Current Petitions

I would like to hear what the committee has to say first.

I am just reading the papers, as we got them only today, although the follow-up response was due in early March. I cannot follow the logic of the Cabinet Office ceremonial secretariat, which continues to say that, although we can allow the veterans to accept the medal, they have no official permission to wear it. When the men came to the committee to give evidence they were asked about the fact that they could wear the medal. They said, "Yes, we could, but we want that to be officially recognised." The correspondence suggests that although the Government turns a blind eye and no prosecutions have taken place of people who wear the medal ceremonially, they still do not have permission to wear it. As the men said, they fought and received a medal; they want the honour of wearing it without fear of being prosecuted. I cannot understand why the Cabinet Office will not give the veterans permission to wear the medal. I do not know what the committee can do about the issue, but I wanted to make that point anyway.

Unlike the committee, I have not had the benefit of seeing all the papers, but I would like to add a couple of points.I have stayed in touch with a couple of the veterans, and I would like to relay to the committee the upset and hurt that those men feel. While they can be honoured by an overseas Government for the work that they did in the Malay emergency, they feel that they are being slighted and not honoured by their own Government. They have been treated contemptibly. For example, Mr Nicoll told me that he received a phone call from someone in the Ministry of Defence about a letter that he sent. The conversation was like something out of "Yes Minister". The chap told him that the Queen has not refused permission for the PJM to be worn; she has just not given her permission for it to be worn. In other words, veterans are still not allowed to wear the medal with the honour that is due to them.I am delighted that members seem to want to keep the petition open. Another matter might be worthy of exploration. The London Gazette of 3 May 1968 has been drawn to my attention. It says:"The QUEEN has been graciously pleased to approve that Orders, Decorations and Medals conferred with Her Majesty's permission upon United Kingdom citizens not being servants of the Crown by the Heads or Governments of Commonwealth countries as defined above, or of foreign States, may in all cases be worn by the recipients without restriction".I did not bring a copy of the item, because I could not print it, but I am glad to see that members have a copy. Perhaps the committee could ask what happened to nullify that order, regulation or rule—or whatever the formal term is. I feel strongly that veterans of a war—although it was not called a war, for reasons that we cannot go into—are not being honoured by their country, despite being accorded great respect by the country that they helped.The response from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was a wee bit off. We are not talking about"a matter impacting on two Commonwealth countries";we are talking about this country's failure to give veterans the honour and respect that they are due from all of us. If the committee's decision is to keep the petition open and consider the matter further, I thank you.

We will have to do that, to be fair to the veterans. Linda Fabiani talked about Cabinetspeak. We have just received the papers and are looking through them as we go along, but I noticed a comment that, although no official permission has been given for the wearing of the medal,"the wearing of awards by civilians is not policed".Such language is just not right.