---

Suez Canal Zone (Medals)

I can confirm that there is a range of people with military experience on the HD committee. I am not aware of anyone with naval experience who sat on the sub-committee at that time, but I mentioned Lord Guthrie, who is obviously a distinguished person who served the country as the chief of staff, and others. The selection of members to serve on the sub-committee is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence, as my hon. Friend knows, and the brunt of the service fell on the Army and the RAF in that case, as he also knows. I recognise all those concerns. It is, however, a matter of historical record that the brunt of service in the canal zone fell on the Army and the RAF, whose people operated and lived in close proximity to the threat. Of course the Royal Navy made a worthy and important contribution in the canal zone; but it was the view of the HD committee, as advised and informed by experienced senior military officers, that a period of 30 days’ continuous service was appropriate to qualify for the award. I am sure that the Chamber will agree with me that it would be inappropriate for Royal Navy personnel to have any less rigorous eligibility criteria than their Army or RAF colleagues. My hon. Friend has made the point that he does not consider that to be the main issue, but it is worth re-emphasising. It gives my officials no satisfaction to turn down applications for the medals. It may be appropriate at this point to quote Winston Churchill on the very issue of medals and awards. He said:"““The object of giving medals, stars and ribbons is to give pride and pleasure to those who have deserved them. At the same time a distinction is something that everybody does not possess. If all have it, it is of less value. There must, therefore, be heartburnings and disappointments on the borderline. A medal glitters, but it also casts a shadow. The task of drawing up regulations for such awards is one which does not admit of a perfect solution. It is not possible to satisfy everybody without running the risk of satisfying nobody. All that is possible is to give the greatest satisfaction to the greatest number and to hurt the feelings of the fewest.””" I understand entirely the disappointment of those who have not been able to receive the award. They feel passionately about the case that they have made, and my hon. Friend has made that point passionately, too. However, I should like to make it clear that the position in no way undermines the important contribution that people such as his constituent made to the conflict. We hold them in high esteem for their service to the country during a difficult time. We have no plans at this stage to review the eligibility criteria for the award. I recognise that that will be a disappointing, but I shall reply to my hon. Friend with details on one or two of the issues that he raised. However, at this stage I cannot hold out any hope for reviewing the eligibility criteria.