. > :13:17.in place in this bill. There are people who are very manipulative and

:13:18. > :13:21.use medals for their own advantage, seeking the respect that comes from

:13:22. > :13:29.them in order to advance their own cars that might cause. I'm thinking

:13:30. > :13:34.of a councillor in Thanet who wore medals he had not found in order to

:13:35. > :13:38.help with his election campaign. I'm sure we will hear more from the

:13:39. > :13:46.honourable member for Thanet South later. He walked past veterans and

:13:47. > :13:49.their families winning numerous medals he had not won yet no

:13:50. > :13:55.prosecution could be brought against these people and many others because

:13:56. > :14:01.quite simply, as things stand it is not against the law for people to do

:14:02. > :14:06.that. Estimating exactly how widespread this problem is can be

:14:07. > :14:10.very difficult. There are no arrests and therefore no records. The naval

:14:11. > :14:16.families Federation recently surveyed over 1000 of its members

:14:17. > :14:23.and found that around one third of them had experienced these Walter

:14:24. > :14:27.Mitty types. The Walter Mitty Hunters club, although I have no

:14:28. > :14:31.connection or association with that club, they claim to have received

:14:32. > :14:36.something in the order of 20 to 30 complaints on average per week. I

:14:37. > :14:40.understand they are also currently investigating 70 different cases

:14:41. > :14:47.that have been brought to their attention. I am president of my

:14:48. > :14:53.local Royal British Legion group intent and there have been two

:14:54. > :14:57.instances there are people pretending to be decorated veterans

:14:58. > :15:03.when they haven't even served on Her Majesty's Armed Forces. This cannot

:15:04. > :15:08.go on. If we leave things unchecked, it will lead to a situation where

:15:09. > :15:16.trust and the whole medals system, trust in valour purely evaporates. I

:15:17. > :15:21.come back to the point, I was contacted on numerous occasions by

:15:22. > :15:30.veterans who have recounted to me their experiences of witnessing

:15:31. > :15:33.imposters at the remembrance services. They feel insulted and

:15:34. > :15:39.heard by the actions of these individuals so the problem is

:15:40. > :15:42.genuine and anecdotal and it does actually seemed to be increasing. We

:15:43. > :15:51.need, therefore, the deterrent factor that this bill would be able

:15:52. > :15:54.to provide. I believe it is right that the offence would also carry a

:15:55. > :15:58.term of imprisonment and I have suggested a three-month period which

:15:59. > :16:04.would actually met the legislation the member for Dover alluded to

:16:05. > :16:09.earlier on that previously was in place in this country but is no

:16:10. > :16:15.longer available. Of course, any sentence would be up to the court,

:16:16. > :16:21.but making the offence imprisonable allows for community-based penalties

:16:22. > :16:26.to be imposed by the court, which otherwise would not be available if

:16:27. > :16:30.this were an offence that was fined only. Therefore, it is right,

:16:31. > :16:34.proportionate and appropriate that in the worst cases there is a term

:16:35. > :16:44.of imprisonment available to the court at their discretion, shouldn't

:16:45. > :16:46.be necessary, -- should it, but I make a clear statement that a

:16:47. > :16:54.three-month imprisonment is available for the bill, a youth

:16:55. > :16:59.court in prison would not be available. If a youth is taken

:17:00. > :17:03.before the youth court under this bill, custody would not be available

:17:04. > :17:09.and I am content with that. I think it is quite rare for 17-year-olds

:17:10. > :17:14.and under to fall foul of this, however, I think it is right that we

:17:15. > :17:19.do not leave open a term of imprisonment for 16, 17-year-olds,

:17:20. > :17:24.purely because of their age. I am endeavouring to bring into law

:17:25. > :17:28.something that has previously applied in this country but isn't

:17:29. > :17:34.available today. The issue of stolen valour has a history in this

:17:35. > :17:37.country. After the First World War, Winston Churchill into just the

:17:38. > :17:43.offence at his dispatch box as secretary of war and at the time he

:17:44. > :17:48.commented, we want to make certain that when we see a man wearing a

:17:49. > :17:54.medal, that we see a man who everybody in the country is proud

:17:55. > :18:01.of. That was Winston Tuttle's words at the time and he was absolutely

:18:02. > :18:05.right -- Winston Churchill. It applies today to the men and women

:18:06. > :18:08.who serve our country. The Armed Forces act in 2006 repealed this

:18:09. > :18:13.offence, essentially because it was a bit messy and uncertain but

:18:14. > :18:18.unfortunately it wasn't replaced at the time and I know this decision

:18:19. > :18:24.has been criticised by the defence select committee. As a consequence

:18:25. > :18:28.of this decision not to replace legislation it has not been an

:18:29. > :18:33.offence ever since. Whilst it is currently possible to prosecute for

:18:34. > :18:42.fraud where monetary gain applies or under the uniforms that, if a fool

:18:43. > :18:48.regiment uniform is worn, the law does not currently cater for people

:18:49. > :18:56.stealing valour in the way I have described and therefore public

:18:57. > :19:07.confidence can be shaken -- fool regiment -- full. I have met many

:19:08. > :19:10.people wearing an SAS beret. It is astonishing amount of people who

:19:11. > :19:16.have been in the air force when you see them walking around this street

:19:17. > :19:23.-- the streets! I would think one in 20 of them has been in the special

:19:24. > :19:32.air service. An important point by a distinguished and experienced

:19:33. > :19:38.veteran. In pretending to be a member of the special air service is

:19:39. > :19:42.the most common form of people stealing valour to curry favour and

:19:43. > :19:51.win respect for themselves and it can be done in a way that is deeply

:19:52. > :20:00.insulting. I have also experienced that veterans have a very good nose

:20:01. > :20:03.for picking out when somebody is actually stealing valour from others

:20:04. > :20:13.and I have seen it in my British Legion club where veterans have

:20:14. > :20:16.noticed that something just isn't right and their ability can be used

:20:17. > :20:20.to identify these Walter Mitty character is and could be used to

:20:21. > :20:28.bring prosecutions against these individuals -- characters. The

:20:29. > :20:32.Americans recently adopted their own stolen valour act in order to

:20:33. > :20:36.protect recipients of the purple heart. There is a huge problem in

:20:37. > :20:41.America of people pretending they were recipients of the purple heart

:20:42. > :20:44.when they were not. In fact, there are very few countries around the

:20:45. > :20:49.world that don't have an equivalent of this bill and I'm not aware of

:20:50. > :20:56.any of those countries feeling it necessary to repeal the legislation

:20:57. > :21:00.and therefore I think we can deduce from that that the law has worked

:21:01. > :21:04.well in other countries, so why, Mr Speaker, why not us? Why can we not

:21:05. > :21:10.have our version of the stolen valour act that has worked well in

:21:11. > :21:17.America and around the country? I think we could be confident with it

:21:18. > :21:21.in the UK too. We have a proud military history in the UK. Each of

:21:22. > :21:23.the regions that make up the United Kingdom has contributed

:21:24. > :21:29.significantly to our Armed Forces and had excelled in wars over the

:21:30. > :21:33.years. It therefore seems wrong to me that we do not afford veterans of

:21:34. > :21:40.the protection that we see so often in other countries. Mr Speaker, many

:21:41. > :21:48.people braver than I have put their necks on the line for this country.

:21:49. > :21:53.We owe the freedoms we enjoy in this chamber to those who have fallen and

:21:54. > :22:02.those who risk their lives for us. Indeed, we are overlooked Ike Shilts

:22:03. > :22:07.at either end of this chamber -- by Shilts, colleagues of those who gave

:22:08. > :22:14.their lives for us in both world wars. We cannot allow that valour

:22:15. > :22:21.and therefore to be stolen, we cannot allow the public to lose

:22:22. > :22:27.trust in our veterans and we cannot allow their memories to be

:22:28. > :22:33.undermined. I therefore ask that this bill be given a second reading

:22:34. > :22:41.today. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. I pay

:22:42. > :22:46.tribute to my friend back for bringing this bill before the House

:22:47. > :22:51.today -- honourable friend. It is Black Friday today and I notice my

:22:52. > :22:58.honourable friend from Shipley and the honourable member from Barry

:22:59. > :23:00.North, make take a discount in their interventions and go shopping

:23:01. > :23:08.because we have much business to conduct today. Much has been said

:23:09. > :23:16.about the nature of those wearing false medals and winning them

:23:17. > :23:20.falsely. They are here primarily to deceive and whilst we may have a

:23:21. > :23:24.view of the Walter Mitty Hunters club whose activities can be perhaps

:23:25. > :23:28.a little aggressive at times, the nature of such people is that they

:23:29. > :23:34.are trying to advance themselves in the community to create a sort of

:23:35. > :23:41.standing in the community that they simply haven't earned. My honourable

:23:42. > :23:47.friend from Dartford has said how manipulative these people are. They

:23:48. > :23:54.seek acceptance into an exclusive club of which they have not found

:23:55. > :23:57.the right at all -- not earned. That is often seen on Remembrance Day

:23:58. > :24:02.when people join parades were us as the public pay a particular tribute

:24:03. > :24:07.to what people who have earned their medals have done in the service of

:24:08. > :24:16.this country. There is a certain amount of legislation that can help

:24:17. > :24:17.us already and that is when fraud, financial fraud results from such

:24:18. > :24:33.standing that has not been earned. Perhaps when it has been

:24:34. > :24:39.obtuse where the fraudulent method has been applied to people who have

:24:40. > :24:43.used medals for their own advantage but I'm sure there are cases out

:24:44. > :24:47.there and my honourable friend mentions a man who is no longer a

:24:48. > :24:52.councillor who had perhaps used that to his advantage. Other members had

:24:53. > :24:56.mentioned mental health issues and I'm sure many of these people who

:24:57. > :25:02.used medals to their own advantage who have not earned them, trying to

:25:03. > :25:05.gain some standing, do have a degree of mental health issues but we have

:25:06. > :25:09.lots of the criminal code and it would be up to the police to decide,

:25:10. > :25:15.then the CPS and then of course the courts to determine the mental

:25:16. > :25:19.attitude of such people. We find that to be very normal and used in

:25:20. > :25:27.the right way in other parts of the criminal code and I feel there is no

:25:28. > :25:30.problem whatsoever in supporting my honourable friend's bill because I

:25:31. > :25:34.do not think there would be an issue on mental health because there are

:25:35. > :25:39.other parts that would come to bear, but the main reason I am supporting

:25:40. > :25:42.my honourable friend's bill is the deterrent effect because currently

:25:43. > :25:50.we have no deterrents following the 2006 Armed Forces Bill which sadly

:25:51. > :25:55.dropped the old 1955 and prior to Winston Churchill's act after the

:25:56. > :25:59.First World War, but rather more than that, not just the deterrent

:26:00. > :26:05.effect of my honourable friend's bill, it will actually create a

:26:06. > :26:09.certainty to the public. People like myself and others in this House and

:26:10. > :26:15.the general public. We could be absolutely sure that when we do see

:26:16. > :26:18.veterans, we can pay appropriate tribute to them, because we will

:26:19. > :26:24.have a greater certainty that these are the real deal and they have

:26:25. > :26:27.errand what they are displaying -- earned. And we can on them

:26:28. > :26:31.appropriately. So I think there are two benefits to the bill today.

:26:32. > :26:36.There is discussion about the appropriate penalty and three months

:26:37. > :26:39.imprisonment has been suggested. Possibly more likely, depending on

:26:40. > :26:43.the case, there could be an opportunity for community payback, a

:26:44. > :26:48.certain number of hours work in the community and I would be, it would

:26:49. > :26:51.probably be the more likely outcome through the courts, but it would be

:26:52. > :26:56.on a case-by-case basis. What greater thing?

:26:57. > :27:05.I can add to that. Roger Day was the last person prosecuted under the

:27:06. > :27:09.previous act in this country, although the act had actually

:27:10. > :27:13.expired if you do is beforehand but they gave him community service and

:27:14. > :27:20.I think that shows that this is the court reading in this case. They

:27:21. > :27:27.feel that... This has to be an imprisonable offence. My honourable

:27:28. > :27:31.friend gives a good account of his knowledge of the law in such cases.

:27:32. > :27:35.What greater community payback could there be that such people are

:27:36. > :27:45.convicted under my honourable friend's proposed bill is community

:27:46. > :27:49.payback to do service to war widows, to the great memorials around our

:27:50. > :27:54.country, to actually be paired them and cleanse them. I can seem no

:27:55. > :27:58.greater payback to the community under this bill. I really do want to

:27:59. > :28:06.just mention very briefly to the House the case of Kevin Connor

:28:07. > :28:10.Collins in my constituency. He was elected as a UK councillor last

:28:11. > :28:17.year. He claimed to have served in and this is quite a remarkable array

:28:18. > :28:22.of claims, he claimed to have been awarded an MBE, claimed to have been

:28:23. > :28:27.awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, a military Cross and a

:28:28. > :28:31.distinguished service Cross. If that had been true, he would have been

:28:32. > :28:41.the most decorated veteran in the entire country. He was outed by

:28:42. > :28:45.online... I will give way. He also had had to serve in practically all

:28:46. > :28:51.three services to have got those medals. Yes, my honourable friend

:28:52. > :28:55.does highlight the ridiculousness of the situation. He was outed by

:28:56. > :29:03.campaigners and later resigned as a planet councillor. Further been

:29:04. > :29:07.found out to be a bigamist, just the most Walter Mitty character in

:29:08. > :29:12.enormous proportion. I wouldn't usually mention cases such as this

:29:13. > :29:18.and rely on the privilege of this House but Sky News have covered

:29:19. > :29:25.this, the Son and even he himself has belatedly offered an apology for

:29:26. > :29:32.his lies and deceit. Now, how could we solve this in the united states

:29:33. > :29:37.under the 2013 act, they have created an online database. That may

:29:38. > :29:44.be a route that could be considered. It may be a sensible route to take.

:29:45. > :29:47.All over the great Internet it does afford us already a great deal of

:29:48. > :29:54.information about such people who claim to be what they are not. In

:29:55. > :29:58.the closing, Mr Speaker, there is an international dimension to this. We

:29:59. > :30:02.would not in this country be doing something unusual, we would actually

:30:03. > :30:08.be aligning ourselves with what happens, particularly across the

:30:09. > :30:13.rest of our friends in the EU, it would also be a commonality with

:30:14. > :30:17.what we see in Australia, the United States and I certainly think that

:30:18. > :30:23.the deterrent effect, such an act that was taken away in 2006 is long

:30:24. > :30:28.overdue and I am very much support his efforts here in the house and

:30:29. > :30:33.hope it makes progress today. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very

:30:34. > :30:37.much, Mr Speaker, I am very grateful to you. Can I start by commending my

:30:38. > :30:42.honourable friend for Dartford are bringing forward this bill? I can't

:30:43. > :30:46.be as enthusiastic about it as he was or my honourable friend for

:30:47. > :30:52.Thanet south. It seems to me, Mr Speaker, to be in the typical

:30:53. > :30:56.tradition of private members bills, which is what I would say has two

:30:57. > :31:04.things usually in common. The first one a worthy sentiment, it comes on

:31:05. > :31:08.a Friday and has a worthy sentiment and you cannot deny the worthiness

:31:09. > :31:14.of the sentiment. The other thing they usually have is an element

:31:15. > :31:20.great or sleight of gesture politics. This one falls into that

:31:21. > :31:27.particular tradition as well. I want to be clear from the start that the

:31:28. > :31:31.idea behind this bill is absolutely admirable, all veterans deserve our

:31:32. > :31:36.upmost respect, appreciation and support. I hope that goes without

:31:37. > :31:40.saying. I hope it also goes without saying that I want to be crystal

:31:41. > :31:46.clear as well that seeking to help them, given all that they've done to

:31:47. > :31:49.make their sacrifices for us, should be an absolute priority. But

:31:50. > :31:53.unfortunately I do not see this bill as being either necessary or

:31:54. > :31:56.actually helpful. I am most concerned it will disproportionately

:31:57. > :32:00.affect people with mental health issues and even veterans themselves,

:32:01. > :32:05.which would be a very unfortunate unintended consequence of an

:32:06. > :32:08.admirable aim. Apple come onto the Defence Select Committee's report

:32:09. > :32:12.later but I want to mention the title now as I think it is highly

:32:13. > :32:17.relevant. The Defence Select Committee called the report into the

:32:18. > :32:20.bill exposing Walter Mitty, it didn't The Awards for Valour

:32:21. > :32:26.Protection Bill. Unfortunately, exposing Walter Mitty is not all we

:32:27. > :32:29.are doing here. We are talking about criminalising Walter Mitty and he

:32:30. > :32:35.could face three months in prison. I have to say, in passing, Mr Speaker,

:32:36. > :32:40.it astounds me that I stand here, week after week, as you will have

:32:41. > :32:45.heard fire too many times own good, we should be sending more people to

:32:46. > :32:51.prison, people who have committed burglaries, robberies, all these

:32:52. > :32:54.sorts of crimes, community sentence after community sentence, never get

:32:55. > :32:57.sent to prison and everyone always tells me we are spending far too

:32:58. > :33:00.many people to prison, we should be sending fewer people to present and

:33:01. > :33:06.then here we come along for we are trying to send somebody like this

:33:07. > :33:09.that is making up some boastful exaggeration and we talk about

:33:10. > :33:14.sending them to prison. Everybody in this House that marvellous, never

:33:15. > :33:17.mind the burglars and the robberies and all these people who will never

:33:18. > :33:22.be sent to prison but let's have them in prison. Let's make it a

:33:23. > :33:28.imprisonable offence, I am astounded by this change in people's way. I am

:33:29. > :33:34.very grateful to my honourable friend for forgiving way. But

:33:35. > :33:36.doesn't that underscore the seriousness and the sensitivity of

:33:37. > :33:40.this point that our honourable friend the member of Dartford is

:33:41. > :33:44.trying to deal with this bill and so many of us are supporting it. We are

:33:45. > :33:50.dealing here with a special category of people, those who have given all

:33:51. > :33:53.their lives in many instances to protect and preserve all that we

:33:54. > :33:58.hold decent in this country and therefore to try and lump them in

:33:59. > :34:04.with as important Mr Speaker, as they are victims of Burghley and the

:34:05. > :34:07.is actually trying to compare apples and oranges. I'm not surprised

:34:08. > :34:10.Marylebone friends think this is more serious than a Burghley

:34:11. > :34:16.robbery, we are going to to disagree. I'm not sure many people

:34:17. > :34:22.are in the country would agree with him. If that's the case, Mr Speaker,

:34:23. > :34:26.then the question that then begs is why is it only three months in

:34:27. > :34:30.prison? Presumably if it's such a serious thing, one of the most

:34:31. > :34:33.terrible crimes that anyone could possibly commit, why are we not

:34:34. > :34:37.giving them ten years in prison or three years? Three months for

:34:38. > :34:41.something that is such a heinous crime. The honourable members can't

:34:42. > :34:45.have it both ways, they can't say this is the most obnoxious crime

:34:46. > :34:50.that will ever be put before the country on the one hand and then say

:34:51. > :34:54.on the other hand actually we only want to three months in prison as an

:34:55. > :34:57.absolute maximum. People are going to have to decide whether this is a

:34:58. > :35:03.serious offence or it isn't. I will give way. I thank the honourable

:35:04. > :35:10.gentleman forgiving way. Would you not agree with me that it sends a

:35:11. > :35:15.message to our Armed Forces that we not only respect them but we value

:35:16. > :35:21.the work that they do? My honourable friend is absolutely right. If I had

:35:22. > :35:26.a pound for every time on a Friday I heard somebody say, we want to pass

:35:27. > :35:30.this bill to send a message, well, actually, we can stand here and send

:35:31. > :35:34.a message. We are seeing how terrible it is, somebody goes round

:35:35. > :35:37.wearing a medal they are not entitled to and we think that's a

:35:38. > :35:41.terrible thing to do the maths sending a message. We are not

:35:42. > :35:45.sending a message, Mr Speaker, we are passing an act of Parliament. We

:35:46. > :35:48.are actually putting somebody in prison potentially. That doesn't

:35:49. > :35:54.sending a message. That is doing something far more drastic. I will

:35:55. > :35:58.give way. Is he aware that domestic Burghley carries 14 years as a

:35:59. > :36:04.maximum sentence, robbery carries life imprisonment, this carries

:36:05. > :36:07.three months, therefore I do believe it is proportionate. I don't agree

:36:08. > :36:10.with the honourable gentleman when he says this is boastful

:36:11. > :36:16.exaggeration, it's far worse than that. It is insulting, indignant and

:36:17. > :36:18.undermine the confidence that people have in our medals and downhole

:36:19. > :36:27.veteran system. Three months imprisonment is an appropriate way

:36:28. > :36:31.of dealing with such a problem I appreciate that that is his view. I

:36:32. > :36:35.want to set out that is not my view. If we look at the current legal

:36:36. > :36:39.position, it is neatly summed up by the Ministry of Defence who in

:36:40. > :36:43.response to any petition said in May last year this, the Government does

:36:44. > :36:48.not believe that the UK requires an equivalent to the USA's stolen

:36:49. > :36:52.valour act. The stolen valour act 2013 makes it a federal crime to

:36:53. > :36:57.fraudulently claim to be a recipient of certain military decorations are

:36:58. > :37:01.medals in order to obtain money, property or other tangible benefit.

:37:02. > :37:05.Under UK law, the making or attempting to make a financial gain

:37:06. > :37:09.by fraudulently wearing uniforms are medals or by pretending to be or

:37:10. > :37:15.have been in the Armed Forces is already a criminal offence of fraud

:37:16. > :37:18.under the fraud act 2006, as is the pretence of being awarded an

:37:19. > :37:22.official medal. The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years

:37:23. > :37:26.imprisonment. It is also an offence under that act carried up to five

:37:27. > :37:31.years in prison meant for a person to possess or have under his control

:37:32. > :37:36.any article for use in the course of earning connection with any fraud.

:37:37. > :37:39.It is also an offence against the uniforms act 1894 for any person not

:37:40. > :37:43.serving in the Armed Forces wearing a uniform, any of the Armed Forces

:37:44. > :37:49.under such circumstances likely to be in contempt upon that uniform.

:37:50. > :37:51.However, it is not automatically against two-way veterans badge or

:37:52. > :37:54.decorations are medals which have not been earned and there are no

:37:55. > :38:00.plans to make it an offence. There are many instances where winning

:38:01. > :38:04.medals of deceased relatives as a mark of respect on the right breast

:38:05. > :38:09.and we would not wish to discourage this practice. As far as current UK

:38:10. > :38:11.prosecutions are concerned, Mr Speaker, the details we have very

:38:12. > :38:16.bit sketchy to say the least. The bit sketchy to say the least. The

:38:17. > :38:24.Defence Select Committee report says written evidence that the MoD has

:38:25. > :38:27.provided... Data on a number of other offences was regrettable but

:38:28. > :38:30.was either not held are not held in the form that allowed the types of

:38:31. > :38:34.offences requested to be distinguished. To give you an

:38:35. > :38:40.illustration that the number of people against the Magistrates'

:38:41. > :38:45.Courts and found guilty under the uniforms act of 1894, the were none

:38:46. > :38:53.at all in 2011, 20 132015 and one was found guilty in 2012 and one in

:38:54. > :38:59.2014. It is hardly a big issue on that score. Next to none, I think

:39:00. > :39:03.would be the best phrase to use. I also sent a Freedom of information

:39:04. > :39:05.request to the Metropolitan Police to see what information I could

:39:06. > :39:10.gather about the existing legislation by their forces. The

:39:11. > :39:15.reply from West Yorkshire Police said, is that was conducted by which

:39:16. > :39:20.were made between the 1st of August 2011 and the 31st of July 20 16th

:39:21. > :39:25.inclusive and contained any of the keywords, medal, military and

:39:26. > :39:27.uniform. Within the arrest circumstances description. As well

:39:28. > :39:33.as the search for arrests between the 1st of August 2011 and the 31st

:39:34. > :39:38.of July 2016, there was an offence under the uniform act 1894, Anna

:39:39. > :39:43.says was then carried it find any records which related to individuals

:39:44. > :39:52.waging war valour medals they were not entitled to work and no such

:39:53. > :39:56.records were found. Searches were conducted, the searchers fail to

:39:57. > :39:58.locate any information relevant to your request, therefore the

:39:59. > :40:02.information you requested is not held by the Metropolitan Police

:40:03. > :40:06.Service. If existing legislation appears to be used infrequently as

:40:07. > :40:11.we think they're made to consider carefully the extent of the problem

:40:12. > :40:16.that this bill seeks to address. I give way. I am grateful to my

:40:17. > :40:20.honourable friend forgiving way and I always like the breath of fresh

:40:21. > :40:26.air that he blows on anything smacking of political correctness.

:40:27. > :40:31.As he has referred to the committee report, May I draw his attention to

:40:32. > :40:37.the testimony of the chief executive of veterans aid, one of the longest

:40:38. > :40:41.lasting charities to do with veterans affairs, set up just after

:40:42. > :40:48.the First World War and he says that incidence of false metal wearing

:40:49. > :40:52.art, and I quote, a daily occurrence and, he says, that we have no sense

:40:53. > :41:00.of the enormity of it. Wearing uniforms incorrectly or not current,

:41:01. > :41:02.that is not this bill is about. And coming onto the point that my

:41:03. > :41:06.honourable friend makes because I want to praise the Defence Select

:41:07. > :41:12.Committee who have done a brilliant job in looking at this. I am going

:41:13. > :41:15.to give them much praise throughout my speech because there are certain

:41:16. > :41:19.points of his report that I want to draw attention to, including the

:41:20. > :41:20.fact my honourable friend for Dartford said this to the Defence

:41:21. > :41:31.Select Committee enquiry. He said we have had a couple of

:41:32. > :41:41.instances of people pretending they have received honours when that is

:41:42. > :41:46.not the case. I do not think it is a not typical for people to act that

:41:47. > :41:50.way. Hundreds of people have behaved in a way that the bill seeks to

:41:51. > :41:56.address. The Royal British Legion in its present evidence to the

:41:57. > :41:59.committee says in the Legion's own experiences, instances of Walter

:42:00. > :42:08.Mittys appeared to be rare. Spoken to people in the Legion's welfare

:42:09. > :42:11.Department, who have been approached by individuals reporting to have

:42:12. > :42:15.served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces but had no service number, only a

:42:16. > :42:18.handful of instances can be recalled. They were no reliable

:42:19. > :42:21.statistics to reveal the true scale of the problem although the media

:42:22. > :42:25.will from time to time expose individuals who have been caught

:42:26. > :42:28.impersonating a member of the Armed Forces. The Royal Air Force families

:42:29. > :42:36.Association in their written evidence to the defence select

:42:37. > :42:40.committee, is it a growing problem? Their answer was, we have no

:42:41. > :42:47.evidence either way but we would not instantly say it was not widespread.

:42:48. > :42:50.-- we would instinctively say it was widespread. It is hard to judge if

:42:51. > :42:54.it is a growing problem. Any preceding these might be down to

:42:55. > :43:00.wider exposure of incidents via social media. On the other hand,

:43:01. > :43:02.public awareness and extensive campaigns may encourage some

:43:03. > :43:06.individuals to claim they have been awarded medals to which they are not

:43:07. > :43:09.entitled. It seems to me this is not as big an issue as my honourable

:43:10. > :43:18.friend would have us believe. I'll give way. I'm very grateful. If I am

:43:19. > :43:22.understanding my honourable friend correctly I think he is taking us

:43:23. > :43:27.down a particularly dangerous path whereby saying that things should

:43:28. > :43:36.only be made illegal if there is a trigger quantum that makes that act

:43:37. > :43:41.necessary. This House could easily pass or make illegal something for

:43:42. > :43:47.which there is only evidence of one occurrence, it doesn't make it any

:43:48. > :43:51.less heinous if it is only one, truly. The problem is that my

:43:52. > :43:54.honourable friend who moved the bill actually made the point that this

:43:55. > :43:58.was so important because this was a growing problem. I didn't notice my

:43:59. > :44:02.honourable friend intervened to say whether it was a growing problem not

:44:03. > :44:05.at that time. If people are making the case we need to pass this bill

:44:06. > :44:08.because it is a growing problem, I am making the point that there is no

:44:09. > :44:13.evidence that it is a growing problem. My honourable friend did

:44:14. > :44:16.not bring up his perfectly valid point to my honourable friend when

:44:17. > :44:20.he was making the case for this bill as a result of that particular

:44:21. > :44:27.session. In terms of the past Government positions, the historical

:44:28. > :44:31.context of this is very interesting. It was an offence of the army act

:44:32. > :44:34.1955 for people to wear medals and decorations that were never awarded

:44:35. > :44:39.if they were used in a way as to be calculated to deceive. This changes

:44:40. > :44:45.the result of the Armed Forces act 2006 which repealed the Army act

:44:46. > :44:48.1955 and the air force act 1955 in which the offence was originally

:44:49. > :44:52.specified and the defence select committee enquired after the

:44:53. > :44:56.Ministry of Defence to as wide sections like 197 of those acts were

:44:57. > :45:04.repealed and not replaced, what was the rationale behind that decision?

:45:05. > :45:07.The answer to that was that section 197 created three separate offences

:45:08. > :45:13.including two offences of winning any decoration, badge, stripe or

:45:14. > :45:18.emblem of the lies for whereby the sovereign or anything closely

:45:19. > :45:21.resembling them without authority. It was not clear who could give the

:45:22. > :45:29.necessary position. The need for authority in all cases suggests

:45:30. > :45:35.these could be worn in -- these could not be worn in a film or a

:45:36. > :45:38.fancy dress without permission. Current badges, states and emblems

:45:39. > :45:41.have also precluded the wedding of historic ones. Requiring specific

:45:42. > :45:48.authority was considered to be excessive and was no longer insisted

:45:49. > :45:54.on. The third offence was a falsely represented entitlement to wear such

:45:55. > :45:57.badges and emblems. It would also require considerable amendment,

:45:58. > :46:02.section one 97. The minister said these provisions in the 1955 acts

:46:03. > :46:05.were not included in the 2006 act not only because of the

:46:06. > :46:09.inconvenience of the need for authority to wear them but also

:46:10. > :46:15.because it was considered an important part of people making

:46:16. > :46:21.financial gain or representing themselves dishonestly to being

:46:22. > :46:34.entitled to a medal. It was decided this was compress -- comprehensibly

:46:35. > :46:37.dealt with. It carried a sentence of ten years before the Crown Court. It

:46:38. > :46:40.was also decided an offence based on an intent to deceive which did not

:46:41. > :46:44.involve fraud, for example where there was no attempt to make a

:46:45. > :46:49.financial or property gain or cause someone lost, was likely in practice

:46:50. > :46:53.to cause difficult questions of proof which I think is perfectly

:46:54. > :46:57.relevant to the debate that we are having today, Mr Speaker, and the

:46:58. > :47:08.example that we have been given, to bring for this bill as I understand

:47:09. > :47:10.it, about the clearly disreputable councillor who was making claims

:47:11. > :47:16.that were preposterous in order to become a counsellor seems to be

:47:17. > :47:19.perfectly covered by the acts in which she wanted to take a job that

:47:20. > :47:24.came with paid through dishonest means. -- he wanted. That is already

:47:25. > :47:28.covered by the fraud act and therefore this bill would make

:47:29. > :47:33.absolutely no difference apart from the fact it would mean that he could

:47:34. > :47:39.not be as severely treated by the court that he was prosecuted under

:47:40. > :47:42.this as he could be under the fraud act 2006. It seems to me that

:47:43. > :47:47.honourable members who are using that case to make the case for this

:47:48. > :47:50.particular bill are actually saying that they want that person to be

:47:51. > :47:53.treated less severely by the courts than they could be at the moment

:47:54. > :47:59.under the current legislation, which seems to be a rather bizarre way of

:48:00. > :48:04.making the case for this bill. We've also been told what happens in other

:48:05. > :48:09.countries and that we must fall in line with other countries, which was

:48:10. > :48:14.another reason I heard for making the case for this bill in the

:48:15. > :48:16.previous speeches. I asked the Commons library to let me know what

:48:17. > :48:19.happened in other countries around the world about this and they came

:48:20. > :48:22.up with some very detailed research on the subject, which is

:48:23. > :48:25.enlightening, and they have summarised some of this in their

:48:26. > :48:33.excellent research paper that goes with this bill today. I suspect, Mr

:48:34. > :48:39.Speaker, that you wouldn't want me to read out what happens in every

:48:40. > :48:45.other country in regards to this matter. I expect you want me to make

:48:46. > :48:50.a more slick approach than that. Tempted though I am, to actually

:48:51. > :48:54.highlight what happens in other countries, given of course this is a

:48:55. > :49:01.reason why we need to have this in this country. I hope the honourable

:49:02. > :49:10.gentleman would speak as freely as he normally does. I'm very grateful,

:49:11. > :49:16.Mr Speaker, for that. There are massive variations in what other

:49:17. > :49:20.countries do. It is not one-way traffic as others might have thought

:49:21. > :49:24.from the speeches that we heard earlier. For example, in Australia,

:49:25. > :49:31.the maximum penalty for fraudulently weeding a medal is six months in

:49:32. > :49:41.prison or a fine of 5400 Australian dollars. In Austria, for example,

:49:42. > :49:48.the maximum penalty is a 220 euros fine for fraudulently wearing a

:49:49. > :49:54.medal. In Belgium, it is 1000 euros. Most of the countries that I can see

:49:55. > :50:01.here, the maximum penalty is actually a fine rather than a prison

:50:02. > :50:04.sentence and so I don't think people should actually get carried away

:50:05. > :50:08.with the idea that if we are not sending people to prison for this

:50:09. > :50:18.offence, that we are out of step with the rest of the world, that is

:50:19. > :50:21.not actually... In order to save my honourable friend a little bit of

:50:22. > :50:26.breath I could just put on the record. Then as an appendix to the

:50:27. > :50:32.report that sets out the long list of countries that have criminalised

:50:33. > :50:38.this fence, several of which go from a fine up to periods of six months

:50:39. > :50:42.or a year in prison. Surely the point is that this is a debate on

:50:43. > :50:46.whether or not the bill should be given a second reading. If my

:50:47. > :50:49.honourable friend feels strongly that a prison term is

:50:50. > :50:55.disproportionate, then it is up to him to apply to join the bill

:50:56. > :51:03.committee and are due to amend it, rather than to prevent something

:51:04. > :51:06.from becoming illegal, which so many countries have made illegal, whether

:51:07. > :51:12.it is a fine or whether it is a prison or whether it is a sliding

:51:13. > :51:16.scale between the two. I don't just object to the sentence, as I been

:51:17. > :51:22.setting out, I've been objecting to the purpose of the bill. The

:51:23. > :51:26.sentence is actually part of the bill, as my honourable friend nose,

:51:27. > :51:29.and he said he's got two pages of countries that have made this an

:51:30. > :51:33.offence. Given the number of countries there are around the

:51:34. > :51:38.world, you must accept the number of countries around the world have not

:51:39. > :51:45.made this an offence. Just for the sake of it, Australia has made it an

:51:46. > :51:48.offence, Austria, Belgium, Canada, it is not known whether Croatia has

:51:49. > :51:53.made it an offence. The Czech Republic has made it an offence,

:51:54. > :51:57.Denmark has an unknown fine scale, Estonia has made it an offence.

:51:58. > :52:02.Finland has not made it an offence. France has made it an offence,

:52:03. > :52:06.Germany, an unknown fine, Greece, and unknown fine, but still an

:52:07. > :52:11.offence in both cases, Hungary has made it an offence, Ireland, Latvia

:52:12. > :52:15.has not made it an offence nor Lithuania, Luxembourg has made it an

:52:16. > :52:24.offence, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Romania,

:52:25. > :52:30.Russia, Slovakia is not an offence, Slovenia is, Sweden is an denatured

:52:31. > :52:38.states is. I think that covers most of the main basis -- the united

:52:39. > :52:41.states. Can I say to the honourable gentleman who chairs the defence

:52:42. > :52:43.select committee with such aplomb and distinction that his

:52:44. > :52:52.intervention was somewhat longer than the list. What my honourable

:52:53. > :52:54.friend said is right but if he thinks that is the full list of

:52:55. > :53:01.countries around the world, he is doing his geography knowledge at

:53:02. > :53:07.disservice -- a disservice. There are far more countries and around

:53:08. > :53:11.the world! I'm grateful for giving way but the long list that has been

:53:12. > :53:17.read out, does that not indicate that so many countries have offences

:53:18. > :53:22.listed there and imprisonment and fines? They act as a deterrent but

:53:23. > :53:28.as our bill today shows, we have nothing. My honourable friend says

:53:29. > :53:33.we have nothing but the one case we have heard that is the basis for

:53:34. > :53:38.this particular bill, we already have something, it's called the

:53:39. > :53:42.fraud act 2006 which actually covers people who are trying to make any

:53:43. > :53:48.kind of financial gain from their fraudulent use of medals. The point

:53:49. > :53:53.of the deterrent, what are we trying to deter? We've not heard any other

:53:54. > :53:58.credible cases so far, apart from one already covered by the fraud act

:53:59. > :54:03.2006. The added range of offences covered here in all these countries

:54:04. > :54:07.and it is a distinction between winning medals, winning medals with

:54:08. > :54:10.an attempt to deceive in any way and winning medals with a view to making

:54:11. > :54:14.a financial gain and I'm not going to encourage my honourable friend to

:54:15. > :54:19.get up again to outlive laid down the list he read out to make the

:54:20. > :54:24.distinction between those three different categories of offence

:54:25. > :54:28.because he was gripping them all convenient together, but as he will

:54:29. > :54:35.knows, they can't all be grouped together so neatly because they have

:54:36. > :54:40.different categories of offence and as I made clear, there is already

:54:41. > :54:42.protection in this country for fraud legislation. Some countries that do

:54:43. > :54:45.not appear to have any offence related to the winning of medals as

:54:46. > :54:51.my honourable friend said include Finland, Lithuania, and Slovakia. I

:54:52. > :54:55.want to deal with the penalties in this bill later but it appears

:54:56. > :55:00.they're all different in these countries. For the countries that do

:55:01. > :55:05.have a penalty of this kind, some are fines and some are imprisonable

:55:06. > :55:08.once and at the Royal British Legion notes in the evidence to the defence

:55:09. > :55:15.select committee, they say we are aware that the awards of valour

:55:16. > :55:18.protection Bill is based on the stolen valour act that was

:55:19. > :55:26.introduced in the United States in 2005 before being repealed but

:55:27. > :55:32.amended in 2000 -- 2015. It is close to false representation found in the

:55:33. > :55:35.UK's fraud act 2006. Both pieces of legislation state that the

:55:36. > :55:38.impersonation of members of the Armed Forces is only a criminal

:55:39. > :55:44.offence if it is used to make a financial gain or cause a financial

:55:45. > :55:49.loss. In short, simply claiming military awards, service or injuries

:55:50. > :55:55.to gain sympathy or recognition well clearly disappointing -- while

:55:56. > :55:59.clearly disappointing is not in itself illegal under US legislation.

:56:00. > :56:02.The 2005 stolen valour act sought to punish all those who lied about

:56:03. > :56:05.military service but it was struck down by the Supreme Court as it was

:56:06. > :56:11.deemed to violate the first Amendment. This bill today seems to

:56:12. > :56:16.extend the scope to arrest someone for winning a medal beyond those who

:56:17. > :56:21.aim to benefit tangibly via fraud to those who aim to benefit in an

:56:22. > :56:25.intangible way such as to gain respect. The case in America is a

:56:26. > :56:31.very good example of how this could be unworkable as well as a step too

:56:32. > :56:39.far. The stolen valour act of 2005 came into US law in 2006. The

:56:40. > :56:42.purpose was to amend title 18, United States code, to enhance

:56:43. > :56:45.protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the medal

:56:46. > :56:50.of honour and other military decorations and awards similar to

:56:51. > :56:53.the purpose of today's Bill. The law made it a federal misdemeanour to

:56:54. > :56:58.falsely represent oneself as having received any US military decoration

:56:59. > :57:02.or medal. If convicted, individuals could be imprisoned for up to six

:57:03. > :57:06.months, except for falsely claiming to be a medal of honour awardee in

:57:07. > :57:11.which case imprisonment could be up to one year. But in 2012, the law

:57:12. > :57:13.was struck down by the US Supreme Court as a result of the case of

:57:14. > :57:24.United States versus Alvarez. He falsely claimed he had received a

:57:25. > :57:31.medal of honour and due to this lie he ballot -- violated the act

:57:32. > :57:36.resulting in a $5,000 fine. Three years probation and 416 hours of

:57:37. > :57:40.community service. The penalties in the US tend to be staring out that

:57:41. > :57:44.they are in the UK for most offences, Mr Speaker. However,

:57:45. > :57:48.subsequent appeals eventually reach the United States Supreme Court to

:57:49. > :57:52.eventually ruled that lying about military heroics was

:57:53. > :57:56.constitutionally protected speech unless there was intent to gain some

:57:57. > :58:04.benefit or something of value by fraud. Justice Kennedy wrote, the

:58:05. > :58:07.nation well knows that one of the costs of the first Amendment is that

:58:08. > :58:12.it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.

:58:13. > :58:15.Though few might find respondents statement is anything but

:58:16. > :58:18.contemptible, his right to make those statements protected by the

:58:19. > :58:24.Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and -- expression, the

:58:25. > :58:28.stolen valour act in teachers upon speech protected by the amendment.

:58:29. > :58:36.We are trying to go the opposite way to the US. New legislation was

:58:37. > :58:40.introduced after the stolen valour act in 2013. This made it a federal

:58:41. > :58:46.crime for an individual to claim to be the recipient of specified

:58:47. > :58:50.military decorations or are medals with the intent to obtain money,

:58:51. > :58:56.property or other tangible benefits. This was in an effort to make the

:58:57. > :59:00.Supreme Court's objection to the 2005 act. This protection is already

:59:01. > :59:05.covered under UK legislation as they made clear by fraud legislation. It

:59:06. > :59:09.makes no sense whatsoever to leave ourselves open to challenge which is

:59:10. > :59:11.obviously flawed piece of legislation which has already been

:59:12. > :59:19.proved unworkable in another country. The Defence Select

:59:20. > :59:22.Committee's report says in the US situation, whereas he was concerned

:59:23. > :59:27.that the offences related to false representation, the position in the

:59:28. > :59:30.US concerning the physical wearing a medals remains uncertain. As well as

:59:31. > :59:37.amending this book -- scope of the offences related to fraudulent, it

:59:38. > :59:43.also removed the word wares from the federal code. It's currently ongoing

:59:44. > :59:48.to decide whether winning medals also violates the same -- first

:59:49. > :59:54.Amendment as fraudulent representation. In my honourable

:59:55. > :59:59.friend's overly lengthy intervention, Mr Speaker, he was

:00:00. > :00:07.there saying that the United States was one of those countries that he

:00:08. > :00:11.was seeing having the law and a year in prison, the United States to not

:00:12. > :00:16.have this law in place. The select committee made this abundantly clear

:00:17. > :00:20.and as that particular case stated, the law in the United States and the

:00:21. > :00:25.exact same as the law in 2006 fraud act in the United Kingdom that is

:00:26. > :00:28.already in place, which I'm sure he must have known when he made his

:00:29. > :00:35.intervention trying to praise the United States. I very much believe

:00:36. > :00:39.in freedom, warts and all, as the US Supreme Court judgment says, Mr

:00:40. > :00:42.Speaker, that sometimes means the freedom to Dudas, stupid and even

:00:43. > :00:48.annoying things without the threat of being criminalised. I would

:00:49. > :00:52.rather hear it for a key like this to be taken to the European Court of

:00:53. > :00:57.Human Rights to have to be engaged, not only because I would rather have

:00:58. > :01:03.nothing to do with such a court but also because it is also unavoidable.

:01:04. > :01:07.We managed to stop insulting words and behaviour from being

:01:08. > :01:09.criminalised under public order legislation and it seems that

:01:10. > :01:14.criminalising people from pretending the serviceman is something of a

:01:15. > :01:19.similar nature. We heard that the reason for this is because people

:01:20. > :01:23.rather take offence by what people do. Mr Speaker, there are all sorts

:01:24. > :01:28.of things that go on in this country that people take offence at. Far too

:01:29. > :01:31.many things, in my opinion, that people seem to take offence out. I

:01:32. > :01:37.get very offended at how easily other people are offended. But I'm

:01:38. > :01:41.not entirely sure where that particularly takes us in wanting to

:01:42. > :01:47.pass a law. Are we going to pass a law to stop any offence ever been

:01:48. > :01:50.taken by somebody? Back to me is a ridiculous state of affairs. That is

:01:51. > :01:55.the motivation behind this bill today. Wants to pass a law because

:01:56. > :01:59.some people are offended by this. If that's the way we're going to go in

:02:00. > :02:03.this House, Mr Speaker, into many cases I fear we already have, if

:02:04. > :02:09.that's it we were going to go in the House, that is a very, very sad day

:02:10. > :02:16.for the House of Commons. Even the Defence Select Committee commented

:02:17. > :02:20.on this point further on freedoms of expression that arose in America.

:02:21. > :02:23.They say the case of Donaldson versus the United Kingdom

:02:24. > :02:29.demonstrates it is possible for the outward wearing of or devices to be

:02:30. > :02:32.considered as expression for the purposes of article ten. Although

:02:33. > :02:37.embassies in this was placed on the devising question of war as the

:02:38. > :02:40.expression of the applicant's political views which may not be so

:02:41. > :02:47.straightforward for a medals are concerned. Even over the rights in

:02:48. > :02:51.Article ten one are engaged, article 10.2 sets out that is legitimate for

:02:52. > :02:55.these rights to be restricted, including for the purposes are

:02:56. > :03:00.preventing disorder or crime, such as fraud, or to protect the

:03:01. > :03:04.reputation rights others. That could include the blue recipients of these

:03:05. > :03:07.awards. The inclusion of the intent to deceive is an element of the

:03:08. > :03:11.defence and the defence is later to family members will also be likely

:03:12. > :03:17.to assist in a legislation passing the court putt tester

:03:18. > :03:22.proportionality. It is clear to me, we already have the offence for the

:03:23. > :03:28.purposes of actual fraud but if the intent to deceive is simply to

:03:29. > :03:32.impress a woman in a bar, the threat of three months in prison might all

:03:33. > :03:37.of a sudden seem a rather extreme. In terms of the effectiveness of the

:03:38. > :03:39.legislation, aisles or ask the House of Commons how effective the

:03:40. > :03:43.legislation was in other countries and how often it was used? The

:03:44. > :03:48.answer to this is even more illuminating. Looking at some of the

:03:49. > :03:54.countries with the stiffest penalties it's interesting to see

:03:55. > :03:57.hammy times the are committed. Again, Mr Speaker, I'm not going to

:03:58. > :04:02.be trim every single country, that would be testing your patience

:04:03. > :04:06.beyond what I would wish. But I think it's pertinent to point out

:04:07. > :04:09.some of these points for the purpose of this debate. According to the

:04:10. > :04:14.House of Commons library in terms of the United States, the federal

:04:15. > :04:18.prosecution statistics are published each year by the US Department of

:04:19. > :04:22.Justice. The latest published figures which were released last

:04:23. > :04:25.year for 2012, even then it has not been possible to ascertain specific

:04:26. > :04:29.figures for successful prosecutions under the stolen valour act. The

:04:30. > :04:34.library can find any specific date on convictions with little only

:04:35. > :04:38.examples they could prosecutions or instances where individual had been

:04:39. > :04:42.arrested but not charged or those reported in the media or on websites

:04:43. > :04:49.dedicated to exposing these individuals. The thrust of my point,

:04:50. > :04:52.Mr Speaker, throughout this is that actually the media highlighting

:04:53. > :04:56.these people's behaviour is sufficient enough to actually expose

:04:57. > :05:00.these people for what they are and to open them up to public ridicule.

:05:01. > :05:05.That is the best way of dealing with these things, rather than actually

:05:06. > :05:07.going through a whole Crown Prosecution Service, prosecutions

:05:08. > :05:11.and ending up with these people in prison, which strikes me as being

:05:12. > :05:16.rather ridiculous. In Canada, similar to US, there are statistics

:05:17. > :05:19.are compiled and criminal code offences by the prosecution service

:05:20. > :05:22.of Canada and are grouped into categories. It is difficult to

:05:23. > :05:27.obtain figures offences of this type as it is an insurance whether the

:05:28. > :05:30.information is held. The only examples of prosecutions they could

:05:31. > :05:34.find in Canada were those that were reported in the media again. There

:05:35. > :05:42.was one particularly high-profile case in 2014, 15, which related to

:05:43. > :05:45.impersonating a soldier at a remembrance day ceremony in uniform

:05:46. > :05:55.and not visibly wearing a medal. I will give way. I am grateful. My

:05:56. > :06:00.honourable friend has asserted the right of this House in this country

:06:01. > :06:06.to be independent and computer is why my honourable friend is looking

:06:07. > :06:09.at what other countries do is to validate what we do in this country.

:06:10. > :06:14.I'm not entirely sure my honourable friend has been following the debate

:06:15. > :06:17.as but it seems to me that what I'm doing for the benefit of my

:06:18. > :06:20.honourable friend and others as demolishing the points made by the

:06:21. > :06:27.people who are proposing this bill is by bit. All of the arguments we

:06:28. > :06:31.have had for this bill, this is yet another argument for this bill. We

:06:32. > :06:34.should be doing this because this is what other countries are doing. This

:06:35. > :06:38.was one of the key planks of my honourable friend's opening remarks.

:06:39. > :06:42.I didn't hear him pulling him up on that particular point to say that

:06:43. > :06:49.was irrelevant. If it actually said at that point, what on earth are you

:06:50. > :06:51.on about? RFU to meet a similar intervention after my honourable

:06:52. > :06:56.friend for the New Forest East had made this point, I would've had of

:06:57. > :06:59.December before him but he's no clutching at straws to try and

:07:00. > :07:01.defend a bill which is increasingly becoming indefensible. It is

:07:02. > :07:07.becoming complete unnecessarily and H point that's been made at the

:07:08. > :07:10.knocking down and my honourable friend can't actually add to those

:07:11. > :07:14.points. He can only see the point that we raise to start with about

:07:15. > :07:18.why this bill is so necessary isn't really one of the main point is that

:07:19. > :07:21.we have anyway. I can't second-guess what the real point is worth. I can

:07:22. > :07:26.only base my points on the arguments that were given by people who

:07:27. > :07:29.proposed the bill. If people want to make other arguments, and prepared

:07:30. > :07:33.to listen to them. Thus far, haven't heard any other arguments apart from

:07:34. > :07:39.that other countries are doing. My that other countries are doing. My

:07:40. > :07:45.honourable friend for New Forest East was making a point of self.

:07:46. > :07:47.Moving on to Australia, the library said the Australian Federal

:07:48. > :07:51.useful figures but it's difficult to useful figures but it's difficult to

:07:52. > :07:57.say with certainty be related to the stolen valour. In 2012, 13, the

:07:58. > :08:02.latest available figures, they said they dealt with two cases under the

:08:03. > :08:06.defence act of 1903. The statistics don't state what those specific

:08:07. > :08:10.offences were and again much of the information found has been the

:08:11. > :08:14.result of media sectors. For example an article in the Herald on

:08:15. > :08:20.September 2014 said the state of Victoria over the last ten five

:08:21. > :08:22.people have been charged with impersonating a returned soldier,

:08:23. > :08:25.two people have been charged with impersonating a member of the

:08:26. > :08:30.defence Force, seven people have been charged with improper use of

:08:31. > :08:33.defence service decoration. In New Zealand, again, statistical

:08:34. > :08:38.information of this nature is also presented in the same way. An

:08:39. > :08:42.offence of wearing an authorised military decoration could be

:08:43. > :08:44.included in fraud, public order or miscellaneous offences in their

:08:45. > :08:48.database so it is difficult to pinpoint the extent of the problem.

:08:49. > :08:55.In Australia and New Zealand, there is a group called Australia and New

:08:56. > :08:57.Zealand military imposters group which is dedicated to exposing

:08:58. > :09:02.military imposters. They have a section on their website which lists

:09:03. > :09:05.individuals that they consider to be military imposters. The information

:09:06. > :09:08.you provide is not official information and is not necessarily

:09:09. > :09:12.lead to prosecution and, therefore, it should be treated with some

:09:13. > :09:16.caution. It does not appear that there are lots of prosecutions for

:09:17. > :09:22.all offences, never mind for the offence of wearing a medal. Some

:09:23. > :09:26.people who were medals to deceive will be evil characters, most likely

:09:27. > :09:29.with the intention of doing something for themselves, financial

:09:30. > :09:34.I would have thought in a lot of cases or it may be to impress other

:09:35. > :09:36.people. The ones who set out to deceive for nonmonetary purposes

:09:37. > :09:41.must therefore have a different reason for doing so. Maybe to gain

:09:42. > :09:48.respect, to pick themselves up to attract a member of the opposite sex

:09:49. > :09:53.are made of the same sex. Who knows? I am however concerned people with

:09:54. > :09:56.mental health issues may be disproportionately affected by this

:09:57. > :10:01.particular offence rather than the fraud offence. The Royal British

:10:02. > :10:06.Legion in the written evidence to the Defence Select Committee said...

:10:07. > :10:10.I thank my honourable friend for the list of countries that have already

:10:11. > :10:15.enacted similar legislation that has been composed here and he find very

:10:16. > :10:20.few cases of people being taken to court because of them. Isn't that

:10:21. > :10:23.entirely the purpose of this bill, to have a very powerful deterrent

:10:24. > :10:29.effect and given the few number of cases abroad, it has obviously been

:10:30. > :10:34.shown to have worked? A problem with that argument, attractive though it

:10:35. > :10:39.is superficially, we have not been able to find a great many cases

:10:40. > :10:43.where its existing the UK. Happening without the legislation in place. It

:10:44. > :10:46.seems to me it is just as rare in countries that have the legislation

:10:47. > :10:51.as it is in those countries like I was that don't have a legislation.

:10:52. > :10:54.In fact, I suspect one of the reasons why many countries don't

:10:55. > :10:57.have the legislation is because nobody has ever find it being a

:10:58. > :11:03.problem in the first place. That's the whole point of why many things I

:11:04. > :11:06.legislated for an countries. Things tend to be legislated on any country

:11:07. > :11:10.when there it seems to be a problem, something needs to be done. I would

:11:11. > :11:13.make the point to my honourable friend that actually the fact that

:11:14. > :11:16.there is actually nothing happening in those countries with a lot would

:11:17. > :11:19.indicate there must be even less happening in those countries without

:11:20. > :11:23.the law. Because those countries that want to pass the law in the

:11:24. > :11:24.first place. I don't follow the logic of my honourable friend's

:11:25. > :11:35.position. Yes, of course. in the this as a layman but my

:11:36. > :11:40.honourable friend is bringing the bill and is indicating there are

:11:41. > :11:43.serious cases and a problem with people winning medals when they

:11:44. > :11:46.shouldn't be. Doesn't it clearly indicate that whatever legislation

:11:47. > :11:52.we've got isn't working and that we do need something stronger? I don't

:11:53. > :11:55.share my honourable friend's confidence in our honourable

:11:56. > :12:00.friend's evidence. I haven't heard the evidence, I've heard an

:12:01. > :12:06.assertion that this is a big problem but an assertion is very different

:12:07. > :12:10.to evidence. In the evidence given by people like the Royal British

:12:11. > :12:15.committee, I won't repeat myself committee, I won't repeat myself

:12:16. > :12:18.from earlier, but I made clear in my speech that the Royal British Legion

:12:19. > :12:23.gave evidence to the defence select committee saying they didn't think

:12:24. > :12:26.this was a very big problem at all. Just because somebody comes to the

:12:27. > :12:31.House and assert it is a big problem is not what I call evidence enough

:12:32. > :12:34.in order to pass an act of Parliament. Coming back to the point

:12:35. > :12:39.I was making about people with mental health problems, Mr Speaker,

:12:40. > :12:45.the Royal British Legion in their written evidence said the Legion is

:12:46. > :12:49.not presently clear if the proposed awards for the valour protection

:12:50. > :12:55.Bill is opposed to replicate the 2005 by 2013 stolen valour act in

:12:56. > :12:59.the US. If based on the former, careful consideration may need to be

:13:00. > :13:02.given as to how vulnerable people claiming to have served in the Armed

:13:03. > :13:08.Forces are punished under the terms of this bill. My honourable friend

:13:09. > :13:11.said during the inquiry, from my understanding that are different

:13:12. > :13:17.types of Walter Mitty character is, people with serious mental health

:13:18. > :13:20.problems who need help -- characters, and he went on to say

:13:21. > :13:24.someone with a serious mental health problem or sports medals should not,

:13:25. > :13:27.as often the case with criminal law in this situation, fall foul of a

:13:28. > :13:33.lot of the point they are incarcerated. The court would pursue

:13:34. > :13:37.a hospital order route. This for me is still quite worrying and open to

:13:38. > :13:40.all sorts of risks when the case comes to court. Someone may have a

:13:41. > :13:45.mental health issue but there might not be suitable for a court hospital

:13:46. > :13:52.order. The fact they have simply won medals that were not there -- their

:13:53. > :13:55.medals to wear could mean them facing anything up to a custodial

:13:56. > :13:58.sentence and that is disproportionate in my opinion.

:13:59. > :14:03.People to be criminalised in this way is also a step too far. It might

:14:04. > :14:05.actually be more difficult in some cases for someone with mental health

:14:06. > :14:12.issues to show that they not intend to deceive if they have no other

:14:13. > :14:15.explanation for the wearing of the medals. I've tried to contact a

:14:16. > :14:19.number of mental health charities in recent days to see what their

:14:20. > :14:23.opinion might be on this subject. Unfortunately none of them were able

:14:24. > :14:27.to get me a firm answer as they have not been made aware of the bill but

:14:28. > :14:34.I will be very interested to know if they have any concerns or views on

:14:35. > :14:37.this. One of the issues of the bill is that those mental health

:14:38. > :14:41.charities clearly haven't been engaged to give their particular

:14:42. > :14:44.perspective on whether or not this is proportionate or not and yet

:14:45. > :14:48.today we had in danger of passing three piece of legislation which may

:14:49. > :14:53.cause those problems for people with mental health issues without proper

:14:54. > :14:58.scrutiny and giving them the opportunity to have their say on

:14:59. > :15:01.that troubles me greatly, Mr Speaker. Then there's the issue of

:15:02. > :15:07.Army veterans themselves winning medals that they did not actually

:15:08. > :15:12.win. Not a civilian wearing a medal, but an ex-serviceman wearing one. In

:15:13. > :15:17.this case, you could call it stolen extra valour, maybe. Do we really

:15:18. > :15:23.want to be prosecuting veterans under this legislation? That would

:15:24. > :15:27.surely be an ironic, unintended consequence of the legislation, but

:15:28. > :15:31.there is nothing to stop somebody being prosecuted who actually did

:15:32. > :15:37.serve in the armed forces, did gain some medals, being prosecuted for

:15:38. > :15:43.not wearing the right medals! That surely would not be what this House

:15:44. > :15:46.would want to see happen. This is something that the Royal Air Force

:15:47. > :15:51.families Association also touched on in their submissions to defence

:15:52. > :15:56.select committee inquiry. In reply to the question, what is the

:15:57. > :16:01.attitude of current and former seven members of the Armed Forces to

:16:02. > :16:04.imposters, they said we think the attitude of our people would depend

:16:05. > :16:08.on individual circumstances and would range from mild irritation and

:16:09. > :16:13.perhaps even amusement where an aged World War II veteran has upped his

:16:14. > :16:16.awards in an attempt to garner respect recognition, through 20

:16:17. > :16:21.outrage and anger at individuals who are trying to defraud people and

:16:22. > :16:26.profit from deliberate encapsulated actions in claiming awards to which

:16:27. > :16:30.they're not entitled, more so when the individual has not even served

:16:31. > :16:33.and I think that is a marvellous point that they make, because what

:16:34. > :16:36.they're saying is that if those people who are just begging up what

:16:37. > :16:42.they've or something is something that former service people see with

:16:43. > :16:46.mild amusement and can have a laugh at. The people that they get really

:16:47. > :16:56.angry about are the people who are doing it to try and defraud people I

:16:57. > :16:59.claiming these things, -- defraud people who are claiming these

:17:00. > :17:03.things. I think people who are promoting this bill are actually

:17:04. > :17:06.using the Armed Forces as justification to try and support

:17:07. > :17:11.something that actually this bill is not dealing with. They are the ones

:17:12. > :17:14.who are actually confusing apples with oranges as my honourable friend

:17:15. > :17:21.was trying to make the point earlier about the comparison between apples

:17:22. > :17:25.and oranges, what the armed forces get angry at our people trying to

:17:26. > :17:29.defraud people through being an impostor. That is already covered,

:17:30. > :17:34.so we have mild irritation and perhaps amusement at the other end

:17:35. > :17:38.and yet in these cases, if this bill is passed, the individuals in

:17:39. > :17:42.question because mild irritation and even amusement will be facing

:17:43. > :17:48.certainly a criminal record and very possibly a custodial sentence. Mr

:17:49. > :17:53.Speaker, should people have a criminal record and go to prison for

:17:54. > :17:59.causing mild irritation and perhaps even amusement for the people who

:18:00. > :18:05.this bill is setting out to defend? Surely that is disproportionate. I

:18:06. > :18:09.also want to touch on the difference between impersonating a police

:18:10. > :18:17.officer and wearing a medal. The defence select committee report says

:18:18. > :18:20.we believe an offence with the intention to deceive but not defraud

:18:21. > :18:26.may raise practical difficulties on questions of proof. Such offences do

:18:27. > :18:31.exist. For example, the offence of police impersonation under section

:18:32. > :18:34.90 of the police act 1996, therefore we conclude that the legal concept

:18:35. > :18:40.of deception is sufficiently well established for this not to cause

:18:41. > :18:46.major difficulties. Some people say they impersonating a police officer

:18:47. > :18:49.offence is not a dramatic departure, but I disagree, these things are

:18:50. > :18:56.completely different issues. Wearing a medal to gain respect or kudos is

:18:57. > :18:59.one thing but impersonating a police officer is different thing. Police

:19:00. > :19:03.officers have actual powers which could be used in a most sinister

:19:04. > :19:08.way, that is surely got to be any differently to someone wearing a

:19:09. > :19:12.medal the just not entitled to wear -- they are just not entitled to

:19:13. > :19:15.wear. This week there was a report about the difference between this

:19:16. > :19:19.and impersonating a police officer. Apparently a man pretending to be a

:19:20. > :19:23.police officer used a flashing blue light on the front of his car to

:19:24. > :19:28.signal to a woman to pull over as she drove in Glenrothes in Scotland

:19:29. > :19:32.at about 11:20am. He then told to get out of the car and she became

:19:33. > :19:35.suspicious and drove off to call the real police who confront this was

:19:36. > :19:40.not one of their officers. What could have happened as she got out

:19:41. > :19:43.of the car does not bear thinking about. Surely that cannot be classed

:19:44. > :19:49.in the same way as wearing a medal to which you are not entitled. There

:19:50. > :19:54.are a view other things I want to mention about the actual detail, Mr

:19:55. > :20:01.Speaker. The bill says that the offence of winning medals or

:20:02. > :20:07.insignia without in title is clause one. Subsection one, subject to

:20:08. > :20:09.subsection five, a person who, with intent to deceive, where's

:20:10. > :20:15.represents themselves as being entitled to an item specified by,

:20:16. > :20:21.which they're not entitled to wear, is guilty of an offence. I just want

:20:22. > :20:32.to emphasise the important part of that, a person who with intent to

:20:33. > :20:38.deceive where's represents themselves as being entitled to wear

:20:39. > :20:42.an item. . This means that somebody does not have to be wearing a medal

:20:43. > :20:47.to commit an offence under the bill, which is the point we have been

:20:48. > :20:50.hearing. People who were medals and things they're not entitled to wear,

:20:51. > :20:55.this bill does not just stamp out the wearing of medals, Mr Speaker,

:20:56. > :21:00.it is for somebody who represents themselves as being entitled to wear

:21:01. > :21:07.a medal who would be guilty of an offence. An exchange between my

:21:08. > :21:12.honourable friends during the defence select committee inquiry

:21:13. > :21:18.deals with this point graphically. -- perfectly. My honourable friend

:21:19. > :21:22.said with seek to criminalise the false representation of entitlement

:21:23. > :21:26.to a declaration medal without a person even wearing it? Let me give

:21:27. > :21:34.you an example, any links to any members of this committee are purely

:21:35. > :21:37.coincidental. I should say that given to the honourable member in

:21:38. > :21:41.front of me is. But say you got a corporal going down the pub and

:21:42. > :21:46.racking up a not insignificant bar tab and gobbling off about winning a

:21:47. > :21:50.military Cross in Normandy or whatever, with this legislation

:21:51. > :21:56.apply in that case? My honourable friend replied, it would. The first

:21:57. > :21:59.subsection of this bill indicates that someone who wears represents

:22:00. > :22:04.themselves as being entitled to wear would be covered, so someone goes

:22:05. > :22:07.along and says I won a Victoria Cross and look what has happened to

:22:08. > :22:10.me, it's dreadful, I need help and assistance, they would fall foul of

:22:11. > :22:16.this law because they are making a false claim and the dialogue between

:22:17. > :22:19.my honourable friend, the member for new Forest East and Dartford, is

:22:20. > :22:24.very start. The chairman of the select committee said he is not only

:22:25. > :22:28.there for trying to gain something, or is it just out of boastfulness

:22:29. > :22:31.that they would still be caught? My honourable friend said if it was

:22:32. > :22:36.carried out in a way that was intended to deceive people, he would

:22:37. > :22:40.be covered by this bill. My other honourable friend said, even just to

:22:41. > :22:43.get the prestige of the credit? Yes, said my honourable friend for

:22:44. > :22:49.Dartford. This could mean, Mr Speaker, that someone who gets drunk

:22:50. > :22:52.and start pretending they have a medal, in any circumstances and in

:22:53. > :22:58.front of any other person, could be guilty of this offence and face a

:22:59. > :23:03.prison sentence. Do we really think that that is proportionate for

:23:04. > :23:07.somebody who has had too much to drink in the pub and start

:23:08. > :23:09.pretending they've got a medal that they haven't earned? Are we really

:23:10. > :23:13.going to criminalise these people and potentially send them to prison?

:23:14. > :23:19.Is that really what this House is intending to do today? Which medals

:23:20. > :23:25.Mr Speaker, when it comes to the medals that will be covered, the

:23:26. > :23:30.bill says in subsection two, those items are a military medal or

:23:31. > :23:33.insignia meeting the requirements of subsection four, the George Cross,

:23:34. > :23:41.George medal or queen's gallantry medal, or any medal or insignia

:23:42. > :23:48.awarded for valour and given by the Secretary of State or an article or

:23:49. > :23:57.emblem resembling an item specified. For the purpose of this section,

:23:58. > :24:01.insignia means a class, ribbon or bar or equivalent authorised by the

:24:02. > :24:07.moniker defence Council awarded to a member of the United Kingdom's Armed

:24:08. > :24:11.Forces in connection with an act or acts of valour. The Royal British

:24:12. > :24:14.Legion in the written evidence to the defence select committee said

:24:15. > :24:18.that although the precise wording of the bill is yet to be printed, at

:24:19. > :24:22.that time it was, the Legion understands that it aims to prohibit

:24:23. > :24:26.the wearing of public display by a person not entitled to do so will of

:24:27. > :24:30.medals or insignia awarded for valour with the intent to deceive.

:24:31. > :24:33.As the bill is further developed, the region would welcome assurances

:24:34. > :24:40.that those who were the medals of deceased relatives will not be

:24:41. > :24:43.captured by the provisions of this bill and we now know that they are

:24:44. > :24:46.not captured by the provisions of this bill. The committee may also

:24:47. > :24:50.want to consider how the bill will accommodate the practice of winning

:24:51. > :24:54.commemorative medals as committee members will no doubt be aware, many

:24:55. > :24:57.veterans feel strongly that their service during particular military

:24:58. > :25:01.campaigns are periods of operation should be formally recognised, yet

:25:02. > :25:07.there is often no official medal commemorating their service.

:25:08. > :25:09.Veterans have been known to commission and purchase

:25:10. > :25:13.commemorative medals that highlight their involvement any particular

:25:14. > :25:16.campaign or demonstrate their service, although they are not

:25:17. > :25:22.officially recognised. Whilst the Legion does not condone the wearing

:25:23. > :25:25.of commemorative medals on parade, we would not like to see individuals

:25:26. > :25:29.punished under proposed bill, provided their service record

:25:30. > :25:35.support their involvement any particular campaign. The definition

:25:36. > :25:38.of medals does appear to be fairly narrowly drawn, but this definition

:25:39. > :25:43.could easily be changed by regulations in future and it is not

:25:44. > :25:48.just restricted to actual medals, it includes clasps, ribbons, bars, etc,

:25:49. > :25:54.but more importantly, anything resembling these items. My

:25:55. > :26:02.honourable friend for Dartford said, where do you stop? He might know

:26:03. > :26:06.where he wants to stop, but when something has started, it is very

:26:07. > :26:13.difficult to stop. Urgent question, Diane Abbott.

:26:14. > :26:19.To ask her if she will make a statement on the recent review

:26:20. > :26:23.conducted by Her Majesty Constabulary into the Metropolitan

:26:24. > :26:33.Police handling of child sex abuse cases. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today,

:26:34. > :26:39.Her Majesty Constabulary published the findings in its child protection

:26:40. > :26:42.of the Metropolitan Police Service. The findings of this inspection are

:26:43. > :26:46.extremely concerning. The indicate that the Metropolitan Police has

:26:47. > :26:49.been failing in its duty to protect children from harm. These are

:26:50. > :26:54.serious issues that this Government is clear must be urgently addressed.

:26:55. > :26:57.It is not acceptable that almost three quarters of the child

:26:58. > :27:00.protection cases reviewed have needed improvement or were

:27:01. > :27:06.inadequate. Nor is it acceptable that officers focused on tackling

:27:07. > :27:11.child exploitation with no training on how to deal with that crime. It

:27:12. > :27:15.is simply shocking to hear that the Metropolitan Police had to be

:27:16. > :27:18.prompted to take action on cases even after serious issues had been

:27:19. > :27:25.identified which meant that a child could be at risk. Honourable member

:27:26. > :27:28.is, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke to the Mayor of

:27:29. > :27:33.London about this report yesterday. I also spoke to the deputy yesterday

:27:34. > :27:36.and we were reassured that it doesn't tend to take swift action to

:27:37. > :27:41.address these appalling failures. We are also clear that improving the

:27:42. > :27:46.police response to child protection will be a priority for the new

:27:47. > :27:51.commissioner when he or she is appointed. In light of the severity

:27:52. > :27:55.of each MIC's findings, the Home Secretary has commissioned Her

:27:56. > :27:58.Majesty expected of Constabulary to provide a quarterly update on action

:27:59. > :28:02.by the Metropolitan Police to address the issues and

:28:03. > :28:05.recommendations in the report to help the mayor to ensure immediate

:28:06. > :28:08.progress is made. The public will rightly expect to see progress being

:28:09. > :28:14.made quickly. They will want and need reassurance that clear

:28:15. > :28:18.improvements are being made now. That is why these reports will be

:28:19. > :28:22.published so that the people of London can hold there are thought to

:28:23. > :28:27.account for those improvements. I am sure everyone in this house will

:28:28. > :28:31.join me in demanding swift progress in the Metropolitan Police to the

:28:32. > :28:35.opportunities protect children not missed and any child who goes

:28:36. > :28:41.missing or who is at risk of child sexual exploitation gets the

:28:42. > :28:52.protection they need and deserve. The Home Office in its annual report

:28:53. > :28:55.and accounts the 2015, 16 Z, we have already recognised child sexual

:28:56. > :29:01.abuse as a national threat in the strategic policing requirements. We

:29:02. > :29:06.are obliging forces to maximise specialist skill and expertise to

:29:07. > :29:12.prevent offending and resolve cases. It seems the only force that it

:29:13. > :29:16.wasn't obliging to maximise specialist skill and expertise was

:29:17. > :29:21.the Metropolitan Police force, the largest force in the country. I

:29:22. > :29:27.appreciate that technically this is a matter for the mayor and for the

:29:28. > :29:33.mayor's officers policing but this is a force that the Home Office had

:29:34. > :29:38.responsibility for as recently as 1999. And the public will not

:29:39. > :29:46.understand why the Home Office never asked questions about how it the

:29:47. > :29:52.largest force in the country was preventing offending and revolving

:29:53. > :29:57.-- resolving child sex abuse cases. This report comes weeks after the

:29:58. > :30:01.damning review finding numerous errors in Scotland Yard's operation,

:30:02. > :30:07.these revelations come in the week in which the largest group of

:30:08. > :30:14.survivors have withdrawn from the child sex abuse enquiry, which makes

:30:15. > :30:18.you wonder how long the Metropolitan Police has been failing victims of

:30:19. > :30:27.child sex abuse in London. This is a shocking report. The Home Secretary

:30:28. > :30:33.cannot hide behind the mayor. Looking at child sex abuse in its

:30:34. > :30:37.totality, looking at how the child sex abuse enquiry seems to be

:30:38. > :30:45.crumbling. The public would be forgiven for asking how seriously

:30:46. > :30:55.does this Government really take the issue of child sex abuse. Mr

:30:56. > :30:57.Speaker, there is an extent to which I'm not quite sure what the direct

:30:58. > :31:02.questions were in the right honourable lady's statement just

:31:03. > :31:07.now. I would just say to her show is referred to a time when she herself,

:31:08. > :31:11.mention 1999, I'm not sure she's read the full each MIC report. Maybe

:31:12. > :31:16.she should do that. She is referring to the period when was the start of

:31:17. > :31:20.the Labour governments are not quite sure she's good at surviving the

:31:21. > :31:25.Government. As I said, the Home Secretary herself has commissioned

:31:26. > :31:29.each MIC, she has spoken to the Mayor of London, they have got a

:31:30. > :31:33.plan of how they want to hold the Metropolitan Police to account. It

:31:34. > :31:37.seems to me we have got more confidence in the Mayor of London

:31:38. > :31:40.than the honourable lady does but I'm slowly surprised about. It is

:31:41. > :31:45.important we are focused on this issue and it is important this hack

:31:46. > :31:49.House is a unified statement that we should be united on which is that

:31:50. > :31:53.the Metropolitan Police who are responsible for this are in a

:31:54. > :31:56.shocking situation that nobody in senior management in the

:31:57. > :31:59.Metropolitan Police had a grip on responsible for this comic get to

:32:00. > :32:08.grips with it, deal with and do it now. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does my

:32:09. > :32:15.right honourable friend agree with me that child sexual exploitation

:32:16. > :32:18.shouldn't require any force in the land, particularly the Metropolitan

:32:19. > :32:24.Police, given its size and the geopolitical location of London and

:32:25. > :32:29.its access to major airports and ports, etc, but it seems and an

:32:30. > :32:34.extraordinary defence that some seem bidding for that because there

:32:35. > :32:37.wasn't a memo or an e-mail or an explicit instructions it was felt

:32:38. > :32:44.that this in some way could be a lower priority for policing. My

:32:45. > :32:48.honourable friend makes a very good and powerful point. When we consider

:32:49. > :32:51.particularly in London arguably the best funding and resourced police

:32:52. > :32:55.force in the country with the largest and of police officers, the

:32:56. > :32:58.idea in the Metropolitan Police or anywhere in this country is quite

:32:59. > :33:01.right, we should have to specifically say to police force

:33:02. > :33:04.that this is clearly an issue that should be dealt with, that anyone in

:33:05. > :33:09.the public profile, the fact that the first port of call for the

:33:10. > :33:13.police is to defend its citizens, the most vulnerable are the core of

:33:14. > :33:19.that, goes without saying. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Problems in this

:33:20. > :33:23.area go well beyond London's what discussions has the Home Secretary

:33:24. > :33:25.had with the majesty expected of Constabulary identifying their

:33:26. > :33:29.similar feelings being made in other police forces in England and Wales

:33:30. > :33:37.and there haven't been taking place, will be be taking place in? I can

:33:38. > :33:39.give the honourable gentleman 's comments on this issue. The report

:33:40. > :33:44.into London as part of an ongoing series of works of the HMI sea is

:33:45. > :33:49.doing. It has been commissioned to do everything the police force in

:33:50. > :33:51.the country. The London report has just been published but there have

:33:52. > :33:55.been others already published and more will be going ahead over the

:33:56. > :34:01.next year. We have to be unequivocally clear about this. This

:34:02. > :34:07.is the most damaging report the HMIC have given on any police force in

:34:08. > :34:11.the country. Mr Speaker, Lancashire Constabulary has very much focused

:34:12. > :34:15.as we saw some professionalising training for its officers on child

:34:16. > :34:21.sexual exportation. Can my right honourable friend confirm that the

:34:22. > :34:23.office, College of policing, was specifically set up to

:34:24. > :34:28.professionalise the police and provide them with better training?

:34:29. > :34:32.My honourable friend makes a very good point and is absolutely right.

:34:33. > :34:35.This is exactly why this Government and the now Prime Minister Home

:34:36. > :34:37.Secretary has set up the College of policing to make sure we

:34:38. > :34:41.professionalise the police and also able to make sure that across the

:34:42. > :34:45.country we share best practice and that along with the National police

:34:46. > :34:48.and Chief constables coincide exactly how we should be making sure

:34:49. > :34:54.the police forces are well equipped across the country to deal with all

:34:55. > :35:00.issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker. My constituents will be very concerned

:35:01. > :35:06.about this. Can the Minister tell me what steps the Government has taken

:35:07. > :35:11.to protect vulnerable and young people from abuse right across the

:35:12. > :35:15.country? My honourable friend raises a very good point and it is

:35:16. > :35:18.important we remember there is the independent enquiry that is looking

:35:19. > :35:23.at all of these issues historically right up till now, it is important

:35:24. > :35:26.that enquiry has its space and the support to get on with and do the

:35:27. > :35:32.job so we can make sure that we are able to learn and to show there will

:35:33. > :35:36.be justice for anybody who has been through these horrendous ordeals. We

:35:37. > :35:40.have to be very clear this is the type of behaviour that simply cannot

:35:41. > :35:48.be tolerated and is right that we make sure police are trained

:35:49. > :35:53.officers and is shocking to think the Metropolitan Police are simply

:35:54. > :35:57.not getting that training place. Does this report today not show that

:35:58. > :36:01.the critical work of the independent enquiry into child sexual abuse must

:36:02. > :36:05.continue amine must stop trying to find fault pick holes in it? We need

:36:06. > :36:09.to allowing give space for that enquiry to hear all the evidence and

:36:10. > :36:14.bring the perpetrators to justice. My honourable friend is as always

:36:15. > :36:17.absolutely right. It is important that enquiry is able to do its work,

:36:18. > :36:21.have a space to do its work and know that it's got the support right

:36:22. > :36:24.across this House to do the important work of getting the bottom

:36:25. > :36:30.to some of the problems that we need to get to the bottom of. Whilst

:36:31. > :36:33.we've seen much higher prosecutions as a result of this issue being much

:36:34. > :36:41.higher profile, all my honourable friend agree with me that this

:36:42. > :36:44.report shows the ethos but that the ethos of Crosby will country's

:36:45. > :36:50.police forces me to change to protect the most vulnerable as well?

:36:51. > :36:55.He makes an important point. There is an issue across the country. Many

:36:56. > :36:58.police forces are getting to grips and changing the culture in how we

:36:59. > :37:03.make sure that vulnerable people and people at risk of any kind of hidden

:37:04. > :37:07.crime have got the confidence they can be protected and come forward,

:37:08. > :37:11.as with enquiry's workers about. He is absolutely right. It is shocking

:37:12. > :37:14.to think the Metropolitan Police and vulnerable people were not getting

:37:15. > :37:17.the kind of protection, the opposite and have the training, nobody any

:37:18. > :37:21.senior position to converse of this issue and that has to change and is

:37:22. > :37:24.a culture change the Metropolitan Police takes on and any other police

:37:25. > :37:28.force in the country needs to think about. My right honourable friend is

:37:29. > :37:34.right to describe this report as a shocking. Are there any actions that

:37:35. > :37:39.he believes as a result of this that the Government and Parliament need

:37:40. > :37:42.to take? Mountable sound mixer very reasonable point and reasons an

:37:43. > :37:48.important question. In the conversations we've had with the

:37:49. > :37:52.mayor's office and the deputy mayor, I am confident we work they want to

:37:53. > :37:56.do will hold the Metropolitan Police to account and there is a meeting on

:37:57. > :38:00.Monday that the public can attend and sit in on. The deputy mayor is

:38:01. > :38:06.determined to bring around people from the country, College of

:38:07. > :38:09.policing working with the newly appointed Metropolitan Police to

:38:10. > :38:12.work on this. Their absolute right to do that. From the Government

:38:13. > :38:17.point of view, it is right that we do what we can and we have

:38:18. > :38:27.commissioned HMIC to have quarterly inspections and reporters publicly

:38:28. > :38:29.said that people can hold the Metropolitan Police to account. We

:38:30. > :38:36.returned to the The Awards for Valour Protection Bill. Thank you

:38:37. > :38:44.very much, Mr Speaker. I was making the point before the urgent question

:38:45. > :38:47.that my honourable friend for Dartford had said the challenging

:38:48. > :38:53.draft to the bill had been that where do you stop? My point is that

:38:54. > :38:56.he knows where he wants to stop. With so many things, once something

:38:57. > :39:00.started it is very difficult to stop as people always want to extend

:39:01. > :39:03.things. This could well be the slippery slope to other medals and

:39:04. > :39:10.certificates being included. Surely the principle is the same. Maybe it

:39:11. > :39:15.should one day start be extended to private medals, and all sorts in the

:39:16. > :39:22.future. In terms of who should be allowed to wear the medals, the bill

:39:23. > :39:26.says in subsection three for the purposes of this section, subsection

:39:27. > :39:31.five, personally entitled means the person to whom the award in question

:39:32. > :39:36.was made. And then it says, a person does not commit an offence under

:39:37. > :39:41.subsection one if the item is worn or the person represent themselves

:39:42. > :39:45.as being entitled to wear it. A ASBO TV reconstruction representation of

:39:46. > :39:53.historical events, B, as part of the films or theatrical production, or

:39:54. > :39:56.see as a family member who make the requirements of subsection three.

:39:57. > :39:59.The library briefing on the bill to because the British Legion and their

:40:00. > :40:04.advice on the wearing or not wearing of medals. The Royal British Legion

:40:05. > :40:11.has the following advice. Can I wear medals belonging to my -- members of

:40:12. > :40:14.my family? The official position regarding wearing medals other than

:40:15. > :40:17.your own is that they should not be warning. However, it was generally

:40:18. > :40:23.accepted from soon after the Great War that widows water late husband's

:40:24. > :40:28.medals on the right breast on a suitable occasions, such as my

:40:29. > :40:31.honourable friend from Beckett made in an earlier intervention.

:40:32. > :40:34.Recently, it seems to become the cost of any family member to wear

:40:35. > :40:38.medals of deceased relatives in this week, sometimes trying to get a

:40:39. > :40:41.complete family military history by winning several groups. Although

:40:42. > :40:46.understandable it is officially incorrect and when several groups

:40:47. > :40:48.does little for the dignity of the original owners. That is the

:40:49. > :40:52.official advice from the Royal British Legion. The naval families

:40:53. > :40:54.Association in their written evidence for the Defence Select

:40:55. > :40:59.Committee enquiry quoted the views of their members. In answer to the

:41:00. > :41:04.question, if canalisation of wearing medals was introduced, should be

:41:05. > :41:08.safeguards, for family members who we are the medals of deceased

:41:09. > :41:11.relatives? The received the following replies. If yes, which

:41:12. > :41:22.family members should be safeguarded please click all. These are the ones

:41:23. > :41:31.in that particular survey from the naval families Association actually

:41:32. > :41:43.ticked. Husband, wife, or civil partner was the most popular, then

:41:44. > :41:48.we have an married civil partner, parent, guardian, child, step child,

:41:49. > :41:53.grandchild, extended family and then we have other, which actually had by

:41:54. > :42:00.the looks of this chat about 14% wherever other. The Royal Air Force

:42:01. > :42:02.families Association said in their written evidence to the Defence

:42:03. > :42:07.Select Committee there should definitely be the guard their family

:42:08. > :42:11.members. The key question is who qualifies? The definition we use is

:42:12. > :42:15.anyone who has the blood relation but this may not be appropriate in

:42:16. > :42:20.these circumstances and can be difficult to prove on occasions.

:42:21. > :42:23.Interestingly, the Ministry of Defence is struggling with its own

:42:24. > :42:27.definition of a family member but it may be sensible to align any

:42:28. > :42:31.definition for the circumstances with the MoD definition if and when

:42:32. > :42:35.they decide what it should be. Otherwise, it is properly a matter

:42:36. > :42:38.for common-sense. Looking at the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is

:42:39. > :42:40.an exemption for a family member but we are none the wiser as to what a

:42:41. > :42:51.family member is. Does it include someone who is

:42:52. > :43:01.married but not a blood relation? I will give way. I'm sure he will

:43:02. > :43:04.realise, like everyone else in The House has realised, the member

:43:05. > :43:08.bringing the Bill has already explained that in the committee

:43:09. > :43:14.process, the definition and the discussion around families will be

:43:15. > :43:18.discussed at length. I have no doubt it will, but we are on the second

:43:19. > :43:22.reading and there's no reason why it shouldn't be discussed at length in

:43:23. > :43:27.the second reading as well as at the committee stage. The Defence Select

:43:28. > :43:47.Committee say in their report a number of our witnesses... Will the

:43:48. > :43:51.honourable gentleman give way? I thank my honourable friend for

:43:52. > :43:59.giving way. Can we be precise on this so that there is no lack of

:44:00. > :44:04.clarification. The Elizabeth Cross, awarded to widows and close family

:44:05. > :44:07.members who have lost someone, everyone who is given that is

:44:08. > :44:15.entitled to wear red wherever they like on body. My honourable friend,

:44:16. > :44:20.who is expert in these matters, is absolutely right, but we are talking

:44:21. > :44:24.about all medals that are in the Bill and what the definition of a

:44:25. > :44:29.family member is and we don't have such a definition of a family member

:44:30. > :44:33.as far as I can see. I think that people who are entitled to wear

:44:34. > :44:36.these medals should be afforded the knowledge of actually knowing

:44:37. > :44:41.whether they can or can't and whether or not they would be

:44:42. > :44:45.breaking the law. As things stand at the moment, people would not have

:44:46. > :44:49.that certainty and we could be in the ridiculous situation of someone

:44:50. > :44:54.who we intend should be able to wear a medal doesn't wear a medal through

:44:55. > :44:58.some effect because they don't know whether they would be breaking the

:44:59. > :45:02.law. That would be a terrible unintended consequence of this

:45:03. > :45:09.legislation. The report goes on to say that term "Family member" must

:45:10. > :45:14.be defined in terms of the proximity of the relations it is seeking to

:45:15. > :45:17.include. It is not a legal term but a single definition. Acts of

:45:18. > :45:21.Parliament which use the term commonly carried definition of

:45:22. > :45:29.family within them to be used in the purposes of that Act. It says in the

:45:30. > :45:33.report that Mr Johnson was minded this definition should be quite

:45:34. > :45:38.narrow, so that a nephew deceitfully wearing medals could not rely on the

:45:39. > :45:43.defence by claiming they were his uncle's awards. Do we really want to

:45:44. > :45:53.be criminalising a nephew who with his uncle's medals? Do we want to be

:45:54. > :46:01.sending that person to prison? I can tend that we should not. It also

:46:02. > :46:04.goes on to say, the inclusion of a defence to ensure that family

:46:05. > :46:08.members representing the deceased or incapacitated family relations

:46:09. > :46:12.Warren recipient of medals is vital but family member should be defined

:46:13. > :46:17.to make sure there is no room for uncertainty or abuse. We request a

:46:18. > :46:21.definition of family member in order to provide certainty over who will

:46:22. > :46:27.be covered by this category. While the exemptions covet reconstructions

:46:28. > :46:31.of historical events and productions, perhaps we could know

:46:32. > :46:37.how does this exempt people in fancy dress? If my honourable friend's

:46:38. > :46:41.point is that they are not intending to deceive, why are there specific

:46:42. > :46:45.exemptions for reconstructions and productions, as though there is

:46:46. > :46:50.clearly no attempt to deceive in there, but no exemption for people

:46:51. > :46:55.in fancy dress? I would also like to make a point about actors. One

:46:56. > :46:59.unfortunate scenario could be with someone starts off legitimately

:47:00. > :47:05.wearing a medal but then it turned into an offence by accident. Imagine

:47:06. > :47:08.an actor goes to the pub for a drink after whatever it is they were

:47:09. > :47:12.acting in and someone mistakenly assumes they are entitled to wear

:47:13. > :47:19.the medal they have forgotten to remove when they came off the set.

:47:20. > :47:22.Unless they corrected them, and perhaps the more drinks the actor

:47:23. > :47:27.had consumed less likely this would be, they would have committed a

:47:28. > :47:31.criminal friends. Whereas they would not have intended to deceive anyone

:47:32. > :47:36.when they went to work, it could later almost by accident. I said I

:47:37. > :47:41.would come back to sentencing. The Bill says, any person guilty of an

:47:42. > :47:49.offence under this section should be liable to appear -- a term of

:47:50. > :47:55.imprisonment not exceeding three months or a fine. In the Defence

:47:56. > :47:58.Select Committee report, they say, my honourable friend indicated that

:47:59. > :48:05.the appropriate maximum penalty was six months imprisonment or a fine of

:48:06. > :48:08.?5,000 on level five on the standard scale. That the rationale behind

:48:09. > :48:12.drafting the penalty in this way was to address three concerns. First,

:48:13. > :48:14.the potential for a custodial sentence would make sure there is no

:48:15. > :48:32.need for a separate power of arrest. Second, that a level five fine on

:48:33. > :48:37.the standard scale would be at a maximum of ?5,000 but we know heard

:48:38. > :48:43.that the upper limit was removed in 2012. Magistrates now have power to

:48:44. > :48:47.issue a fine of any amount. And third, that this formulation will

:48:48. > :48:51.ensure it can be dealt with only in a Magistrates' Court. A certain way

:48:52. > :48:57.of doing this would be to have this explicitly stated in the Bill. The

:48:58. > :49:01.appropriate level of penalty has clearly been considered in some

:49:02. > :49:07.detail by the Bill 's sponsor. We are broadly satisfied that the

:49:08. > :49:13.boundaries of penalties proposed are appropriate. There has clearly been

:49:14. > :49:17.a change in terms of the length of imprisonment, down from only six

:49:18. > :49:25.months to three months. But it is still too much in my opinion as it

:49:26. > :49:27.stands. I'm also not sure how my honourable friend in visages the

:49:28. > :49:33.sentencing guidelines for this offence looking but would the type

:49:34. > :49:38.of medal being worn or not worn as the case maybe be a factor? Would

:49:39. > :49:43.the type of incident be a factor? The more deceived, the more severe

:49:44. > :49:48.the fans. Would it depend on the length of time of the deception or

:49:49. > :49:53.the place? Would it be worse, for example, if it was at a Remembrance

:49:54. > :49:59.Day parade. All these things need to be considered when we are passing

:50:00. > :50:03.legislation in this House. I don't think that the fence should be

:50:04. > :50:09.created in the first place. But if it were, wouldn't the confiscation

:50:10. > :50:13.of the medal be sufficient? I cannot support decriminalisation and

:50:14. > :50:20.imprisonment of Walter Mitty types. We have plenty of eccentrics in this

:50:21. > :50:24.country, some I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this House. And to

:50:25. > :50:29.criminalise someone for this type of behaviour would be very concerning

:50:30. > :50:36.indeed. I should say in passing, we all know in this House about the

:50:37. > :50:40.Liberal Democrats claiming credit erroneously for other people's work.

:50:41. > :50:51.Are we really going to get the point where we send to prison for claiming

:50:52. > :50:57.credit for other people's...? I note the enthusiasm the enthusiasm for

:50:58. > :51:01.the concept of locking up Lib Dems who claim credit for other people's

:51:02. > :51:08.work. Are we going to really criminalise people and send them to

:51:09. > :51:12.prison for what is no more than boasting in the pub? As I said at

:51:13. > :51:17.the start, we owe an enormous gratitude to those who have risked

:51:18. > :51:20.their lives on our behalf. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them

:51:21. > :51:26.and fight their corner in anyway I could. The problem at this Bill

:51:27. > :51:29.seeks to address seems to be very limited. There are things that can

:51:30. > :51:34.be done without resorting to the drastic action in this Bill of

:51:35. > :51:39.criminalising people and imprisoning people to improve the situation. The

:51:40. > :51:43.Defence Select Committee say in their report, we recommend that the

:51:44. > :51:47.Ministry of Defence should set up the practicalities of creating an

:51:48. > :51:51.online publicly searchable database to record those who are rightful

:51:52. > :51:56.recipients of gallantry and distinguished conduct towards along

:51:57. > :52:00.similar lines to the database Institute and by the US Department

:52:01. > :52:04.of defence. This would allow authoritative there purgation of

:52:05. > :52:12.claims and act as a deterrent to military imposters -- verification

:52:13. > :52:17.of claims. I absolutely agree with that and that is what this Bill is

:52:18. > :52:24.seeking to do. To actually act as a deterrent to military imposters

:52:25. > :52:28.whose deterrent would be liable to swift and accurate exposure. That is

:52:29. > :52:31.what we should be looking to do, not criminalising and imprisoning

:52:32. > :52:37.people. As my honourable friend mentioned during the enquiry, he

:52:38. > :52:42.said, I totally agree with the idea of having an online database. There

:52:43. > :52:45.are such things now but it is very difficult to get answers and

:52:46. > :52:48.gallantry medals and things. Let's encourage the government to put up a

:52:49. > :52:52.database so people can check these things very quickly. That would be

:52:53. > :52:57.very easy to do for all gallantry awards. I actually thought that the

:52:58. > :53:02.point made by the honourable member for Sedgefield during the enquiry

:53:03. > :53:06.was spot on and something I had been thinking too. He said, do you think

:53:07. > :53:10.that considering the discussed people feel at this kind of action,

:53:11. > :53:15.naming and shaming someone is sufficient rather than taking those

:53:16. > :53:19.people to court? I agree with much of my honourable friend, the member

:53:20. > :53:24.of Dartford's reply, apart from the end, when he said, that can

:53:25. > :53:27.sometimes be an effective remedy. I think you could say that for a whole

:53:28. > :53:31.range of different criminal offences. We know that certain

:53:32. > :53:35.people suffer more because of the naming and shaming they have had to

:53:36. > :53:39.suffer rather than people in other circumstances. That may be an

:53:40. > :53:42.appropriate way of dealing with instances of this kind. It may still

:53:43. > :53:46.be appropriate for someone to have a quiet word with someone, but that is

:53:47. > :53:54.also the case for a whole range of criminal offences. I think for this

:53:55. > :53:58.and all the other reasons I have mentioned, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:53:59. > :54:03.that should prevent this from becoming law. It would be a terrible

:54:04. > :54:07.unintended consequence if those who had fought in wars were then caught

:54:08. > :54:11.up in this legislation somehow alongside those who are vulnerable

:54:12. > :54:16.with mental health issues. I have set out how people who are actual

:54:17. > :54:19.veterans could be prosecuted under this legislation and those with

:54:20. > :54:26.mental health issues could be prosecuted under this legislation.

:54:27. > :54:28.Anyone impersonating a serviceman or trying to gain financially can

:54:29. > :54:33.already be prosecuted and that is where I believe we should leave it.

:54:34. > :54:37.Part of the fighting we have done in different battles is to protect our

:54:38. > :54:43.much cherished freedoms. As I said earlier and as the US Supreme Court

:54:44. > :54:47.found, that is freedom even when it is sometimes and something

:54:48. > :54:53.distasteful. Criminalising people as this Bill seeks to do helps to

:54:54. > :54:56.undermine that precious freedom and I'm afraid, Madam Deputy Speaker, I

:54:57. > :55:04.cannot support this Bill today. Doctor Julian Lewis. During the

:55:05. > :55:08.break that we had for the urgent question, I took the liberty of

:55:09. > :55:14.asking my honourable friend whether I am right in assuming that his

:55:15. > :55:18.default position on issues of this sort is as follows, when it's not

:55:19. > :55:23.necessary to legislate, it is necessary not to legislate. And he

:55:24. > :55:29.confirmed them and he is nodding now that that is indeed his position. I

:55:30. > :55:35.have to say, that is a position that in most cases I tend to subscribe to

:55:36. > :55:41.myself. I would like to say that my honourable friend for Shipley has

:55:42. > :55:48.done a month -- an amazing job in making the case for why he should be

:55:49. > :55:54.on the Bill committee once this Bill has got, as I hope it will, its

:55:55. > :55:59.second reading today. He is a one-man House of Lords. He is a

:56:00. > :56:07.revising chamber all in the concept of a single cranium and he brings

:56:08. > :56:14.the ruthless spotlight of logic to many well-intentioned, as he puts

:56:15. > :56:19.it, initiatives that have not always been thought through as fully as

:56:20. > :56:23.they should have been. But I believe that in making the point he's made

:56:24. > :56:28.today and he has made some very strong winds, he is nevertheless in

:56:29. > :56:35.danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water. There is a very

:56:36. > :56:42.considerable baby in this Bill and it deserves to thrive. He has

:56:43. > :56:47.slightly tended to conjure up scenarios of all sorts of people

:56:48. > :56:51.suffering from mental illness, languishing inappropriately in

:56:52. > :56:58.prison cells. This is very much a worst case aria. And when that is

:56:59. > :57:04.not borne out by experience because as we know, until the legislation

:57:05. > :57:11.was changed, a score or so years ago, until the legislation was

:57:12. > :57:26.there were no cases that I'm aware of any mentally ill people finding

:57:27. > :57:30.themselves in prison cells. cases there are many people in prison who

:57:31. > :57:33.have mental health problems who have been convicted of criminal offences

:57:34. > :57:37.and I'm not entirely sure what basis you would think it would be

:57:38. > :57:42.impossible for that scenarios happen with this offence. Looking back in

:57:43. > :57:48.history and I will have to look back to see the actual words are used, if

:57:49. > :57:53.I did not insert the words for this type of offence, then I should have

:57:54. > :57:57.done because I am not aware of any cases on the record and I am sure if

:57:58. > :58:02.there had been at my honourable friend with his exhaustive

:58:03. > :58:08.researchers behind him would have an them of people languishing in jail

:58:09. > :58:13.as a result of fraudulently claiming to have been awarded gallantry

:58:14. > :58:21.medals that they had not genuinely received. So I think when looking at

:58:22. > :58:25.the prospective penalties for committing an offence, such as would

:58:26. > :58:31.be created once again as it existed in the past by the passage of this

:58:32. > :58:36.bill, we have two apply a modicum of common sense, we have to recognise

:58:37. > :58:40.that there would be very few prosecutions are told because it is

:58:41. > :58:48.highly probable that most people would be deterred of the minority

:58:49. > :58:52.who would not be deterred, I am sure the vast majority of them it would

:58:53. > :58:56.end up facing nothing more than a fine and the fact that there is, in

:58:57. > :59:01.the background, the possibility of a prison sentence of the few weeks

:59:02. > :59:06.would, I am sure my honourable friend for Dartford confirmed, be

:59:07. > :59:14.there only as the other option for the most persistent cases of people

:59:15. > :59:19.we are all else had failed in stopping them from committing this

:59:20. > :59:25.act of abuse. Because that is what it is to the families of people who

:59:26. > :59:31.lost their lives serving this country and to living ex-service men

:59:32. > :59:36.and current service men and women who have genuinely been awarded

:59:37. > :59:40.these decorations. I must acknowledge my honourable friend was

:59:41. > :59:45.absolutely right to pick me up on the case of the United States

:59:46. > :59:51.Supreme Court, having struck down that legislation, but in our report

:59:52. > :59:55.we did also note that the fact that the Supreme Court, which is

:59:56. > :00:01.well-known internationally for its very absolutist stands on the

:00:02. > :00:07.freedom of speech issues, so much so indeed that it is possible to

:00:08. > :00:11.blackguard, libel and defame people in the United States to a degree in

:00:12. > :00:16.the name of free speech that is not possible in this country and found

:00:17. > :00:23.goodness for that, nevertheless, even in the case of the united

:00:24. > :00:27.states having taken this very strict interpretation of free speech as

:00:28. > :00:31.being the right to lie and deceive in relation to medals for valour

:00:32. > :00:37.that have not been awarded, a rare report did note that that has not

:00:38. > :00:42.prevented several state legislators from placing similar offences into

:00:43. > :00:47.law. The question we have to ask ourselves is - why are there any

:00:48. > :00:51.obvious disadvantages of the law as it worked out in practice when it

:00:52. > :00:59.existed before? My answer to that is no. Are there likely to be any new

:01:00. > :01:05.ill effects of reintroducing something very similar indeed to the

:01:06. > :01:13.position obtained in the past? My answer is still likely to be no. If

:01:14. > :01:18.the concern is that mentally ill people might be caught in the future

:01:19. > :01:24.by the criminal law in relation to the false claims of valour that

:01:25. > :01:29.resulted in them wearing medals to which they are not entitled, if that

:01:30. > :01:36.is the reason for not having a criminal sanction against such

:01:37. > :01:41.misbehaviour, then if that were to the reason applied more generally to

:01:42. > :01:46.the criminal law, I doubt if much criminal law would remain on the

:01:47. > :01:51.statute book at all. The fact is criminal law exists, mentally ill

:01:52. > :01:54.people out there, from time to time, mentally ill people break the law,

:01:55. > :02:00.that is no reason for not having the law at their for them to break or

:02:01. > :02:06.observe as the case may be. It is the matter to do with the mitigation

:02:07. > :02:11.of circumstances it is found that somebody has broken the law, then it

:02:12. > :02:16.becomes relevant to take their state of mind into account. I do not agree

:02:17. > :02:22.that it has to be the case that every factor appertaining any case

:02:23. > :02:25.to do with the inappropriate wearing of medals that were not awarded to

:02:26. > :02:33.the people concerned has to be written on the face of the bill. The

:02:34. > :02:40.idea, for example, that anyone is going to prosecute a nephew for

:02:41. > :02:45.wearing his uncle's medals in an appropriate setting is absolutely

:02:46. > :02:49.preposterous and I do not believe that the intention of the bill would

:02:50. > :02:57.be misconstrued in such a way that any such case would ever be brought.

:02:58. > :03:02.So just to return it to the conclusions and recommendations of

:03:03. > :03:05.the report, which we have heard that forward in a somewhat selective way

:03:06. > :03:12.by my honourable friend in his massively entertaining account of

:03:13. > :03:17.the report, I would just pick out a few factors. First of all, we did

:03:18. > :03:22.not agree with the justification is provided by the Ministry of Defence

:03:23. > :03:26.for repealing the offences relating to the protection of decorations

:03:27. > :03:33.without replacing those offences because if the offences in the Army

:03:34. > :03:37.act of 1955 were unsuitable to be transposed directly into new

:03:38. > :03:44.legislation, then the Armed Forces act of 2006 should have included new

:03:45. > :03:51.and more workable offences which incorporated appropriate exceptions.

:03:52. > :03:57.We did not believe that the main problem with this is that matter

:03:58. > :04:03.financial or other tangible gain. The main problem with this is the

:04:04. > :04:10.devaluing of the respect which people are entitled to have because

:04:11. > :04:15.of acts of bravery in their service careers. Now, I entirely agree with

:04:16. > :04:18.my honourable friend from Shipley and he rightly picked on the

:04:19. > :04:23.exchange that took place in our consideration of the bill about the

:04:24. > :04:31.question of whether or not it was appropriate also to include claims

:04:32. > :04:36.about having been awarded medals without actually wearing them. That

:04:37. > :04:41.was why I queried my honourable friend for Dartford in the course of

:04:42. > :04:47.the hearing that we held with him about his bill. It must be said that

:04:48. > :04:52.we didn't at that stage have the advantage of the final bill before

:04:53. > :04:57.us or, indeed, it was not available even at this stage of which we

:04:58. > :05:03.finalised the report. Although it is of course before the Has no. But, as

:05:04. > :05:08.I say, that is what the committee and a report stages of this process

:05:09. > :05:14.should be all about. There should be amendments made to the bill to deal

:05:15. > :05:22.with any practical points of concern which might be drawn up. Do I take

:05:23. > :05:27.it from what my honourable friend says, it would be useful to clarify

:05:28. > :05:31.this, as the bill stands, it is not just people who were medals, it is

:05:32. > :05:35.those who bid on themselves as being entitled to wear an item. If that

:05:36. > :05:40.was removed from the bill, would he support that amendment? I haven't

:05:41. > :05:43.heard the case argument from both sides because we only had that brief

:05:44. > :05:47.exchange about it in the committee, but I think he deduces correctly

:05:48. > :05:51.from the remark that I'd be making that I am unhappy about that

:05:52. > :05:56.particular provision and I would expect that the bill could be

:05:57. > :06:00.improved by its removal. I think what we are really concerned about

:06:01. > :06:06.here are people who go strutting around wearing decorations which

:06:07. > :06:09.they were not awarded and they do this, not primarily for reasons

:06:10. > :06:14.financial gain, which has been repeatedly pointed out and is

:06:15. > :06:18.already capable of remedying at law, they do it because they are

:06:19. > :06:25.fraudulently posing as somebody who has done things that have not really

:06:26. > :06:32.happened. And who have been given awards that they have not really

:06:33. > :06:38.earned. I have to say that when my honourable friend made the

:06:39. > :06:42.distinction between the difference between an impersonating a veteran

:06:43. > :06:45.who had been awarded a medal and impersonating a police officer, I

:06:46. > :06:49.think he's slightly missed the point where we were making when we

:06:50. > :06:54.referred to that in our conclusion. We were not saying that there was

:06:55. > :06:59.any real comparison with the consequences of those two acts of

:07:00. > :07:06.deception, we are only talking about the practical question of whether it

:07:07. > :07:11.can, any realistic and sensible way, be catered for by law. The actual

:07:12. > :07:16.sentence that he read out rather quickly, I shall read out slightly

:07:17. > :07:19.more slowly is as follows- we also disagree that offences involving and

:07:20. > :07:24.intention to deceive, which are not related to fraud, may raise

:07:25. > :07:29.practical difficulties on the questions of proof and we were seen

:07:30. > :07:32.by drawing a comparison with the offence of impersonating a police

:07:33. > :07:39.officer is that practical difficulties in each case would be

:07:40. > :07:42.the same and there are ways of coping with the practical

:07:43. > :07:48.difficulties of showing what is being done wrong in each case, even

:07:49. > :07:54.though of course the consequences of the two different acts are fastly

:07:55. > :08:00.dissimilar. Now, we've heard scepticism about how widely this

:08:01. > :08:07.practice is carried out but in fact there was evidence in the report

:08:08. > :08:12.from the National families Federation that did show that a very

:08:13. > :08:16.considerable number of their members, when surveys, thought that

:08:17. > :08:21.this was a real problem. I shall read the relevant extract from the

:08:22. > :08:28.report. This was the naval families Federation and it says the conducted

:08:29. > :08:36.a brief survey amongst their members receiving 1111 responses over four

:08:37. > :08:39.days. 64% of respondents said they personally encoded individuals

:08:40. > :08:44.wearing medals or insignia that where awarded to someone else, with

:08:45. > :08:48.16% saying they were not sure but when asked to detail the specific

:08:49. > :08:51.circumstances and that's what matters because there are plenty of

:08:52. > :08:55.perfectly legitimate cases of wearing medals that were not awarded

:08:56. > :09:00.to the person concerned, 29% of those responded said that the

:09:01. > :09:05.individual concerned was impersonating a UK Armed Forces

:09:06. > :09:09.veteran and another 11% identified the individual as impersonating a

:09:10. > :09:14.serving member of the Armed Forces. That does suggest that this is

:09:15. > :09:19.something which happens on a somewhat larger scale than has been

:09:20. > :09:23.suggested by some of the contributors to the debate. There

:09:24. > :09:28.is, however, another problem. This is something I would urge my

:09:29. > :09:34.honourable friend fruit Shipley to consider seriously and that is this-

:09:35. > :09:41.when the law fails to deal with an acceptable behaviour, people tend to

:09:42. > :09:45.take matters into their own hands. And this has happened to such an

:09:46. > :09:53.extent that we know to have, as we have heard earlier in the debate, we

:09:54. > :09:59.now do have groups of Walter Mitty hunters out beer, challenging people

:10:00. > :10:02.over the decorations that they are displaying and that does suggest,

:10:03. > :10:07.first of all, there is sufficiently wide concerned this is happening on

:10:08. > :10:11.such a scale that people have felt it appropriate, even though it is

:10:12. > :10:14.not necessarily appropriate, to set up groups to go rent a challenging

:10:15. > :10:19.people about whether or not they have earned the medals they display.

:10:20. > :10:29.I have a little direct experience of this. A view, a couple of years ago,

:10:30. > :10:38.I was at a veterans Day event in my constituency with my partner's

:10:39. > :10:44.father. My partner's father is slightly unusual because he has a

:10:45. > :10:48.post war distinguished flying Cross. That is not a decoration that's been

:10:49. > :10:52.awarded to a very large number of people since the end of the Second

:10:53. > :10:59.World War. He was approached by one of these people and really asked to

:11:00. > :11:04.justify at a veterans Day event the fact that he had a chest full of

:11:05. > :11:08.medals headed up by the distinguished flying Cross. Just be

:11:09. > :11:13.the sake of the record, if you are indulge me, I shall read a short

:11:14. > :11:18.report from the Shrewsbury advertiser on the 25th of May 19 55.

:11:19. > :11:24.It is headed courage over the Jungle. Flying Officer, who was

:11:25. > :11:27.announced in the London Gazette last week had been awarded the

:11:28. > :11:32.distinguished flying Cross for his services in operations in the layer

:11:33. > :11:39.between June one and November the 30th of last year he was pictured in

:11:40. > :11:44.this report, aged 24 and a native of Galashiels Flying Officer is at

:11:45. > :11:49.present stationed at RAF Shawbury. The citation reads, since joining

:11:50. > :11:57.number one Squadron in May 1952, he has completed 148 operational things

:11:58. > :12:01.in Malaya and as a navigator who assure meticulous care and untiring

:12:02. > :12:06.energy while locating droppings zones deep in the Jungle in flight

:12:07. > :12:09.over difficult terrain, often uninhabited and often adverse

:12:10. > :12:15.weather. His determination and courage have often exceeded the call

:12:16. > :12:19.of duty. Million operations depend largely for success on accurate

:12:20. > :12:26.navigation on mappings and by his wealth of experience, Callum,

:12:27. > :12:31.efficiency and this Flying Officer has inspired the whole squadron. I

:12:32. > :12:38.think it is a bit sad, really. Frank, I know him well, years 86 no.

:12:39. > :12:41.He was a little younger then. It didn't faze him that someone came up

:12:42. > :12:46.and challenged him. Not aggressively, but pointedly, as to

:12:47. > :12:49.whether or not he was entitled to wear the distinguished flying Cross.

:12:50. > :12:52.I think that is a real pity actually. I don't think it should

:12:53. > :12:57.have happened. I think it suggests there is the real problem out there

:12:58. > :13:02.with the perception of people wearing medals to which we are not

:13:03. > :13:07.entitled. I think it is their selfishness that can result in

:13:08. > :13:10.genuine heroes being challenged in appropriately and I think my

:13:11. > :13:14.honourable friend was quite right to point out the dangers of trust

:13:15. > :13:21.having been broken down in this situation. I hope I take a measured

:13:22. > :13:27.view of the situation, I entirely accept my honourable friend fruit

:13:28. > :13:31.Shipley is in a position to make improvements to this bill when it

:13:32. > :13:35.goes through the committee stage, as I hope it will, if it gets its

:13:36. > :13:38.passage here today. I believe that my honourable friend for Dartford is

:13:39. > :13:43.also entirely right to have brought the bill forward, it does capable

:13:44. > :13:45.improvement and of the House was as the improved, they should give a

:13:46. > :13:59.second reading today. Bob Stewart. Thank you, Madam Deputy

:14:00. > :14:02.Speaker. I totally endorse what my right honourable friend has said

:14:03. > :14:07.about it could be improved a little as it goes through. You see, it

:14:08. > :14:15.takes some neck to win medals you've not earned in front of veterans.

:14:16. > :14:23.They must have some sort of courage. Because it is so easy to out them.

:14:24. > :14:31.You can read what a fellow or a girl's service career has been from

:14:32. > :14:37.the medals on their chest. So it is pretty odd when people think they

:14:38. > :14:42.can get away with it. But it is often linked, as I referred earlier,

:14:43. > :14:48.two people wearing beret is that they don't, of regiments they don't

:14:49. > :14:56.belong to, and badges of regiments they don't belong to. And

:14:57. > :15:03.challenging these military imposters publicly is a hellishly good

:15:04. > :15:11.detergent. It sorts them out very quickly. Ridiculed by real service

:15:12. > :15:15.veterans is a very good way to deal with such Walter Mitty character is,

:15:16. > :15:25.because they normally turn up where other people are wearing medals. It

:15:26. > :15:30.makes them retreat very fast. Now, it is very easy for someone like

:15:31. > :15:37.myself that has a fairly good idea of what medals are to spot an

:15:38. > :15:46.imposter. It's not just the medals they are wearing, it's the medal

:15:47. > :15:50.order. For instance, you get a Gallantry Medal behind when that is

:15:51. > :15:59.actually not a Gallantry Medal and gallantry medals are the first

:16:00. > :16:04.medals on the chest in order. I am very pleased, by the way, that my

:16:05. > :16:12.very good friend, the honourable member for Dartford, has enlightened

:16:13. > :16:19.me that theatrical productions don't count her, because I would be very

:16:20. > :16:32.worried if the cast of Blackadder were to nip out for a quick drink,

:16:33. > :16:41.particularly Lieutenant, Captain Kevin Dahlin, MC, and especially,

:16:42. > :16:48.General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, who wears an MC in the

:16:49. > :16:52.wrong order, I have spotted. These fellas, if they go for a drink

:16:53. > :16:57.during filming, had better watch out. I am personally, and I'm sure

:16:58. > :17:03.everyone in the House will join me in saying this, I am personally

:17:04. > :17:10.saddened that Captain Blackadder himself had no gallantry medals when

:17:11. > :17:17.I think he thoroughly deserves them. He only way is two campaign medals,

:17:18. > :17:24.which I cannot possibly identify. Personally, I wish they'd medals

:17:25. > :17:31.myself. Often. They are fake because they haven't been given to me. I

:17:32. > :17:35.have actually had them reproduced. And I've had them reproduced because

:17:36. > :17:40.the real ones are stuck in some safe somewhere because if I lost the real

:17:41. > :17:48.ones I would never get them again. So when, if you ever see me passing

:17:49. > :17:52.around proud as a peacock wearing medals, please don't come and

:17:53. > :18:03.denounce me because I'm sure as hell will be denounced because my medals

:18:04. > :18:08.will be wrong. Gentleman used language which was then

:18:09. > :18:15.complimentary to other members of this House. He is using language

:18:16. > :18:18.which is then complimentary to himself and he may of course

:18:19. > :18:24.continue to do so, but the rest of the House objects to that because we

:18:25. > :18:31.are -- a modern gentleman does not deserve to be denigrated in this

:18:32. > :18:38.way, not by himself or anyone else. I don't know what to say. I am so

:18:39. > :18:44.touched. This is the nicest thing that's happened to me. I accept

:18:45. > :18:52.that. You don't consider me to be as bad as I think myself. So can I just

:18:53. > :18:57.say in conclusion that, actually, we don't want companies like the

:18:58. > :19:02.Worcester medal service, that produced my fake medals, to be shut

:19:03. > :19:08.down, because it is helpful to veterans to be able to win medals.

:19:09. > :19:13.And by the way, while we are on that subject, the wearing of military

:19:14. > :19:18.medals, they were not actually awarded to you by Her Majesty The

:19:19. > :19:23.Queen, they are normally ones you buy as well. Military medals are not

:19:24. > :19:28.quite the same. But let me conclude, I know we want to get on today, I

:19:29. > :19:32.very much appreciate the efforts of my honourable friend for Dartford. I

:19:33. > :19:40.endorse the comments made by my honourable friend behind me for

:19:41. > :19:45.Shipley, I am not sure that we need to jail people for this, but my

:19:46. > :19:49.goodness, we could actually embarrass the hell out of them and

:19:50. > :19:55.we could indeed make them do community service. Personally, I

:19:56. > :20:01.think community service spurred bashing at the military corrective

:20:02. > :20:11.training centre in Colchester would be a very good way to deal with

:20:12. > :20:20.General Walter Mitty. Thank you. Fabian Hamilton. I'm sure you would

:20:21. > :20:24.agree with me that no one could ever denigrate the honourable and gallant

:20:25. > :20:29.gentlemen, the member for Beckenham, for his service and the award of

:20:30. > :20:34.medals he has received in the past. Maybe an appropriate punishment

:20:35. > :20:39.might be the polishing of those medals or any other medals by

:20:40. > :20:44.anybody who contravenes this Bill, should it become law. Madam Deputy

:20:45. > :20:49.Speaker, I think my honourable friend, and I hope you will allow me

:20:50. > :20:52.to call him my honourable friend, the member for Dartford, in bringing

:20:53. > :20:57.in this Bill said something that some data for me and for our party

:20:58. > :21:01.on this side of the House when he said, this Bill is about stealing

:21:02. > :21:07.valour from genuine heroes. That is something that we on this side

:21:08. > :21:12.wholeheartedly support. We support this Bill because we firmly believe

:21:13. > :21:18.that anyone impersonating a veteran by wearing medals that they have not

:21:19. > :21:23.earned should face legal sanctions, whether it is spurred bashing,

:21:24. > :21:27.community service, polishing medals, or in extreme cases, as my

:21:28. > :21:35.honourable friend pointed out, serving any kind of prison sentence.

:21:36. > :21:40.We believe that it causes real fans to our forces and the community of

:21:41. > :21:44.our Armed Forces personnel. And it's right that we recognise this and

:21:45. > :21:48.therefore impose the appropriate punishment on these military

:21:49. > :21:52.imposters, in the same way that it is currently and fans to impersonate

:21:53. > :21:58.a service member by wearing a forces uniform. And we certainly believe,

:21:59. > :22:02.Madam Deputy Speaker, that the law as it currently stands does not go

:22:03. > :22:09.far enough. Military imposters can be prosecuted for fraud but we think

:22:10. > :22:16.that the fact of wearing a medal that has not been earned should be

:22:17. > :22:22.an offence because it isn't currently, for the sorts of reasons

:22:23. > :22:25.as has been mentioned this morning. It is right, however, that we allow

:22:26. > :22:32.relatives to honour veterans by wearing medals, as the honourable

:22:33. > :22:37.and gallant gentleman, the member for Beckenham, has pointed out, on

:22:38. > :22:43.the right breast. And I hope the House will allow me to recount a

:22:44. > :22:47.very brief story. Back in 1998, not long after I was elected to this

:22:48. > :22:53.House for my constituency, the Lord Mayor of Leeds, the late councillor

:22:54. > :23:00.Mrs Linda Middleton, asked me why I didn't wear my father's medals at

:23:01. > :23:04.Remembrance Sunday parade in the centre of the city of Leeds. I

:23:05. > :23:08.wasn't aware that this was even possible. But she said if you wear

:23:09. > :23:13.them on your right breast, everybody will know that you are not claiming

:23:14. > :23:18.that they are your medals, but that you are respecting your late father

:23:19. > :23:23.who earned those medals. And so every single year, including two

:23:24. > :23:27.Sundays ago, I put on my suit and coat and I weigh those medals

:23:28. > :23:32.proudly on the right-hand side, including the one I am proudest that

:23:33. > :23:43.he earned, the French resistance medal, because he fought in occupied

:23:44. > :23:48.France. My good friend, and he is a good friend, is making a very valid

:23:49. > :23:53.point here of something else. By wearing those medals, the person

:23:54. > :23:58.that one then lives again in your memory and in our memory and I think

:23:59. > :24:02.that is a terribly important thing, particularly for those killed in

:24:03. > :24:13.action. I thank my honourable friend for that point. My father died in

:24:14. > :24:20.1988, far too long ago unfortunately, at a relatively early

:24:21. > :24:26.age. He was not long past 60 when he passed away. But he is absolutely

:24:27. > :24:30.right, and in doing so I am honouring his memory and the

:24:31. > :24:34.gallantry he showed. Looking around at that remembrance parade in the

:24:35. > :24:40.centre of my city of Leeds, I see so many relatives of soldiers who are

:24:41. > :24:45.deceased or who died in battle proudly wearing those medals. I look

:24:46. > :24:49.at them, I know they haven't learned them, they are not pretending they

:24:50. > :24:52.have, and I'm so pleased my honourable friend has made that

:24:53. > :24:57.point absolutely clearly in his Bill, and that is again one of the

:24:58. > :25:01.reasons why on this side of this House we want to support it

:25:02. > :25:05.wholeheartedly. The last Labour government has been mentioned, it's

:25:06. > :25:10.been mentioned that the Armed Forces, the Army act and the air

:25:11. > :25:17.force at were repealed when the Armed Forces act of 2006 was passed

:25:18. > :25:22.into law. And that, for the last ten years, meant that wearing, full

:25:23. > :25:28.three wearing and misrepresenting military medals, has not been an

:25:29. > :25:32.offence. However, the last Labour government has a strong record of

:25:33. > :25:38.support, as I know all in this House would acknowledge, of support for

:25:39. > :25:42.our forces, and we pave the way for the Armed Forces Covenant, which the

:25:43. > :25:47.coalition government then passed into law. We were the first

:25:48. > :25:51.government to recognise that the forces community should receive

:25:52. > :25:54.priority access to health services, and those services have been

:25:55. > :25:59.developed since by the coalition and the current Conservative government.

:26:00. > :26:00.Let me turn briefly to some of the points that have been made in this

:26:01. > :26:10.morning's debate. The honourable member for Dartford

:26:11. > :26:16.made it clear that family members must be able to where medals that

:26:17. > :26:20.belong to their relatives in honour of their relatives and there is no

:26:21. > :26:25.intention in this Bill to stop that practice. The honourable member for

:26:26. > :26:29.South Thanet said that fraud legislation had never been used to

:26:30. > :26:34.prosecute dishonest medal winners and that this Bill would have a

:26:35. > :26:40.deterrent effect upon those who seek to fraudulently where those medals.

:26:41. > :26:42.He pointed to legislation in Australia and the united states and

:26:43. > :26:49.said that this Bill was long overdue. Let me then turn to the

:26:50. > :26:56.honourable member for Shipley who obviously has quite a lot to say on

:26:57. > :27:00.this Bill, and who is not entirely happy with it. He did point to the

:27:01. > :27:06.typical tradition of private members bills that had worthy sentiments but

:27:07. > :27:09.he felt that some of the politics were a gesture politics. The idea

:27:10. > :27:17.however was admirable but the Bill was not necessarily -- not necessary

:27:18. > :27:21.or helpful. That was a point slightly echoes on Radio 4's today

:27:22. > :27:24.programme this morning when a military officer said he felt that

:27:25. > :27:28.we could in this House be doing more useful things for veterans. But I

:27:29. > :27:35.think that is to misunderstand the purpose and the effect of private

:27:36. > :27:39.members bills. Because if we started tackling something genuinely

:27:40. > :27:43.controversial or more controversial in this setting it is doubtful that

:27:44. > :27:46.it would see the light of day. So I thoroughly support and defend the

:27:47. > :27:51.fact that this private members Bill is doing what the member for

:27:52. > :27:56.Dartford intends us to do. Let return briefly to the defence

:27:57. > :28:01.committee report. The Defence Select Committee produced an excellent

:28:02. > :28:06.report dated 22nd November and I commend the cheer of the committee,

:28:07. > :28:09.the honourable member, or is it the right honourable member for New

:28:10. > :28:15.Forest East for producing this report. I quote from it. The

:28:16. > :28:20.protections sought in the Bill are necessary to safeguard the integrity

:28:21. > :28:28.of the military honours system, to deflect condemnation of misuse of

:28:29. > :28:33.militantly onerous as to make sure that genuine recipients should not

:28:34. > :28:36.have to endure the intrusion of impostors. Such sanctions are common

:28:37. > :28:38.in other legal systems around the world and the lack of summer

:28:39. > :28:44.protection in the UK is the exception. The committee stressed

:28:45. > :28:46.the importance of clarity when framing new criminal offences, a

:28:47. > :28:53.point made so eloquently and that some link by the member for Shipley.

:28:54. > :28:59.It recommended that the awards covered by the Bill be listed as a

:29:00. > :29:12.Schedule or by reference to an authoritative external list. Finally

:29:13. > :29:19.let me just caught my colleague, our Shadow Defence Secretary, who

:29:20. > :29:24.responded to the defence committee report, and this sums up the

:29:25. > :29:27.opposition view. It is disgraceful that anyone should seek to

:29:28. > :29:31.impersonate a veteran by wearing medals that they have not burnt and

:29:32. > :29:34.it is right that the law should prosecute these fraudsters who could

:29:35. > :29:43.well be marching side-by-side with our ex-service personnel at veterans

:29:44. > :29:47.parades. Seeing these charlatans cause great offence to the veterans

:29:48. > :29:53.community under this time to put a stop to this abuse once and for all.

:29:54. > :29:55.Labour support a Bill to criminalise this practice and I hope the

:29:56. > :30:03.Government sees Saints and helps to bring this into law. I hope that we

:30:04. > :30:06.are today able to pass this second reading and that the Government will

:30:07. > :30:15.enable this excellent Bill to become law very soon. Thank you very much

:30:16. > :30:19.and it is truly a privilege to respond on behalf of their

:30:20. > :30:25.governments to my honourable friend, the member for Dartford. I

:30:26. > :30:29.congratulate him on winning the number saw high up the ballots for

:30:30. > :30:36.his private members Bill and for his success in bringing forward this

:30:37. > :30:39.particular measure today. To some people the impersonation of our

:30:40. > :30:47.military heroes may seem like a trifling matter worthy more of

:30:48. > :30:55.humour than concern take for instance the case of a man who

:30:56. > :30:58.claimed to be a member of the entirely fictional Warwickshire dog

:30:59. > :31:01.handlers and the other who went to great lengths to have a commando

:31:02. > :31:07.dagger insignia tattooed on his arm only to find out it was pointing the

:31:08. > :31:12.wrong way. Men who seems plausible but on closer examination were, to

:31:13. > :31:16.borrow a phrase, appear to have spent more time in a fancy dress

:31:17. > :31:26.shop than in the front line. We have hired an excellent debate on this

:31:27. > :31:29.Bill today. We have heard not only from the member proposing the bell

:31:30. > :31:40.but also from the member from South Thanet who was able to sheer with us

:31:41. > :31:44.the story of a Ukip councillor wearing an impossible range of

:31:45. > :31:48.medals and who was forced to stand down as a counsellor, and discovered

:31:49. > :31:57.to be a bigger mess at the same time. I think it highlights the way

:31:58. > :32:03.in which if someone is impertinent enough to pretend to be the

:32:04. > :32:09.recipient of medals to which they are not entitled that it may very

:32:10. > :32:13.well be the case that they are also able to cross the threshold of

:32:14. > :32:20.propriety and two other completely unacceptable things. We heard in a

:32:21. > :32:25.very extensive speech, and very detailed and well researched speech

:32:26. > :32:30.from the member for Shipley, over the course of about 70 minutes, the

:32:31. > :32:34.arguments against passing this particular piece of legislation

:32:35. > :32:42.anti-argued passionately on behalf of those who want to continue to

:32:43. > :32:45.impersonate people who are not entitled to wear medals. He was on

:32:46. > :32:51.the side of Walter Mitty this morning. But I think the mood of the

:32:52. > :32:55.House today is not with him I have to say. I will give way to my

:32:56. > :32:59.honourable friend. First of all she knows I was not on the side of

:33:00. > :33:03.Walter Mitty and that is insulting of her to say that but perhaps in

:33:04. > :33:06.passing she could see why on 3rd of May this year the Ministry of

:33:07. > :33:12.Defence agreed with me that in November this year -- and in

:33:13. > :33:15.November this year is now agrees with the honourable member for

:33:16. > :33:20.Dartford. Can should surely what has changed? He was making the case for

:33:21. > :33:26.why we cannot pass this legislation and I will be getting to the reasons

:33:27. > :33:31.why we are supporting the second reading in a minute. We also heard a

:33:32. > :33:34.very good speech from the member for New Forest East to change the

:33:35. > :33:38.Defence Select Committee and we are very grateful for the time that his

:33:39. > :33:41.committee spent taking evidence on this particular Bill and the

:33:42. > :33:48.insights they have sheared in their report. He also gave another very

:33:49. > :33:52.good example of that perhaps unintended effect of this not being

:33:53. > :33:57.a criminal offence at this point in time in terms of the way in which

:33:58. > :34:04.his partner's father was asked in a specific veteran event about his

:34:05. > :34:09.entitlement to where the medal from which he is so rightly proud. And we

:34:10. > :34:15.heard from my honourable gallant friend the member for Beckenham, a

:34:16. > :34:26.very passionately argued case for why people who are using the medals

:34:27. > :34:30.in events such as Blackadder and other dramatic events are rightly

:34:31. > :34:37.covered by the exemptions that the honourable member proposing this

:34:38. > :34:41.Bill has outlined. I hope the Minister will indulge me

:34:42. > :34:45.because I wish to make a short comment. Tomorrow I have the extreme

:34:46. > :35:03.honour of presenting the Legion d'honneur to a

:35:04. > :35:07.priest in my constituency. He was offshore duelling DD and I am going

:35:08. > :35:13.to his bid to give it to him and it is a singular honour on my part.

:35:14. > :35:22.Forgive me for the intervention, I think it is appropriate. I am glad

:35:23. > :35:25.my friend made that intervention because he puts on the record a

:35:26. > :35:32.wonderful example and I know there are many people at the moment who

:35:33. > :35:35.are very grateful to be receiving that award from the French

:35:36. > :35:40.Government at this particular time. I am glad that the honourable

:35:41. > :35:44.gentleman, the member for Leeds North East, and the Shadow Defence

:35:45. > :35:48.Secretary, also supported these Bill and he himself gave a very good

:35:49. > :35:55.example of how he proudly weirs on his right breast on remembrance day

:35:56. > :36:03.that medals that his great-grandfather - your father -14

:36:04. > :36:10.has service. A very good example of how important that this Bill brief

:36:11. > :36:19.-- Bill protects the right of family members to where loved ones medals.

:36:20. > :36:23.But I think the mood of the House today is that this dishonest

:36:24. > :36:29.behaviour that we have heard about today, and the examples that we have

:36:30. > :36:34.heard about, is not harmless fun or mindless eccentricity, in actual

:36:35. > :36:38.fact its implications are much worse and its ramifications are a far

:36:39. > :36:41.graver than many would appreciate at first glance. And all the more so

:36:42. > :36:46.when it involves the unauthorised wearing of decorations and medals.

:36:47. > :36:50.Firstly because it is a gross affront to those who have genuinely

:36:51. > :36:53.served their country at considerable risk to themselves and who, as is

:36:54. > :37:02.intended, where there are medals with great pride. As Siegfried

:37:03. > :37:06.Sassoon wrote nobody knew how much a decoration was worth except the man

:37:07. > :37:10.who deceived it. But as important as they Argus is about more than

:37:11. > :37:14.feelings which brings me to my second point. Wearing an authorised

:37:15. > :37:18.medals as harmful because it undermines the integrity of our

:37:19. > :37:26.formal military honours system, an historic system that has honoured

:37:27. > :37:28.are a world-class Armed Forces since the 19th century, and most

:37:29. > :37:33.crucially, as a result of undermining that system, August

:37:34. > :37:39.medal winners erode the bond of trust and respect between the public

:37:40. > :37:42.and the Armed Forces. It is because of this that during the First World

:37:43. > :37:48.War the defence of the realm regulation 41 made it an offence to

:37:49. > :37:54.where medals and decorations without authority. And as we have heard,

:37:55. > :37:58.this was transferred into statute after the war and later incorporated

:37:59. > :38:02.in the army and air force acts of 1955. I should also mention the

:38:03. > :38:07.scheme up a couple of times during the debate, that this still an

:38:08. > :38:12.offence under the uniforms act of 1894 to where a military uniform

:38:13. > :38:19.without authority. This offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine

:38:20. > :38:23.not exceeding level three. In the early years of this century when the

:38:24. > :38:32.Armed Forces act 2006 was drafted the concern about Walter Mittys

:38:33. > :38:44.was... The Labour Government decided not to carry these offences forward

:38:45. > :38:52.into the new act. Crimes of fraud are rightly punishable at a higher

:38:53. > :38:58.level. The American act covers only the higher militantly awards as well

:38:59. > :39:02.as certain military awards such as the purple heart and some awards for

:39:03. > :39:06.combat service but that act only makes it an offence of these are

:39:07. > :39:12.being worn for a gain. So the Government does recognise that there

:39:13. > :39:18.is an issue here, a gap, that is not covered by the fraud act, in the UK,

:39:19. > :39:22.that is a matter of concern and which my honourable friend's Bill is

:39:23. > :39:26.addressing. Actors for that reason in response the previous

:39:27. > :39:29.intervention that the Government supports this Bill today. I know

:39:30. > :39:34.that there are questions over the extent of the problem.

:39:35. > :39:38.I am grateful, she has explained that she said she would, by the

:39:39. > :39:41.Government are supporting this Bill. What you did not cover is why the

:39:42. > :39:53.Government did not support exactly the same measures proposed in the

:39:54. > :39:56.petition in May this year. The Secretary of State has been

:39:57. > :40:05.thoroughly convinced by the excellent case put forward by my

:40:06. > :40:10.honourable friend the member for Dartford and clearly, in this

:40:11. > :40:13.chamber, the power of his debates, and the Wii has worked so

:40:14. > :40:19.constructively in terms of the concerns that we had previously has

:40:20. > :40:24.been addressed and resolved in the way that he has legislated. I know

:40:25. > :40:30.that he also mentioned some of the questions over the extent of the

:40:31. > :40:33.problem in this country. Here I am grateful to the Defence Select

:40:34. > :40:36.Committee and they are extremely thorough report which acknowledges

:40:37. > :40:41.that the precise level is difficult to determine. What is clear is that

:40:42. > :40:45.there is a greater awareness of this as an issue perhaps because of a

:40:46. > :40:49.greater visibility afforded by social media, and the appearance of

:40:50. > :40:54.those groups that are dedicated to exposing these Walter Mittys. It is

:40:55. > :40:57.for this reason and the reason that I previously outlined that today the

:40:58. > :41:02.Government is now happy to offer support to the Bill put forward by

:41:03. > :41:07.the honourable member. In respect of the Select Committee's report, which

:41:08. > :41:11.was so ably summarised by the Right honourable member for New Forest

:41:12. > :41:13.East who cheers at, there are issues for the Government to consider

:41:14. > :41:22.beyond the issues immediately addressed by today's Bill.

:41:23. > :41:26.Details of individual bravery or gallantry awards are already

:41:27. > :41:31.published in the London Gazette and I'm sure all honourable and Right

:41:32. > :41:37.honourable members are aware that that is the origin of the phrase

:41:38. > :41:42.gazetted when referring to medals. But I believe there are likely to be

:41:43. > :41:46.concerns relating to personal data and individual security if a

:41:47. > :41:50.searchable database of holders is created. There is also the matter of

:41:51. > :41:54.who would be responsible for it and who would maintain it because it

:41:55. > :41:59.would be a long-term task for someone. When it comes to awards of

:42:00. > :42:04.the various types of campaign awards, there is a different issue

:42:05. > :42:08.arising and that is one of scale. The operational service medal for

:42:09. > :42:19.Afghanistan alone was issued to 150,000 recipients. I'm always very

:42:20. > :42:23.cautious about databases to do with ex-service personnel but in this

:42:24. > :42:31.particular case, provided the search engine was only able to take the

:42:32. > :42:37.entry of a name that was known to the person who was searching it

:42:38. > :42:40.already, just to bring up any awards that person had had, I don't see

:42:41. > :42:46.that that could create a security problem in the way that perhaps some

:42:47. > :42:53.of the suggestions for including details of ex-servicemen on censuses

:42:54. > :42:57.could create a security problem. He rightly proposes a potential

:42:58. > :43:02.compromise and a potential way forward but I think there are a

:43:03. > :43:08.range of different details that would arise. The scale of the

:43:09. > :43:12.matter, whether it is something that the London Gazette itself could

:43:13. > :43:17.maintain on an ongoing basis, and I look forward to those who are

:43:18. > :43:20.following this debate with interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of

:43:21. > :43:25.constructive suggestions that might come forward that would resolve some

:43:26. > :43:32.of the concerns. I think the honourable Lady has actually hit the

:43:33. > :43:36.nail on the head with her comment that the London Gazette could keep a

:43:37. > :43:40.database. Every single gallantry award goes through the London

:43:41. > :43:44.Gazette and even those gallantry awards awarded to people who may

:43:45. > :43:49.well be doing something for the security services are recorded there

:43:50. > :43:55.and I'm quite sure that some sort of system could be available using the

:43:56. > :44:00.London Gazette because that is very quickly accessed. At the moment,

:44:01. > :44:08.trying to find gallantry awards using the system of the London

:44:09. > :44:14.Gazette is almost impossible. Well, I share his support for this

:44:15. > :44:20.suggestion and I think that it would be interesting to hear, as this Bill

:44:21. > :44:23.progresses, if there are some practical solutions to perhaps bring

:44:24. > :44:30.this into the 21st-century in terms of something that would be easy and

:44:31. > :44:35.readily trusted to search. I hope there will be people who come

:44:36. > :44:39.forward, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government will be giving a fuller

:44:40. > :44:43.response to the committee's report in due course but it's fair to say

:44:44. > :44:47.that one of the issues we want to think about more and consider

:44:48. > :44:54.carefully are the practicalities of such a large task. In summary, the

:44:55. > :44:59.government supports second reading of the Bill today. There are some

:45:00. > :45:03.drafting issues that we will seek to help my honourable friend address at

:45:04. > :45:08.committee stage. I hope you will take this as a constructive process

:45:09. > :45:12.and we will produce a Bill that will achieve his laudable aims. I look

:45:13. > :45:17.forward to discussing this Bill further in committee and, above all,

:45:18. > :45:20.I look forward to step in statute our steadfast commitment to

:45:21. > :45:26.maintaining the solemnity of our military honours system for the sake

:45:27. > :45:30.of our brave men and women, those in the past, those serving today and

:45:31. > :45:35.those who will serve in the future. They will continue to serve our

:45:36. > :45:38.country with selfless commitment, loyalty and integrity and I

:45:39. > :45:42.therefore once again congratulate my honourable friend, the member for

:45:43. > :45:45.Dartford, for bringing this Bill forward and I urge the House to

:45:46. > :45:52.support its second reading today. Gareth Johnson. I would like to

:45:53. > :45:57.briefly thank the government for their support for my Bill and also

:45:58. > :46:01.to thank the opposition as well for their very constructive support. I

:46:02. > :46:07.would also like to thank colleagues for their supporting comments and

:46:08. > :46:11.the member of Shipley has made some sensible suggestions in his speech

:46:12. > :46:16.which I am very happy to look at. I said from the very beginning that

:46:17. > :46:19.this was an old-fashioned type of Private members Bill. There are lots

:46:20. > :46:23.of examples of very good Private Members' Bills going through the

:46:24. > :46:28.House supported by charities, lobbying groups and other

:46:29. > :46:32.organisations that are off-the-shelf kind of Private Members' Bills. This

:46:33. > :46:36.is one I drafted myself so my ego doesn't prevent me from saying there

:46:37. > :46:40.are flaws in this build that need ironing out and I'm grateful for the

:46:41. > :46:46.contributions we've heard today that will enable that to happen.

:46:47. > :46:51.Notwithstanding these flaws, I do maintain the central principle that

:46:52. > :46:54.we owe it to our veterans to give them legislative support, we owe it

:46:55. > :46:59.to the public to make sure they have confidence in the system and so the

:47:00. > :47:04.huge debt that we owe each and every one of the people who served in our

:47:05. > :47:11.Armed Forces can in some way be repaid through this Bill. The

:47:12. > :47:22.question is that the Bill be read a second time. As many as that

:47:23. > :47:40.opinion, say aye. On the contrary, no. The ayes have it.

:47:41. > :47:49.David Tredinnick. It is an absolute pleasure to follow

:47:50. > :47:54.the honourable friend and member for Dartford's Bill on the wearing of

:47:55. > :47:59.medals, which is a really important issue. I much enjoyed his speech.

:48:00. > :48:01.Also, my honourable friend's the member for Shipley's forensic and --

:48:02. > :48:19.analysis. He does have the second highest

:48:20. > :48:25.gallantry award of this country, which he won for his active service

:48:26. > :48:31.in Bosnia. I think he is ever modest but it is important that he should

:48:32. > :48:37.receive that recognition. I was also touched by the honourable gentleman,

:48:38. > :48:43.the member for Leeds North East, when he spoke about the wearing of

:48:44. > :48:50.medals that were in his family's possession. Madam Deputy Speaker, it

:48:51. > :49:00.is my good fortune today to be able to introduce this Bill, my Bill, the

:49:01. > :49:03.Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill, which I understand

:49:04. > :49:07.has not only the backing of the government but also of Santa Claus,

:49:08. > :49:16.and I had a note down my chimney last night and I will explain why.

:49:17. > :49:21.Because this Bill will be very helpful to local authorities,

:49:22. > :49:27.particularly at Christmas time when towns are full of shoppers and

:49:28. > :49:33.councils might want to reduce or waive all together some on street

:49:34. > :49:43.and off-street parking charges. I will give way. If some local

:49:44. > :49:51.authorities already have provision to vary parking charges, which I

:49:52. > :49:57.know from my town -- time as a counsellor, and I believe it's from

:49:58. > :50:01.the 1984 regulation act, can my honourable friend elaborate on why

:50:02. > :50:06.there is a need to amend that? I certainly will. And I will give way

:50:07. > :50:13.to my honourable friend from Cornwall. I just wanted to ask my

:50:14. > :50:17.honourable friend, we have seen parking charges in corn will

:50:18. > :50:22.increase constantly over the last three or four years and will my

:50:23. > :50:28.honourable friend's Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, in able parking

:50:29. > :50:35.charges to support the smaller town centres that need supporting, like

:50:36. > :50:45.those in my constituency? I say to my honourable friend, hopefully in

:50:46. > :50:52.the course of my speech I will be able to satisfy her concerns, I will

:50:53. > :50:57.explain very shortly why I think this Bill is a necessary addition

:50:58. > :51:01.because it makes provision for reductions in charges without the

:51:02. > :51:08.need for the current requirement of 21 days notice. Secondly, my old

:51:09. > :51:13.friend from Cornwall should be aware that local authorities will in

:51:14. > :51:18.future, under the second clause, will need to consult if they need to

:51:19. > :51:23.increase their charges. On Wednesday we had a debate in Westminster Hall

:51:24. > :51:30.which my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Undersecretary of

:51:31. > :51:34.State for many ten, my neighbour, replied, where the issue in

:51:35. > :51:38.Stevenage was addressed where my honourable friend for Stevenage is

:51:39. > :51:43.extremely concerned that the local council is making ?3 million a year

:51:44. > :51:48.out of parking charges. This is actually depressing the capability

:51:49. > :52:00.of Stevenage to attract business and to be a vibrant city. We discussed

:52:01. > :52:06.this. I am grateful to my honourable friend for giving weight gain in

:52:07. > :52:12.such a short time. Could he just clarify -- for giving way again.

:52:13. > :52:18.Could he just clarify who the local authorities will have to consult

:52:19. > :52:24.with. Will the people using these car parks actually have a say as

:52:25. > :52:37.well? This fleshes out my speech. I will set up as I see it that there

:52:38. > :52:41.are only two clauses in this Bill and I have to tell colleagues that I

:52:42. > :52:45.have fended off a number of organisations who wanted to add a

:52:46. > :52:50.number of clauses. But I am under no illusions that I needed to progress.

:52:51. > :53:00.What this Bill actually does, it amends the existing powers at

:53:01. > :53:03.section 35 C and 46 a of the act in 1934 to make regulations providing

:53:04. > :53:09.for the procedure to be followed by local authorities giving notice to

:53:10. > :53:14.very charges of both off-street and on street parking places. This

:53:15. > :53:18.allows for new regulations to be made that revise the existing

:53:19. > :53:24.regulations to reduce the burden on local authorities that are seeking

:53:25. > :53:28.to lower their charges. In addition, the Bill allows for a new power that

:53:29. > :53:34.means local authorities will need to consult if they want to increase

:53:35. > :53:39.their parking charges under the existing traffic orders. Those are

:53:40. > :53:47.the answers to my colleague's questions. Madam Deputy Speaker,

:53:48. > :53:52.town centres like Hinckley, my vibrant town in Leicestershire, the

:53:53. > :53:56.town I represent, are the heart of our local communities. Parking has

:53:57. > :54:04.the potential to enhance the economic vitality of town like

:54:05. > :54:08.Hinckley. I give way. I am grateful to my honourable friend and I

:54:09. > :54:12.welcome the Bill he is bringing to the House today. Would he agree with

:54:13. > :54:17.me that the Bill will make it a lot easier for councils to reduce car

:54:18. > :54:21.parking charges and that can only be a good thing not only to local

:54:22. > :54:24.businesses but to local residents and to encourage us all to shop

:54:25. > :54:30.locally and support our local town centres? I am grateful for my

:54:31. > :54:35.honourable friend's intervention. I was astonished when I looked that it

:54:36. > :54:43.wasn't in the council's portfolio of options already. This is why I

:54:44. > :54:46.brought the Bill to the House. I was amazed, because the reform will

:54:47. > :54:54.allow local authorities to react more quickly to market changes and

:54:55. > :54:58.allow greater flexibility. It also puts local authorities on an even

:54:59. > :55:03.footing with the private sector. This is very important. It will

:55:04. > :55:09.allow local authorities at short notice to provide free or discounted

:55:10. > :55:14.parking for town centre events. This is the Santa Claus aspect of this.

:55:15. > :55:18.In the run-up to Christmas, councils at short notice may want to allow

:55:19. > :55:23.markets to take place and stimulate the market by reducing the charges

:55:24. > :55:27.or doing away with the charges altogether and a 21 day notice,

:55:28. > :55:32.which requires publication of the notice in the local newspaper and

:55:33. > :55:34.notices to be placed at appropriate places in the street, these are

:55:35. > :55:41.bureaucratic and totally unnecessary. It is important that

:55:42. > :55:44.councils should engage their local communities when they are raising

:55:45. > :55:48.charges to help ensure that the business community is aware of any

:55:49. > :55:53.proposal and enable them to make informed comment on any proposals.

:55:54. > :55:57.The Bill will reinforce what should be good practice. I have to say with

:55:58. > :56:07.some pride that I can stand here on behalf of Maicon constituency, which

:56:08. > :56:10.includes the town of Hinckley, the borough council already consults the

:56:11. > :56:15.town centre partnership on changes to charging ahead of publishing any

:56:16. > :56:25.notice of very ocean in the local media. They also have a giant car

:56:26. > :56:29.park. If I had intervened more fully in the debate last Wednesday, I

:56:30. > :56:36.might advise an appropriate way forward for Stevenage. I am pleased

:56:37. > :56:43.to put on the record this example of best practice today.

:56:44. > :56:48.And the reported in the past has offered free parking at Christmas,

:56:49. > :56:51.my local councillor assures me this amendment would allow them

:56:52. > :56:57.temporarily reduce charges, meaning we could still generate some revenue

:56:58. > :57:02.whilst supporting the town centre businesses. We do have a good

:57:03. > :57:05.relationship with the council and business committee in Hinckley, but

:57:06. > :57:09.this will add to the flexibility and this is why it is so important and

:57:10. > :57:14.it will allow Hickman does mechanically council to consider a

:57:15. > :57:19.new ring to parking incentives, that is to be welcomed. But I will give

:57:20. > :57:22.some examples. It would allow them to develop temporary incentives on

:57:23. > :57:28.underutilised car parks, to increase awareness of those particular

:57:29. > :57:35.parking assets and I pressed the TV sector for more examples locally --

:57:36. > :57:38.Chief Executive. My area might be interested to know this is not

:57:39. > :57:42.cancel policy but they are options that might go through the council to

:57:43. > :57:48.introduce a 50p all-day parking on long stays on Saturdays, in the

:57:49. > :57:53.temporary run-up to Christmas. 50p all-day on the Trinity because car

:57:54. > :58:00.park come at 50p all-day charge on the Trinity big red car park until

:58:01. > :58:06.the usage increases -- Trinity vicarage. They are trying to get

:58:07. > :58:10.some greater use at that car park. And finally, this is interesting, in

:58:11. > :58:13.January and February, which are quieter months, I'm told councillors

:58:14. > :58:19.might be invited to consider a charge of 50p for three hours all

:58:20. > :58:26.short stays in those months, it is after Christmas, there isn't much

:58:27. > :58:32.going on. Hinckley, the time that I've had the hot honour to represent

:58:33. > :58:35.for a long time, has been short listed in the large market category

:58:36. > :58:41.of the great British high street competition. Put this in context:

:58:42. > :58:47.Hinckley, which unusually for a time of its size, 30,000, is signposted

:58:48. > :58:53.pretty much from the moment you leave London and the reason is once

:58:54. > :58:58.you get just outside the' 25 the signposts are there to Hinckley

:58:59. > :59:05.because Hinckley is an important town on the Roman road to the

:59:06. > :59:10.north-west. The A5. It has a great history of going back to making silk

:59:11. > :59:16.stockings, one of two towns in England that produced them, walking

:59:17. > :59:19.and being the other one. It has a proud history of hosiery and

:59:20. > :59:23.knitwear production and has a catchment area of half a million

:59:24. > :59:33.people. Within a 15 minute Drive time. Today, I checked the numbers,

:59:34. > :59:37.the town of Hinckley has over 400 businesses, of which nearly 300 are

:59:38. > :59:43.independent and the vacancy rate is less than 5%. I think that is a

:59:44. > :59:47.great thing for the town of Hinckley. As we are speaking about

:59:48. > :59:53.markets today, it is worth mentioning the charter market in

:59:54. > :59:56.Hinckley is 700 years old, it was 700 years old in 2011 and is open

:59:57. > :00:03.for business three days a week. Not only that, but we have fantastic

:00:04. > :00:09.town Centre festivals including the set box Derby, which is fun. St

:00:10. > :00:13.George's and the Midlands largest town centre classic motor show and

:00:14. > :00:17.we had a rally in the middle of the town, I don't know how they got

:00:18. > :00:23.permission but they did. Well done. My honourable friend. My honourable

:00:24. > :00:29.friend is painting a fantastic picture of his town of Hinckley and

:00:30. > :00:34.if his bill goes through and we can park their at a reasonable price

:00:35. > :00:41.does it have enough parking spaces to accommodate us all who are very

:00:42. > :00:45.tempted, perhaps, to visit? I would say to the house, I have not

:00:46. > :00:52.connived with my honourable friend before this debate can not but she

:00:53. > :00:58.has bawled me some very soft balls. This is one that I wanted to

:00:59. > :01:04.mention, recently the court very sadly ceased trading and had a very

:01:05. > :01:13.good car park in the middle of town and wisely the local businesses and

:01:14. > :01:20.former chairman of my association, Rosemary Wright, got behind this,

:01:21. > :01:22.and persuaded, there was a general campaign and the council purchased

:01:23. > :01:26.the car park. This was controversial, I forget it was about

:01:27. > :01:33.?1 million but there is a shortage of parking in Hinckley so I very

:01:34. > :01:41.much welcome that decision, it was very important. Parking is crucial

:01:42. > :01:46.to the success of these events. Not only are the events attended by

:01:47. > :01:52.thousands of local people but also from visitors further afield leading

:01:53. > :01:58.to an increased spiking by 1000% in the footfall. That means lots of new

:01:59. > :02:04.people coming into the town and wanting to park. If we make the

:02:05. > :02:11.parking easier, it is much better for business. The flexible --

:02:12. > :02:14.defects abilities the bill when divisible in half the experience in

:02:15. > :02:22.town and parking is often the first experience and impression of his

:02:23. > :02:26.will have. -- a visitor. For the said that an standard Government is

:02:27. > :02:34.supportive of the bill's purpose. My honourable friend the Minister for

:02:35. > :02:38.the local Government and the Department for local Government may

:02:39. > :02:43.wish to say more on the points I raised, I don't have to be psychic

:02:44. > :02:50.to see him on the front bent and imagine that is the case and,

:02:51. > :02:56.crucially, it has support clause to so I can amend this bill for the

:02:57. > :03:04.host. The question is that the bill be now read a second time. If no one

:03:05. > :03:13.else wishes to be, during the man -- to be, honourable gentleman mayhem.

:03:14. > :03:15.Can I refer to my seven just as before Oldham Council and can thank

:03:16. > :03:19.the member for bringing this private members bill forward. It felt at

:03:20. > :03:22.times I was in a council committee meeting to be honest. I was

:03:23. > :03:27.pondering whether devolution in England can work if this is the

:03:28. > :03:30.level of debate in our parliament, nevertheless, it is an important

:03:31. > :03:34.issue and we know our constituents to raise parking charges on a

:03:35. > :03:40.regular basis. It is right that we consider these things. There is lots

:03:41. > :03:44.of talk in there and I don't think anyone should allow a picture to be

:03:45. > :03:51.painted that our councils are somehow in underhand way trying to

:03:52. > :03:58.extract as much cash as possible from parking charges against the

:03:59. > :04:00.public interest. The traffic regulation act is very prescriptive

:04:01. > :04:06.about what the surplus can be used for. And if there is a shortage of

:04:07. > :04:09.car parking spaces in towns then of course that money can be used to

:04:10. > :04:15.provide additional spaces and also improvements. We do need to reflect

:04:16. > :04:21.this is not a profit-making service, if the surplus is made it is

:04:22. > :04:26.reinvested. That is quite important. Many towns and cities to recognise

:04:27. > :04:29.that parking is a very important facility, not just about people

:04:30. > :04:33.being able to get in and out, but also to support the economy of our

:04:34. > :04:35.town city centres, which are important. We see review after

:04:36. > :04:40.review highlight the vulnerability of our streets in particular and we

:04:41. > :04:45.want to make sure we give as much support to them. They list of

:04:46. > :04:52.activities and events organised in the towns mentioned, I could have a

:04:53. > :04:55.long list of town centre event in Alden provided by the local

:04:56. > :04:58.authority that would bring a lot of people into town and what they do

:04:59. > :05:02.over the course of those events is to make sure that parking charges

:05:03. > :05:07.are suspended. Some people can get in and out freely and enjoy those

:05:08. > :05:14.events in the right way. I should also say that the preference ought

:05:15. > :05:16.to be that we give as much power and responsibility and also

:05:17. > :05:21.accountability to local councils and their communities to do what is

:05:22. > :05:24.right for their towns and are more inclined to think Parliament should

:05:25. > :05:29.often step back rather than continually bring forward

:05:30. > :05:35.legislation. In the spirit, it is only right that we support it. For

:05:36. > :05:41.my own constituency there are no parking charges in the right in

:05:42. > :05:44.town, no car parking charges at all in Chadderton and in Alden town

:05:45. > :05:48.centre, the largest town centre over the population of quarter of a

:05:49. > :05:51.million people, the council took the decision to have a free parking on

:05:52. > :05:56.the weekend to encourage people to come into town and spend money and

:05:57. > :05:59.after six o'clock people can park on street as well and that is

:06:00. > :06:04.supporting the local restaurants and cinema that has opened in the town

:06:05. > :06:09.centre. And the public support that. But they also supported greater

:06:10. > :06:13.enforcement, particularly outside schools, where people were parking

:06:14. > :06:18.in a inconsiderate way, blocking school access and also potentially

:06:19. > :06:21.endangering the lives of children. It was a great knock to the council

:06:22. > :06:27.and local community when the Government at the time introduced

:06:28. > :06:31.legislation to restrict the surveillance CCTV vehicles from

:06:32. > :06:36.being able to capture offenders. At restriction meant that now a member

:06:37. > :06:41.of staff has to sit in the car and visibly see that breach taking

:06:42. > :06:46.place. It would have been far more efficient to allow the camera, to be

:06:47. > :06:51.placed on the pavement and capture that. It was a camera, that is loved

:06:52. > :06:57.by the children of old. Let me tell you, the camera, has a name, it is

:06:58. > :07:00.Oskar. That was a competition where young people were encouraged to come

:07:01. > :07:06.forward with their ideas of what it could be called, 780 youngsters took

:07:07. > :07:11.part across 17 schools. It was a great communities but and great

:07:12. > :07:16.demand for that car was put on the council. Parents wanted to know that

:07:17. > :07:22.enforcement could take place outside of that. I say that really do say

:07:23. > :07:25.that if the community wants it and the Council are willing to act in

:07:26. > :07:31.response to that interest then it should be for this place to say

:07:32. > :07:34.that, happen -- that cannot happen and we should allow people to do

:07:35. > :07:39.more for themselves and said of always passing legislation to

:07:40. > :07:46.restrict and determine in that way. But we have this and we need to get

:07:47. > :07:50.more clarity I think about what we mean by consultation and who needs

:07:51. > :07:54.to be consulted and that could be straightforward. It could be the

:07:55. > :07:58.business improvement district board and that is easy to consult. You

:07:59. > :08:03.call them and will happen on a regular basis. But it could be a

:08:04. > :08:06.wider area of interest and more people might be consulted and

:08:07. > :08:10.considerate to have an interest. I think we need to understand what

:08:11. > :08:14.burden is might put on because it would be ridiculous if a council

:08:15. > :08:19.seeking to reduce car parking charges had to go through a

:08:20. > :08:23.prolonged consultation period to get to the number of people that are

:08:24. > :08:29.considered to be affected by that decision when it would have been far

:08:30. > :08:34.easier just to put the notice in the newspaper in that sense. There will

:08:35. > :08:41.also be times when the charges are going up. But the increase in a

:08:42. > :08:46.modest way, sometimes just in line with inflation. With that require a

:08:47. > :08:49.large consultation by the people who are affected and just how large

:08:50. > :08:55.might that be? Getting some clarity on that would really help next stage

:08:56. > :09:03.of this bill. But with that... Of course. The honourable gentleman is

:09:04. > :09:08.obviously basing lots of what he's saying on his own experience in his

:09:09. > :09:12.constituency. Can I suggest has a look at how the car parking charges

:09:13. > :09:17.have increased in Cornwall over the last four years to get a real

:09:18. > :09:27.picture of what it's like in rural communities. Thank you for that

:09:28. > :09:31.intervention. It is important we recognise that no two areas are the

:09:32. > :09:34.same and local communities and economies have very different

:09:35. > :09:38.pressures on there and I would not challenge at all the view that there

:09:39. > :09:42.are particular issues in Cornwall. My position has always been that the

:09:43. > :09:46.best people to determine that other people who live in Cornwall and

:09:47. > :09:49.their elected representatives, it should not always be the parliament

:09:50. > :09:55.sees the need to pass legislation on what are very minor issues.

:09:56. > :09:59.Absolutely, if there are issues about car parking charges in

:10:00. > :10:01.Cornwall, my advice will always be to take the top of the local

:10:02. > :10:08.authority in the most appropriate way. I think he has completely

:10:09. > :10:14.misunderstood what I was saying. It is the local authority that have

:10:15. > :10:22.been increasing these car park charges against the views of local

:10:23. > :10:25.people. How can he expect and suggest that people make

:10:26. > :10:34.representations to the local authority? Thank you. Thank you for

:10:35. > :10:37.what has turned into a bit of a committee debate on car parking

:10:38. > :10:43.charges in Cornwall. I absolutely understood it as a matter for the

:10:44. > :10:47.Council and local authority in Cornwall, I absolutely accept that

:10:48. > :10:52.some people will disagree with the level of car parking charges in

:10:53. > :10:55.Cornwall. I'd just put that is the local determination and local people

:10:56. > :10:58.should hold the local authority to account and I will save people are

:10:59. > :11:01.unhappy with the way their local authority is performing, of course

:11:02. > :11:05.they have the right and the ability to go to the ballot box and to

:11:06. > :11:08.change the leadership of the council. I would like to thank the

:11:09. > :11:25.honourable gentleman forgiving way. The Bill put before us actually now

:11:26. > :11:29.bringing a provision for consultation when councils are

:11:30. > :11:35.raising car parking charges will actually give individuals, residents

:11:36. > :11:38.and business an opportunity to do exactly what the honourable

:11:39. > :11:46.gentleman is suggesting and that is challenge the council. Perhaps the

:11:47. > :11:51.subtlety of my contribution has left people behind. We are supportive of

:11:52. > :11:55.this Bill. My point was to challenge how it may well be used in practice

:11:56. > :12:01.and to define what an interesting area could be. A town centre, where

:12:02. > :12:04.you have a business improvement district, it would be easy to

:12:05. > :12:08.consult with the business improvement district, but you could

:12:09. > :12:11.see a situation where the affected part is a far wider area and just

:12:12. > :12:20.defining that would be quite helpful. If the Bill is fortunate

:12:21. > :12:24.enough to make it to committee, I give the honourable gentleman and

:12:25. > :12:28.assure us that we will look at these points, particularly about inflation

:12:29. > :12:37.automatically triggering charges. I will look at this with care.

:12:38. > :12:43.Absolutely. I appreciate that commitment and I come at it from a

:12:44. > :12:48.number of different experiences. In a former life I was a town centre

:12:49. > :12:53.manager and so I appreciate how important car parking is, not just

:12:54. > :12:57.for generating revenue but vital to the viability of the shops and

:12:58. > :13:02.retail outlets in our shopping centres in our high streets, town

:13:03. > :13:07.and city centres. I think we are as one on the importance of making sure

:13:08. > :13:11.we have a vibrant local economy and that car parking is very important

:13:12. > :13:19.to that. On that, we are in fierce agreement. I have taken enough time

:13:20. > :13:23.as it is, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to see this past forward

:13:24. > :13:30.and you can be assured of the support of this side of the House. I

:13:31. > :13:36.rise to congratulate my honourable friend, my constituency neighbour,

:13:37. > :13:42.the member for Bosworth on securing his place in the ballot and on his

:13:43. > :13:50.excellent opening speech. The parking places -- the Parking Places

:13:51. > :13:55.(Variation of Charges) Bill, which my Honourable Friend has introduced

:13:56. > :14:01.to the House, is important legislation which I believe offers a

:14:02. > :14:07.reform that will have a real, lasting and a very positive impact

:14:08. > :14:13.on many of our town centres. I was certainly delighted to hear about my

:14:14. > :14:19.honourable friend for Bosworth's own town of Hinckley. I'm delighted that

:14:20. > :14:23.they are in the great British high street toward finals. I wish them

:14:24. > :14:28.well in their endeavours in that regard. And I do have quite close

:14:29. > :14:36.links to Hinckley myself because when I was very small, in the late

:14:37. > :14:43.1970s, my parents ran two record shops. One of those in Nuneaton in

:14:44. > :14:52.my own constituency and in that shop I grew up in the back of the shop in

:14:53. > :14:56.a pram as a very young infant, so I know my constituency extremely well

:14:57. > :15:00.in that regard. But in our neighbouring shop in Hinckley, I

:15:01. > :15:05.also used to spend a bit of time there, so I do know my honourable

:15:06. > :15:08.friend's constituency pretty well and welcome the improvements that

:15:09. > :15:15.the Conservative council in Hinckley has made in recent years. It is good

:15:16. > :15:22.to see how they are working with their local business community. I

:15:23. > :15:26.was delighted in the summer to go along and actually speak to the

:15:27. > :15:33.Hinckley chamber of trade, where there were some excellent and very

:15:34. > :15:42.well informed business who seemed to have an excellent rapport with their

:15:43. > :15:47.local authority. On the British high-street awards, and I do

:15:48. > :15:52.understand the Minister's longing for his neighbour to do well in that

:15:53. > :16:02.awards, but as a Minister of State I'm sure the honourable gentleman

:16:03. > :16:07.will agree with me that a high-street in my constituency, you

:16:08. > :16:13.will also wish them well as well. I certainly do support the people of

:16:14. > :16:18.Hebden Bridge and I wish them well as well in the competition and I

:16:19. > :16:23.wish all the finalists well and I understand that the judging process

:16:24. > :16:29.is currently ongoing in relation to that competition but also that local

:16:30. > :16:36.people have the opportunity to vote for their high-street or town centre

:16:37. > :16:39.and hopefully the people of Hebden Bridge and Hinckley will have voted

:16:40. > :16:45.in their masses to support their local high street. Madam Deputy

:16:46. > :16:52.Speaker, parking... I will give way once more. I am very grateful for

:16:53. > :16:58.the Minister but I can't let this moment go without saying that while

:16:59. > :17:02.the towns and constituencies in my... They are excellent towns and

:17:03. > :17:07.villages and would he agree with me that we should all be supporting all

:17:08. > :17:10.our town centres and village centres to thrive and prosper and play a

:17:11. > :17:16.very important part in supporting local communities? I thank my

:17:17. > :17:20.honourable friend for her intervention and I think it is

:17:21. > :17:27.extremely timely because today is what they now call Black Friday. It

:17:28. > :17:31.is when many people take to high streets, town centres, out of town

:17:32. > :17:37.shopping centres and onto the Internet and I think at the time

:17:38. > :17:41.where we are all starting to think of Christmas shopping. Some of us

:17:42. > :17:44.are more planned than others in that regard. But a time when we all start

:17:45. > :17:50.thinking about Christmas shopping and we are going out and spending

:17:51. > :17:53.significant amounts of money in many cases, I think where people should

:17:54. > :17:58.think is to actually go out and shop in their local high street and town

:17:59. > :18:02.centres where they can possibly do so, because in many senses people

:18:03. > :18:07.often complain when some of their high-street shops close because

:18:08. > :18:11.there hasn't been demand to keep those shops and stores going, but at

:18:12. > :18:20.the same time people are often on the Internet buying from a range of

:18:21. > :18:24.retailers on that form of retail. So I would just encourage people to get

:18:25. > :18:31.out of their local high street or town centre and use it. Parking is

:18:32. > :18:37.an issue which I suspect most members of this House are very

:18:38. > :18:42.familiar with. Indeed, in my past year as a constituency MP and a

:18:43. > :18:47.minister, my postbag remains very busy on this important issue. I can

:18:48. > :18:51.say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many of my honourable friends in this

:18:52. > :19:01.House right to me on a regular basis on behalf of their constituents. I

:19:02. > :19:05.suspect this is an issue that will, even after this important Bill

:19:06. > :19:10.hopefully goes through the House, it will still be an issue and a subject

:19:11. > :19:14.for which Royal Mail will remain very grateful, such is the issue

:19:15. > :19:19.that parking charges and excessive parking charges causes the general

:19:20. > :19:24.public. High-street and town centres continue to play an essential role

:19:25. > :19:28.in the lives of our communities. Parking itself plays a major role in

:19:29. > :19:33.providing the gateway to our town centres. This was recognised by the

:19:34. > :19:37.previous Conservative led coalition government in a number of reforms

:19:38. > :19:42.brought forward on parking facilities owned by local

:19:43. > :19:45.authorities. The previous Conservative led government brought

:19:46. > :19:49.forward reforms to make it mandatory for local authorities to give ten

:19:50. > :19:53.minute grace periods for all on street parking bays and all

:19:54. > :19:59.off-street car parks. This gives town centre shoppers far greater

:20:00. > :20:05.flexibility and it allows them to complete their shopping and their

:20:06. > :20:09.general business in the town centre without having to worry too much

:20:10. > :20:16.that they are going to be overrun by a few minutes on their car parking

:20:17. > :20:21.meter. The government was also very concerned, and it's an issue that

:20:22. > :20:25.has been mentioned by the honourable gentleman on the front bench, and I

:20:26. > :20:31.welcome him to his place, and it was an issue mentioned by the honourable

:20:32. > :20:35.gentleman. CCTV camera cars. In many cases they were being used as

:20:36. > :20:45.nothing more than a revenue generating tool. That is why, in

:20:46. > :20:48.addition to the grace period the previous government banned local

:20:49. > :20:52.authorities sending party tickets through the post which means

:20:53. > :20:56.individuals now have a greater degree of certainty -- parking

:20:57. > :21:00.tickets. They know when they get back to the car, they know that it

:21:01. > :21:04.has got to be dealt with rather than not knowing about it on the day and

:21:05. > :21:07.ending up with a ticket weeks and weeks later through the post when

:21:08. > :21:11.they can't then recall whether they were at that particular location or

:21:12. > :21:15.not and whether they think they have the ability to challenge that

:21:16. > :21:20.ticket. I think that was an extremely important move forward. We

:21:21. > :21:24.are now also looking at further reforms to the local government

:21:25. > :21:32.transparency code and this follows a recent consultation. We intend now

:21:33. > :21:36.to amend the code so that motorists will be able to see first-hand a

:21:37. > :21:41.complete breakdown of the parking charges at their council has imposed

:21:42. > :21:45.and how much they raise. I think it has been mentioned by my honourable

:21:46. > :21:50.friend from Cornwall, that we must be very careful that our car parks

:21:51. > :21:54.are not just used as revenue generators, they are not just used

:21:55. > :22:01.as cash cows, because whilst it is important for local authorities to

:22:02. > :22:05.be able to pay for the way in which the council car parks are provided

:22:06. > :22:08.and maintained, it is also extremely important to recognise that car

:22:09. > :22:13.parks are there for a reason and car parks are there for the pure and

:22:14. > :22:18.simple reason of being able to facilitate people who want to come

:22:19. > :22:21.into town, want to use the shops, want to use the restaurants, want to

:22:22. > :22:28.use the bars, and we should never forget that. Has my honourable

:22:29. > :22:33.friend seen other examples of some of my local cup car parks, where car

:22:34. > :22:38.parking charges have been increased to such an extent that you see the

:22:39. > :22:42.car park half empty and the local roads are completely congested with

:22:43. > :22:48.people trying to avoid those charges? I know that my honourable

:22:49. > :22:53.friend is a strong and powerful advocate for her area and I talked

:22:54. > :22:56.about my postbag and I know that my honourable friend has certainly

:22:57. > :23:02.given Royal Mail plenty to do in bringing letters to the Department

:23:03. > :23:07.for Communities and Local Government and she has made representation on

:23:08. > :23:11.many occasions over this important issue and I'm sure she will continue

:23:12. > :23:15.to take it up with the council in Cornwall because she is absolutely

:23:16. > :23:20.right and it has happened in my area, where a Labour council has

:23:21. > :23:23.increased the parking charges, the revenue has dropped like a stone,

:23:24. > :23:27.and that is due to the fact that people don't want to pay those

:23:28. > :23:31.charges and they come to other arrangements. In the worst-case

:23:32. > :23:37.scenario, they don't actually visit the town or high-street in question.

:23:38. > :23:42.When that happens, it is disastrous for businesses and it is disastrous

:23:43. > :23:49.for those people who work on those high streets and in those town

:23:50. > :23:52.centre. We have conducted a consultation and we are going to

:23:53. > :23:59.amend the code so that motorists will be able to see how councils

:24:00. > :24:05.charge and how the money that is charged for car parks is spent.

:24:06. > :24:09.Since 2014, councils have been required to be transparent about how

:24:10. > :24:13.much money they raise through parking charges and penalties. These

:24:14. > :24:17.proposals go even further by enabling drivers to see far more

:24:18. > :24:23.information about the levels of fines imposed, how many were paid

:24:24. > :24:29.and how many were cancelled. My honourable friend's Bill continues

:24:30. > :24:33.in this vein, recognising on the one hand the council is certainly do

:24:34. > :24:37.need flexibility, but also recognising a need to involve local

:24:38. > :24:44.communities in the decision-making process. I think local communities

:24:45. > :24:48.being involved in these decisions is extremely important, and as has been

:24:49. > :24:51.said, the local community does have a backstop position with any

:24:52. > :24:55.decision on a local authority makes in terms of being able to kick that

:24:56. > :25:02.particular administration out at an election, but in terms of the way in

:25:03. > :25:07.which councils are quite often made open and how often the elections

:25:08. > :25:11.are, that is not often easy. I think it is extremely important on this

:25:12. > :25:15.particular issue that is so important to the vitality of high

:25:16. > :25:21.streets and town centres, many of which create the jobs in our

:25:22. > :25:24.constituencies, that actually local people are consulted, local

:25:25. > :25:28.businesses are consulted, before any changes are made which could

:25:29. > :25:38.possibly and potentially have a detrimental effect. On the point of

:25:39. > :25:42.consultation, would the Minister agree with me that on a topic that

:25:43. > :25:47.affects anybody who drives into a town centre or a car park that is

:25:48. > :25:52.owned by a council, by having this clause in the Bill, it means that

:25:53. > :25:56.those people who use that service, through the consultation, are able

:25:57. > :26:00.to make their voices heard directly to the council and that can only be

:26:01. > :26:05.a good thing for engagement with our communities and good for democracy.

:26:06. > :26:09.I absolutely agree with my honourable friend. It is often said

:26:10. > :26:14.in this House and across the country, how do we engage our

:26:15. > :26:18.communities more to get them to go out and vote? The more in which a

:26:19. > :26:22.local authority in cages, the more that will encourage people. The good

:26:23. > :26:26.thing about this Bill is that with the council are doing the right

:26:27. > :26:30.thing for the local area and they are dropping the parking charges to

:26:31. > :26:34.facilitate and welcome businesses into their high-street or town

:26:35. > :26:40.centres, there will be no obligation for them to go through a lengthy

:26:41. > :26:43.consultation with they will need to consult is where they are looking to

:26:44. > :26:51.put those car parking charges at which could be against the will of

:26:52. > :26:58.local people. Having had 30 years experience in retail, what I will

:26:59. > :27:03.say to the Minister is that whilst we ban car parking charges, they are

:27:04. > :27:10.good for the high street to because it encourages footfall. But what is

:27:11. > :27:14.bad for bringing people into town centres is excessive car parking

:27:15. > :27:22.charges and that this Bill, with the consultation might address that.

:27:23. > :27:26.I completely agree and he has experienced this area and he's

:27:27. > :27:31.absolutely right that there is a balance to be struck. If you have

:27:32. > :27:34.excessive parking charges and will completely deter people from coming

:27:35. > :27:37.in but in terms of short-stay parking if you don't get that right

:27:38. > :27:42.you can potentially have a situation where shoppers are deterred because

:27:43. > :27:50.of other people using car parking intended for shoppers. We are saying

:27:51. > :27:54.this is one size fits all, we are saying this bill when in will --

:27:55. > :28:01.will enable a situation to make easier for local authorities. And

:28:02. > :28:07.quicker for them to do the right thing when they think it is

:28:08. > :28:13.necessary. The bill also offers a real opportunity. I think my

:28:14. > :28:19.honourable friend mentioned this. It gives an opportunity for councils to

:28:20. > :28:24.take a far more flexible approach in supporting their high streets. For

:28:25. > :28:27.example, by responding to the opportunity of town Centre festivals

:28:28. > :28:30.and we are now running up to the Christmas period and there are many

:28:31. > :28:40.councils who do reduce car parking charges coming up into the festive

:28:41. > :28:42.season. This will facilitate that by taking away the bureaucracy

:28:43. > :28:49.required. I thank the Minister forgiving way. I wanted to give us

:28:50. > :28:52.small blood to small business Saturday week tomorrow and on that

:28:53. > :28:57.day for all of our local communities can I commend the work of the cancer

:28:58. > :29:04.that has suspended the parking charges in Leyland for that day. I

:29:05. > :29:10.thank my honourable friend and Ailsa thank the council who are thinking

:29:11. > :29:17.carefully about their town centre and how they can promote it. Small

:29:18. > :29:21.business Saturday is a great way to do that, larger businesses are truly

:29:22. > :29:28.important but are small businesses do add that additional vitality

:29:29. > :29:33.which many people appreciate. And they distinguish our high streets

:29:34. > :29:38.from many of the out-of-town retail parks that don't have that level of

:29:39. > :29:43.small-business is. It is great to hear what my honourable friend is

:29:44. > :29:49.saying. This is a real opportunity but it does allow councils when

:29:50. > :29:56.there are festivals in the town centre when those celebrations can

:29:57. > :30:00.be used. To demonstrate how good our high streets and town centres are.

:30:01. > :30:03.It is from the case with people with busy lives now where they don't

:30:04. > :30:08.necessarily pop into the high street or town centre to do their shopping.

:30:09. > :30:12.They sometimes do it on the internet and even with banking now, lots of

:30:13. > :30:19.people are using mobile banking and so on and off and what you can find

:30:20. > :30:22.is that because people don't have a reason to go on to a high street or

:30:23. > :30:28.into a town centre they may forget to actually frequent their local

:30:29. > :30:32.high street. Which is a real pity and I think any festival that can

:30:33. > :30:36.bring those people back into town to think for themselves this is

:30:37. > :30:41.somewhere I should be visiting, this is a place I can do a lot of my

:30:42. > :30:48.shopping and refresh their memory, anything that does that is a very

:30:49. > :30:50.good thing. Now, one thing I have learned from my involvement with the

:30:51. > :30:54.great British high street competition when I was the high

:30:55. > :30:59.streets minister last year is that people up and down the country have

:31:00. > :31:06.a real passion for their high Street. Ira call back when I was the

:31:07. > :31:12.chairman of the all-party group return centres that I held a

:31:13. > :31:17.backbench business debate that I led in this chamber. I think it was when

:31:18. > :31:22.mad and eight Gisby Que was the chair of the backbench business

:31:23. > :31:27.committee. Which I also later served on under her Cheryshev, which was a

:31:28. > :31:34.great pleasure, I remember back then that we had a backbench debate and I

:31:35. > :31:40.think, if I recall, there were about 70 colleges that came to the chamber

:31:41. > :31:45.and filled a full six debate and it just went to show my honourable

:31:46. > :31:49.friend in bringing this bill is showing what passion there is for

:31:50. > :31:54.our high streets and town centres, because if you get the high Street

:31:55. > :31:58.town centre right you can create a real experience that you will not

:31:59. > :32:02.get on the internet. I experience you will not get in and out of town

:32:03. > :32:10.shopping Park and that is why we should do everything we can as

:32:11. > :32:13.legislators to facilitate the use of our town centres so that they are

:32:14. > :32:24.there for the long-term on a sustainable basis. There is an

:32:25. > :32:29.offer, as I say, flexibility in terms of car parking charges within

:32:30. > :32:32.this bill, but it is also, I think this has been discussed by

:32:33. > :32:39.honourable colleagues, there is also concern about when local authorities

:32:40. > :32:43.take the view that they can just put parking charges up and they don't

:32:44. > :32:53.consult businesses, and that does happen. And I think it is therefore

:32:54. > :33:01.fit and proper that we are councils are intending to put car parking

:33:02. > :33:05.charges up that they are responsive to local businesses and they will

:33:06. > :33:09.have to consult local people before seeking to increase charges. I know

:33:10. > :33:13.the honourable gentleman on the opposition front bench mentioned the

:33:14. > :33:21.consultation and how that consultation would work and I am

:33:22. > :33:26.sure he is well aware that from this primary legislation it will be

:33:27. > :33:32.necessary to bring forward further legislation to implement these

:33:33. > :33:38.changes, and through that secondary legislation we will consider and put

:33:39. > :33:43.into secondary legislation exactly how places need to consult. I think

:33:44. > :33:51.it's important that those measures are, because if we don't have a

:33:52. > :33:56.measure of allowing for consultation, local people may not

:33:57. > :34:05.have the opportunity because I have seen certain situations where within

:34:06. > :34:11.a matter of a week or even a day see a cancel's Cabinet meeting where

:34:12. > :34:15.they propose a budget and proposed increase the car parking charges to

:34:16. > :34:20.the budget and two hours later they are in full council and that budget

:34:21. > :34:25.measure is through without any knowledge of the public and we need

:34:26. > :34:31.to guard against that with this bill that certainly does that. My

:34:32. > :34:34.honourable friends bill provides consultation if local authorities

:34:35. > :34:38.want to raise the charges on an existing traffic order and I believe

:34:39. > :34:42.that is sensible reform that gets the balance of the needs of the

:34:43. > :34:49.local authority to set fair prices for their car parks and also takes

:34:50. > :34:57.into account the views of local communities. If I may conclude by

:34:58. > :35:01.saying that I appreciate absolutely the points that have been made

:35:02. > :35:06.today. I want to thank very much my honourable friend from Bosworth from

:35:07. > :35:12.bringing forward this important bill, the Government is supportive

:35:13. > :35:20.of its intentions and that is not just because it delivers an object

:35:21. > :35:24.of the Government want, but it is because it helps to deliver a more

:35:25. > :35:29.effective model that is supportive of our great British high street and

:35:30. > :35:32.town centres, and as we see in the chamber today, there is so much

:35:33. > :35:36.enthusiasm for our high streets from representatives that represent

:35:37. > :35:41.people from across our country that we should absolutely think carefully

:35:42. > :35:45.before we do anything that would cause harm or detriment to those

:35:46. > :35:51.high streets and we should absolutely applaud and open the way

:35:52. > :35:55.for places to be able to reduce charges and welcome more people into

:35:56. > :36:02.their area because this matters to local people and it should matter to

:36:03. > :36:06.this house. By leave of the house, whenever I've got my feet in this

:36:07. > :36:09.house over the years I've always tried to keep in the back of my mind

:36:10. > :36:15.that our job as MPs is to improve the quality of life of the people we

:36:16. > :36:19.represent. Having listened to the debates today I think I can say

:36:20. > :36:23.honestly that this modest to close bill will improve the quality of

:36:24. > :36:28.life in every city and town in this country and I am most grateful for

:36:29. > :36:32.the Government support. The question is that the bill be now read a

:36:33. > :36:41.second time, as many others that opinion say I? Think the eyes have

:36:42. > :36:48.it. Local order public access to documents Bill second reading. Thank

:36:49. > :36:53.you. I beg to me that the local audit public access to documents

:36:54. > :36:57.Bill be now read a second time. Before I come to the detail of my

:36:58. > :37:03.Bill, I would like to say what a pleasure it has been to spend the

:37:04. > :37:07.time this morning in the chamber. In particular to follow my honourable

:37:08. > :37:14.friend the member from Bosworth. He has very aptly be entitled Santa

:37:15. > :37:18.Claus bill I remember standing last year with my first private members

:37:19. > :37:28.bill and we fondly referred to it as the Peter Pan and Wendy Bill. Can I

:37:29. > :37:31.congratulate the honourable lady in hopefully taking through what will

:37:32. > :37:36.be her second bill in her first term in Parliament, she has actually

:37:37. > :37:40.equalled my record because I did it in the last Parliament, if she is

:37:41. > :37:46.successful and I wish her every success. I am grateful to my

:37:47. > :37:49.honourable friend for that intervention and if I am successful

:37:50. > :37:53.with this one, maybe I will have to try and beat her record and go for a

:37:54. > :38:02.hat-trick. There is a challenge for her. Referring back to my friend,

:38:03. > :38:05.the honourable member for Bosworth. It struck me as we were speaking

:38:06. > :38:09.that there is actually a link between my constituency and his, the

:38:10. > :38:13.A5, which runs through Hinchey I believe and I believe it also runs

:38:14. > :38:22.through Brownhills in my constituency. Avril turned my own

:38:23. > :38:29.bill today. Firstly, I want to stress that although the title of

:38:30. > :38:32.this is the local audit for public access to documents Bill, it isn't

:38:33. > :38:39.really about audit at all, the title is perhaps, I don't believe I can

:38:40. > :38:43.use the word misleading, but the title perhaps doesn't really

:38:44. > :38:47.encapsulates what the bill is all about. I would like to explain it a

:38:48. > :38:54.little further. Its aim is to further improve the transparency and

:38:55. > :39:00.accountability of local public bodies. But because it makes

:39:01. > :39:05.amendments to the local audit and accountability act of 2014 in

:39:06. > :39:12.relation to the people able to inspect County documentation, the

:39:13. > :39:23.title must reflect that parentage. I hope members will forgive my

:39:24. > :39:26.indulgent explaining that today. You will see members will see that this

:39:27. > :39:33.is a very short piece of legislation. But I believe it is a

:39:34. > :39:37.short piece of legislation that we should welcome. Because it makes a

:39:38. > :39:44.single very simple change to the 2014 act. I would like to now say a

:39:45. > :39:52.little bit about the purpose of this bill. It is designed explicitly

:39:53. > :39:56.amend legislation so that John lists, including citizen

:39:57. > :40:01.journalists, will have the right for one month to inspect the accounting

:40:02. > :40:06.records of the financial year just ended of any relevant authority. And

:40:07. > :40:11.to request copies of these documents without being required to have an

:40:12. > :40:20.interest in that authority, of course. I am enormously grateful to

:40:21. > :40:25.my honourable friend forgiving way. When I sat on the investigatory

:40:26. > :40:29.Powers Bill committee just a few months ago, we spend quite a bit of

:40:30. > :40:36.time in committee speaking about John lists -- journalists and what

:40:37. > :40:42.the definition was, anybody with a telephone will be effectively able

:40:43. > :40:47.to call themselves a journalist. Is my friend able to say anything to

:40:48. > :40:51.greater death -- depth to assuage my concern is that this could put on an

:40:52. > :40:56.juke is pressure on local authorities finding of time except

:40:57. > :41:03.to meet these were quests when anyone could classify themselves as

:41:04. > :41:08.a citizen and journalist. Thank you. My honourable friend makes a very

:41:09. > :41:13.interesting point and I'm grateful to him for his intervention. They

:41:14. > :41:18.are topics that I will come onto later in my speech today, what the

:41:19. > :41:27.definition of a journalist is and a citizen journalist.

:41:28. > :41:37.My Bill is due to transparency and open it but not place an unnecessary

:41:38. > :41:41.burden on our local authorities, who I know work very hard band down the

:41:42. > :41:50.country and often have two handle a lot of requests for information. I

:41:51. > :41:54.would like to follow up on the transparency and in the vein of the

:41:55. > :41:58.previous question. I know this is about openness and transparency but

:41:59. > :42:02.can my honourable friend tell the House whether she has actually done

:42:03. > :42:09.any cost analysis on this because as she has already alluded to herself,

:42:10. > :42:12.our local councils are burdened with huge amounts of freedom of

:42:13. > :42:17.information requests and having to publish a full range of things. I

:42:18. > :42:21.wonder whether my honourable friend has then a cost analysis on how much

:42:22. > :42:28.extra this is going to cost and how much burden it is going to put on

:42:29. > :42:32.local authorities. He makes a very interesting point. It is about

:42:33. > :42:35.getting a balance here. We want openness, we want transparency but

:42:36. > :42:39.we don't want to praise an unnecessary burden on to local

:42:40. > :42:42.authorities. It is something I will touch on later but from the

:42:43. > :42:50.indications I've had, I don't believe it will put a huge burden on

:42:51. > :42:54.to local authorities at all. As is now, they can incur a cost, they can

:42:55. > :43:00.charge for requests for information. But I will come onto that later.

:43:01. > :43:07.Madam Deputy Speaker, a complete list of the local bodies that will

:43:08. > :43:12.be affected is set out in schedule two of the 2014 act but briefly this

:43:13. > :43:16.would include local authorities, police bodies, fire and rescue

:43:17. > :43:22.authorities, Parks authorities, combined authorities and parish

:43:23. > :43:25.councils with an annual turnover of ?25,000 and above. It is worth

:43:26. > :43:31.recognising that there is that threshold there within the Bill. At

:43:32. > :43:37.the moment, section 26 of the 2014 act enables any persons interested

:43:38. > :43:43.to inspect the accounting records of such bodies and, Madam Deputy

:43:44. > :43:50.Speaker, to request copies of any part of those account records all

:43:51. > :43:54.related documents. However, under previous case law, it has been

:43:55. > :44:00.determined that this definition does not include journalists, although it

:44:01. > :44:06.would include, for example, local business ratepayers or others who

:44:07. > :44:11.pay fees or charges to that body. Section 25, Madam Deputy Speaker,

:44:12. > :44:14.gives local electors the right to inspect and have copies of a wider

:44:15. > :44:20.range of accounts related information from their council such

:44:21. > :44:24.as the auditors opinion or any public interest report. They can

:44:25. > :44:29.also question the auditor and make an objection to the accounts, which

:44:30. > :44:35.the auditor is required to investigate, unless he deems it to

:44:36. > :44:40.be vexatious or a duplicate of another request. Again, I think that

:44:41. > :44:45.is another important aspect in putting in place some safeguards for

:44:46. > :44:49.local authorities. In all cases, whether you are an interested party

:44:50. > :44:53.or a local collector, the relevant authority is able to charge the

:44:54. > :44:59.request a reasonable sum for each copy as any documents they make.

:45:00. > :45:04.Just one moment. I hope that goes some way to answering my honourable

:45:05. > :45:11.friend's intervention area. I also join in the congratulations for her

:45:12. > :45:16.previous private members Bill. When we talk about reasonable charges, I

:45:17. > :45:19.have some reservations because we know the pressures on local

:45:20. > :45:26.authorities and even with words about reasonableness and vexatious

:45:27. > :45:31.mess, I am slightly hairy that this might bring out some serial

:45:32. > :45:34.troublemakers who might put in these requests. Can she give us some

:45:35. > :45:44.reassurance that local authorities will be protected from these people

:45:45. > :45:48.who are just digging around? Who -- I am grateful for her intervention