Tweet
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
He was British Army/REME and Para.
He was British Army/REME and Para.
-
kellyd:redrose: -
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Kelly,Originally posted by Kelly d View Post
If you are checking on eligibility for the PJM try this venue initially (another source is The Royal British Legion).
------------------------------------------------------------
If you need help on a PJM issue, you can contact us in four ways - via this page, by email, by telephone, or by letter. Before doing so, please note that we are not responsible for PJM applications or delivery. If you have a query about your medal, in the first instance contact the NMBVA at www.nmbva.co.uk. However, if any problems about your PJM persist, we will help you if we can.
Please also remember that our offices can only operate with the help, willingly given, of unpaid volunteers who selflessly give up their time to help us and you (they all have a 'day job' unconnected with the PJM), so please be understanding in your communications if we are unable to reply immediately.
Hope this helps on the medal issue.........PS it would be handy if you had a copy of appropriate service records/service number etc., to quote from also periods/dates of deployments.
this is the web address http://www.fight4thepjm.org/index_addresses.htm
Good luck with your search.
Gordon :redrose:Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
This a small quote from the UK Parliament in regard to the PJM. Still not much has been resolved, politicians and their civil service minions become of less value with each and every passing day!!! :angry:
***********************
Armed Forces: Medals
House of Lords
Written answers and statements, 7 December 2010
Lord Touhig (Labour)
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the decision by the Governments of Australia and New Zealand to allow veterans of the Malaysia Campaign to accept and wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal; and whether they will review their policy on this matter in respect of British troops.
**
Lord Howell of Guildford (Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Conservative)
Honours policy and decisions on acceptance and wear of awards are matters for the individual Governments concerned. There are no plans to review the UK decision on the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal.
****
Annotations
John Feltham
Posted on 8 Dec 2010 2:36 pm (Report this annotation)
Lord Howell's replied - "There are no plans to review the UK decision on the Pingat Jasa Malaysia medal."
I am sure that the current Government, when they were in opposition a very short time ago, gave the Veterans an asssurance, quite contrary to what Lord Howell is saying now.
In some quarters that would be seen as deception.
What short memories some people have.
I assume that the promise was a verbal promise - not worth the paper that it was written on?
Sign in or join to post a public annotation.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...malaysia#g25.2Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Gordon,
If you could be following the current government, you would understand there are many Deceptions going on. The New Lib-Dems promised English college students they would not raise the fees. They have now done a 180 degree! They are wanting to bump the minimum from £2100 to £9000!
No wonder the riots are occuring! Clegg went as far as to warn the ministry, those who do not support the raise will find it very difficult to work! It is an explosive situation.kellyd:redrose:Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
The members of the Association ("Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia") are actively engaged in correspondence where they have a "Tory MP" as their local constituent............the following is an example of a letter members are encouraged to send...........
if you have a Tory MP please send the following.
The Conservative Party at the General Election promised a review of medals now the MoD are carrying out a internal review of medals but I do not believe that this is the review that was promised to us veterans.
Our elected representatives should make the rules and the Civil Servants should carry them out but it appears to be the other way round.
This MoD internal review will report eventually to the Prime Minister this review in my opinion should be discussed in Parliament for it is only Parliament that can make the laws that we live by otherwise why do we have it?
I ask that the following be taken into account during this review; foreign medals as long as they have been accepted should be allowed to be worn by civilians on all occasions without showing discourtesy to HM the Queen.
I thank you for your time.
Here are two replies received to this date (as published on the official forum)
After contacting my MP, this arrived yesterday ::
"Thank you for your email of today’s date regarding the review of medals. I think you make an excellent point, and medals awarded should be able to be worn.
I will pass that on to Liam Fox, and if I get the opportunity, also with the PM
Best wishes
Caroline
Caroline Nokes MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: 0207 219 7218"
and
From Dr Julian Lewis to the Veterans Minister
Andrew Robathan MP
Under Secretary of State
Ministry of Defence
Floor 5, Main Building
Whitehall
London SW1A 2HB
24 January 2011
Dear Andrew,
PJM Medal
I understand from Veterans of the campaign in Malaya and Borneo that our promised Review of outstanding Service medal claims is now underway. I should like to make a few brief observations.
With regard to retrospective arguments about whether certain dangerous campaigns deserve to have a medal or clasp awarded to them, I understand the difficulties of second guessing decisions that were taken much closer to the events concerned. However, the Canal Zone case established a precedent that retrospective awards could be made if there were no records of the issue having been considered but rejected at the time.
Another category that deserves consideration is where a campaign might have been overlooked for political reasons for example, the breakdown of relations with Russia perhaps influencing the strange decision not to recognise the Arctic convoys except, bizarrely, by the award of the Atlantic Star in some cases. I hope that a generous interpretation can be made where there is reason to think that campaigns were either overlooked or disregarded for some extraneous reasons of that sort.
I am not sympathetic to the view that medals should be awarded to people by dint of their simply having been in the Services. The last Government introduced the Veterans' Badges, and this has been an excellent way of recognising that commitment; but we should not go down the route of awarding medals outside the context of participation in campaigns or individual acts of bravery. (I know there are such worthy awards as Long Service and Good Conduct medals and even Coronation medals but these should really be exceptions rather than the rule.)
This leaves the question of decorations awarded by foreign governments. Here, I understand that, where Service personnel have received a medal or clasp for a particular campaign, it might seem a little arbitrary that some foreign governments would also grant medals for some campaigns whilst others would not. I have just finished writing a book which deals in part with RAF personnel who served in Russia during the Civil War between the White and Red forces. Interestingly, they were allowed to wear their White Russian awards together with their British awards and the same applies to RAF personnel who fought in Oman more recently Given that the number of foreign governments is limited these days who take the trouble to show appreciation of the risks run by our Forces, I think it would make a large number of Veterans very happy if objections to the wearing of the PJM could now finally be removed.
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2280
Let us all hope that the incumbent British Government resolves this long outstanding and unsatisfactory situation in an expeditious and timely manner.Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
It appears as though the campaign is hopefully about to achieve some satisfactory result; we await further progress.
***************************
The Campaign for Permission to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia
LATEST NEWS!
Government Departments Unable to Rebutt Our Arguments!
Several months ago we invited the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office to provide us with their evidence to confirm their case that The Queen has ruled that the PJM could not be worn.
Today (22/03/2011), we have been formally notified they have failed to do so. Indeed, in front of the Information Commissioner, they have said that they will not do so.
And so, after several years of fighting, we at last have the comfort of knowing that the London Gazette Notice has not been rescinded by The Queen and eligible PJMers can indeed wear their PJM with The Queen's consent.
That is not just our view, it is the view of our legal advisers whose position, like ours, is at last vindicated by dint of the civil servants' inability to produce any evidence whatsoever to support their flawed and illegal contentions.
Read on and enjoy!
Our Legal Eagle's View is that You Can Wear it with Honour!
After the HD Committee fanned its nose at our MPs and said it would not amend the PJM recommendation as demanded by MPs in Parliament, we decided that we should question the whole legal and practical basis of what has been going on. Something was not right. This is not how democracy should work. The one thing that these civil servants must do is to keep an open mind, be ready to amend decisions, and to listen to the people and to Parliament. Nothing must ever be forever – that is the long-established rule in a country like ours without a written constitution.
In the case of the PJM, however, the civil servants have decided that they are above Parliament scrutiny. We thought we should test that by way of an independent legal opinion. And so we have sought, and have obtained, a legal opinion by a leading lawyer who specialises in Military Law and related matters.
We asked a question which can be summarised as follows. What is the position regarding the apparent attempt by civil servants to restrict the rights of British citizens (to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia which they have been granted permission to receive by the Queen) by their ‘proposal’ that was put to the Honours and Decorations Committee and eventually appeared in a Ministerial Statement in January 2006 to the effect that the PJM could be received but formal permission to wear it would be withheld?
That recommendation is a clear stigma on the medal and on British civilians entitled to receive it – as well as on Malaysia. As MPs have said in Parliament, the recommendation has brought shame on our country. That stigma, that shame, must be removed.
This legal opinion was our first formal step in that direction.
Summary of Key Points from the Opinion
We have always wanted to know if eligible holders of the PJM could wear their medal irrespective of what the civil servants are trying to tell the world. The opinion says:
[It is important to note that this part of the advice is unequivocal] Holders of the PJM are entitled to wear it by virtue of the 3 May 1968 notice. Most significantly it the Ministerial Statement ignores the London Gazette Notice of 3 May 1968 which states that the Queen has, in exercise of the Prerogative, approved that Orders, Decorations and Medals conferred with her permission on UK citizens who are not Crown servants by Commonwealth or foreign states may in all cases be worn by the recipients without restriction. Consent having been granted to applications for the PJM on 31 Jan 06, any holder who is not a military or civil servant, is thus entitled to wear it. No formal consent for civilians to wear was necessary since that consent was granted in 1968.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants are misleading our MPs by suggesting that because the PJM decision is subject to the Royal Prerogative our directly elected representatives in the Commons, i.e. our MPs, cannot be involved and can have no influence. The opinion says:
Parliament has the right to influence the Prerogative - Honours in the UK are still a matter for the Royal Prerogative with the sovereign in UK being advised by the Parliamentary Honours & Decorations Committee. It is, however, only advice and no one is answerable in law to matters within the Prerogative. [Despite the protestations of the civil servants – our words] Parliament may encroach on the Prerogative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants have any right to dictate what a British civilian can or cannot do in respect of wearing medals to which they are entitled. The opinion says:
Neither the FCO nor the MOD may prevent a civilian from wearing anything he wants save with intent to deceive. It is probably implicit in the 31 Jan 06 Statement that the Trade Minister knew this and hence his declining to grant 'formal' permission to wear but shrinking from stating that it could not be worn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants are within the law when refusing to answer our legitimate questions about matters that affect our rights. The author of the opinion said:
As you say there may be a legal issue if you are denied FOI access. It will probably be claimed that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply to matters within the Prerogative but you are in fact seeking information as to whether a Prerogative decision was tampered with. Your assessment of tampering is in my view absolutely correct but it is quaint that nobody seems to have been aware of the 1968 Prerogative decision to permit all non-Crown servants to wear all decorations they had been authorised to accept.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have always wanted to know if the civil servants are legally entitled to deny us the right to wear the PJM and, if not, the extent to which our civil liberties have been affected and where we could have our case heard. The opinion says:
The FCO is not entitled to prescribe a so called rule which restricts the liberty of a UK civilian without legislation. Even if parliament legislated, it could be subject to review as an unlawful restriction on liberty under EEC Act 1972 in the case of EU member states and of the Human Rights Act 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, it is our view that unless the HD Committee and those who provide them with their ‘proposals’ can successfully rebut the above opinion (to date they have refused to have their case reviewed independently or by Parliamentary scrutiny), then it is clear that eligible holders of the PJM are fully entitled to wear the PJM on formal occasions and have the Queen’s approval to do so by virtue of her 1968 Notice.
THE LONDON GAZETTE, 3rd MAY 1968
When the HD Committee placed their recommendations for approval before the Queen, we are told that they asked Her to approve only acceptance of the PJM...they did not ask Her to approve the right for wear. As a result, in Her role as a constitutional monarch, Her Majesty approved the recommended acceptance of the PJM. Critically, in this PJM approval She did not rescind any of Her previous decisions. In that context, an earlier, and extant, London Gazette Notice becomes very relevant indeed!
After more than a year's work including much researching of files, some of which became inexplicably withheld from us for nearly a year (they had been 'borrowed' from the National Archives by the FCO), we uncovered this London Gazette notice.
The purpose of this 1968 Notice was to cut down on administration and bureaucracy within an overloaded and confused Honours system. Civil servants today wish to put the clock back to before that Notice so that they can continue their stranglehold on the System. To achieve that they claim this Notice does not apply to PJMers ... only their own discredited decree must apply. We do not agree with them because the 1968 papers are clear - if you are a private citizen when a medal is conferred on you with The Queen's permission, then you have Her permission to wear it.
The text of this notice is clear, concise and incontrovertible - I urge you to read it carefully and ask yourself...Am I eligible under this notice? If the answer to that question is 'Yes' then you can wear your PJM with honour on formal occasions.
If you have any lingering doubts about your eligibility under the London Gazette Notice as a private citizen when the PJM was conferred, they will be eliminated by the information posted on the official web site of the Malaysian High Commission. It confirms that the PJM was conferred in 2006 and if you were not in Crown Service at that time and therefore eligible, then the London Gazette Notice of May 1968 gives you The Queen's permission to wear the Pingat Jasas Malaysia.
Furthermore, in July 2008 a Government Minister told a PJMer that he was delighted to see the PJM being worn on an official occasion, saying "The Queen's Warrant [i.e. the London Gazette Notice] gives permission, and it had not been rescinded."
Now, where does that leave "the faceless wonders who state that we cannot wear the medal" (a quote attributed to the same Government Minister)?
Those of us in the Fight4the PJM Team who previously felt unable to wear their PJM, will now do so in the light of the Gazette Notice. We remain loyal to The Queen and will abide by her known decrees. Until the Gazette Notice is rescinded or amended by Her we shall wear our PJMs with honour.
And so our job is done.
Or is it? ...
The Future
... as for the future, we intend to continue the fight until all recipients can wear their PJM - not just those now eligible under the London Gazette notice.
Furthermore, we shall continue to campaign until permission to wear the PJM is publicly proclaimed and the stigma placed on our medal has been removed forever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Having read this important and recently updated notice, please click here to enter the site)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Appeals Tribunal.
On 21st March, 2011, the First-tier Appeals Tribunal (Information Rights) published their decision in the appeal - Nicoll v ICO (EA/2010/0157).
The decision of the Tribunal is that the Appeal be Dismissed.
As most will know a request was made almost three years ago (April, 2008) under the FOI Act to the Cabinet Office for the release of the ‘recommendation of the HD Committee approved by the Queen that the PJM can be accepted but not worn’. They refused to release this information and their Internal Review also refused to release it. An appeal was then made to the Information Commissioner but he also refused to release the information.
The request for this information was based on the letter from Sir Robin Janvrin (Janvirn on the letter?) to Jack Straw MP, Foreign Secretary, on 21st December, 2005, which said that the Queen had approved the ‘recommendation’.
An appeal was then made to the First-tier Appeals Tribunal (Information Rights) against the Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner. The Tribunal then invited the Cabinet Office to join this appeal without as much as ‘by-your-leave’ from the person initiating the appeal.
A telephone conference was held by the appeal Judge who was assisted by his tribunal clerk. The ICO was represented by a solicitor who was also the Group Manager, and the Cabinet Office was represented by a QC, a firm of Treasury solicitors and Michael Piggott of the Cabinet Office.
Later the Cabinet Office submitted a statement from a senior civil servant who is in charge of the Cabinet Office Ceremonial Secretariat. He said in his statement that he has 37 years service in the civil service and in 1992 was the Private Secretary to the then Prime Minister. He also said ‘Membership of the (HD) Committee comprises crown and public servants. All are, it goes without saying, required to maintain high standards of fairness, impartiality and integrity’....whew!
The Cabinet Office went to great lengths and expense to prevent the release of the ‘recommendation approved by the Queen that the PJM can be accepted but not worn’ and have refused to produce this information.
The appeal appears to have floundered on the retrospectively introduced Section 21 of the FOI Act by the Cabinet Office. They made no mention of this exemption until after the appeal commenced. The appeal decision states –
• The Cabinet Office in response to Mr Nicoll’s initial enquiry did not refer to S.21 FOIA nor was it referred to by the Information Commissioner in his Decision Notice. It may seem rather unfair to Mr Nicoll that the Respondents should seek to rely on exemptions that were not referred to at an earlier stage in this matter. However the decision of the Upper Tribunal in cases GIA/1694/2010 and GIA/2098/2010 confirms that this is a permissible course of action for the Respondents.
So basically a person can be treated unfairly yet the decision goes against him based on unfair principles. Whatever happened to justice in this country.
What we can derive from this lengthy, expensive and sometimes very difficult appeal is that the Cabinet Office has gone to great lengths to prevent British veterans from being allowed to see what they said was a recommendation when in fact they will not (cannot) produce the alleged recommendation.
The full decision of the Appeals Tribunal will be published later on their website –
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.u...cedecision.htm
A disappointing decision for the honourable PJM and those veterans who faced active service for their country in the most inhospitable areas in the world, the jungles and swamps of Malaya/Malaysia/Borneo but it does show us that every effort has been made to prevent the truth being known, and one can only ask ‘What have the Cabinet Office and those dark forces lurking in the background of all things Royal, got to hide?’ And, why has it cost so much to the taxpayer when our country is in such a poor financial state? Where is their impartiality, fairness and integrity now then?
Andy,
Chairman.
By courtesy of the Fight4thePJM Website. http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2295Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
DRAFT MEDALS REVIEW
One document with TWO pages is headed EXTRACT FROM PART FIVE; VETERANS CAMPAIGNS FOR MEDALS FOR PAST SERVICE - PINGAT JASA MALAYSIA.
The concluding paragraph is very bad news for our campaign for justice and intelligent debate to have the official non-wear decision on the honourable PJM overturned as it states -
As a foreign award, the FCO has the Government lead on the subject of the PJM but in the MoD's view there is no case for recommending to the HD Committee that it reviews its decision on the PJM once again.
The other document is five pages and headed Part Two: Principles Underpinning the Award of Medals which is saying that no other medals (National Defence Medal?) will be considered if they are prevented from being issued by the Double Medal Rule; the Five Year Rule; and the Risk and Rigour Principle.
You will see that in the last paragraph of the letter produced here it says 'Please feel free to share this with others who you think would wish to contribute'.
This contribution is by courtesy of the "Fight for the Right to Wear the PJM" forum.
All the documentation may be perused at the link for the public forum section.
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2310Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Why don't they just wear it and to hell with the rules?
AlastairComment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
As far as I know, you have to 'receive' the medal in the first place.
Although I was there at the start of the troubles, but understand that the 'start' date for the medal was at a later date !
The Cross Keys badge, to which I was entitled, was given on my behalf to an army friend, as I had left the area by that time.
He said that it would be sent to me, but it was never received..... Ah me...
RanaldComment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Originally posted by Ranald View Post
Ranald,
Here is some more information for you, it's taken from the "Veterans UK" website.
*************************
The Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal
Background
In 2005 the Malaysian Government approached the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to seek approval to present their new medal, known as the Pingat Jasa Malaysia, to British veterans and others who served in operations in Malaya/Malaysia between August 1957 and August 1966.
This was not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. On behalf of the Government, the FCO is responsible for administering the policy relating to the acceptance and wear of non-British awards by British citizens. They arranged for the matter to be considered by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, (known as the HD Committee). This is a non-political, pan-Departmental committee, Chaired by the Cabinet Secretary, which advises The Queen on such matters. The Committee considered the matter of the PJM in the light of the rules governing the accepting and wearing of non-British awards and made recommendations to The Queen. As a result, on 31st January 2005 the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs, Mr Ian Pearson made a Written Ministerial Statement to the House of Commons as follows:
Written Ministerial Statement
31 January 2006
Pingat Jasa Malaysia
"The Pingat Jasa Malaysia (PJM) is a commemorative medal which the Government of Malaysia would like to award to eligible British citizens, for their service in Malaya or Malaysia between 31August 1957 and 12 August 1966.
The full article may be viewed at the link.......... http://www.veterans-uk.info/medals/pingat.htmlComment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Thanks Gordon, for the info and link, as I thought I was there too soon !!
I think it might have been late 1945 or probably 1946 when I was in Malaysia.
There were troubles then, and I remember there was a dock workers strike.
India, Malaysia, Hong Kong........I had a great time, and doubt if a 'Cooks tour' could have been better !!
RanaldComment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
The following is courtesy of the "Fight 4 The PJM" website.
*********************************
The Fight4thePJM Submission to the MoD Medals Review Board
We have sent our Submission to the Medals Review Board and you can read it here:
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/document...Submission.pdf
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/document...th_Updated.pdf
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/document...th_Updated.pdf
Please contact your MP and any other party who can help us. When you open these documents you can then save them to your PC and then attach them to emails or print them to send snail-mail.
Thanks for your ongoing support.
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2314Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Lord Touhig - More stunning Support in the Lords
Lord Touhig said this in the Lords during a debate on the Armed Forces Bill:
"I have one final point on how we treat our veterans. Thirty-five thousand British veterans fought in the Malaysia campaign of 1955 to 1966. They were awarded the Pingat Jasa Malaysia Medal by the Malaysian Government. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals, which advises Her Majesty the Queen on these matters, said that the men should be able accept this medal but not wear it. That is a shameful way to treat these brave men, and it is an insult to the king and people of Malaysia. We should ask ourselves, after the conflicts in which we have been involved in recent years, how many Muslim countries want to honour British servicemen. Here is an opportunity to embrace their respect and affection for British servicemen. I hope that this Bill may be an opportunity for us in this House to express our anger at how the veterans of the Malaysia campaign were treated and perhaps to find ways to try to right this wrong. I look forward to exploring this further in Committee with other noble Lords to see whether we can do something a little better and show our veterans that they are not forgotten. We value them; we appreciate them. It should be more than words; there has to be action to demonstrate that."
Read all about it at:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...10706114000027Comment
-
Re: Fight for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia (Malaysian Service Medal)
Lord Touhig ---- AMENDMENT
TO BE MOVED
IN GRAND COMMITTEE
After Clause 23
LORD TOUHIG
Insert the following new Clause—
“Committee on the Grant of Medals to Service Members
After section 359 of AFA 2006 insert—
“359B Committee on the Grant of Medals to Service Members
(1) There shall be a Committee, to be known as the Committee on the
Grant of Medals to Service Members, to make recommendations to
Her Majesty on the grant of medals to service members.
(2) The Committee shall consist of nine members—
(a) three of whom shall be drawn from the members of the
House of Commons;
(b) three of whom shall be drawn from the members of the
House of Lords;
(c) three of whom shall be persons the Secretary of State
considers to represent service members; and
(d) none of whom shall be a Minister of the Crown.
(3) The members of the Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary
of State, and one shall be so appointed as chair of the Committee.
(4) Before appointing members of the House of Commons or the House
of Lords the Secretary of State shall consult the Leader of the
Opposition (within the meaning of the Ministerial and other
Salaries Act 1975).
HL Bill 76(e) 55/1
2 Armed Forces Bill
After Clause 23—continued
(5) The Committee shall make an annual report on the discharge of its
functions to the Secretary of State; and the Secretary of State shall
lay before each House of Parliament a copy of each annual report.
(6) The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals
shall cease to have a role in advising on or making
recommendations about the grant of medals to service people.
(7) In this section “service people” means—
(a) members of the regular forces or reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject
to service law; and
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces.””
*******************************************
All success for this Amendment...
http://www.fight4thepjm.org/document...orces_Bill.pdfComment
Comment