The BRIXMIS Association submission was an agenda item at the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) meeting on 9 July 2025. Following discussions, the Secretary was directed to prepare a letter to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) for its consideration. The findings of the sub-committee will be communicated to the Association in due course.

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (also known as the Ottawa Convention) continues to play an important role in protecting civilians from harm caused by anti-personnel landmines. As a State Party to the Ottawa Convention, the UK’s commitment to it remains unwavering.

The UK’s ambition in the Strategic Defence Review to double and then triple the UK Army’s fighting power reflects a fundamental transformation in how the Army prepares for and conducts warfare. This is not simply about increasing firepower or platform numbers — it’s about reimagining how we fight.

His Majesty’s Government (HMG) has noted that Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have stated their intention to withdraw from the Ottawa Convention. The UK acknowledges and shares concerns about the security environment in the region as a result of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We also acknowledge that it is the sovereign right of those countries to make this decision. The UK will work to mitigate impacts on vital arms control and disarmament norms, while continuing to engage bilaterally on the actions States plan to take.

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (also known as the Ottawa Convention) continues to play an important role in protecting civilians from harm caused by anti-personnel landmines. As a State Party to the Ottawa Convention, the UK’s commitment to it remains unwavering. We continue to encourage countries to join the Ottawa Convention, subscribe to its provisions; and discourage States from using anti-personnel landmines.

HMG continues to publicly express its commitment to the Ottawa Convention, most recently by Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Baroness Chapman, at a House of Lords debate on Landmines and Cluster Munitions on 3 April 2025 (Official Report vol 845, column 425).

My Lords, our new defence industrial strategy will make sure that national security and a high-growth economy are aligned to deliver the changes we promised: cracking down on waste, building resilient supply chains and boosting Britain’s defence industry. By strengthening our relationship with industry, innovators and investors, we will make it easier and more attractive than ever before to do business in defence.

The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) is a sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (the “HD Committee”) which provides advice to The Sovereign on honours and medals. Following the independent review of medallic recognition by Sir John Holmes in 2012, the AMSC met later in 2012 and 2013. It was then reconstituted in 2019 and has since met on the following dates:

• 1 May 2019
• 3 September 2019
• 15 November 2019
• 4 February 2020
• 29 January 2021
• 26 April 2021
• 23 June 2021
• 29 September 2021
• 26 August 2022
• 1 June 2023
• 28 March 2025

Further information about the work of the AMSC, including Terms of Reference and a summary of past recommendations can be found at the following website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advisory-military-sub-committee

I can confirm that minutes of Advisory Military Sub-Committee meetings are kept.

As the noble Lord was advised in 2023, cases regarding historic medallic recognition are a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider, rather than the Ministry of Defence. In 2020, the AMSC considered the issue of awarding a clasp to the General Service Medal for service on BRIXMIS, and the recommendation of the Sub-Committee was that BRIXMIS did not meet the criteria for medallic recognition. This recommendation was accepted by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee).

Any further review of this issue would be for the AMSC to consider, should additional evidence be submitted, which fulfils at least one of the following criteria: significant new evidence has become available that had not been considered previously; facts relied upon during the original decision-making process are shown to be unsound; the original decision appears to be manifestly inconsistent with those for other similar campaigns; or the decision appears to have been taken for reasons which have nothing to do with risk and rigour.

Should the AMSC agree that any such new evidence was sufficient to alter their original decision, they would make a recommendation to the HD Committee for further consideration and, if agreed, submission to His Majesty The King for His Majesty’s final approval.

The full definition of ‘relevant family members’ for the purposes of this Bill will be included in secondary legislation. This is being done to mirror the approach taken elsewhere in legislation relating to the Armed Forces.

A draft of the definition of ‘relevant family members’ will be shared with Peers as part of Committee Stage in the House of Lords, scheduled for 19, 24 and 26 March 2025.

The Armed Forces Act 2006 (AFA 06) sets out the conditions under which different categories of individuals are subject to service law. Section 367 of the Act sets out the conditions for (1) Regular members, (2) members of the Army Reserve and (3) members of the Regular Reserve as follows:

(1) Every member of the regular forces is subject to service law at all times.

(2) Every member of the reserve forces is subject to service law while—

(a) in permanent service on call-out under any provision of the Reserve Forces Act 1980 (c. 9) or the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (c. 14) or under any other call-out obligation of an officer;

(b) in home defence service on call-out under section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980;

(c) in full-time service under a commitment entered into under section 24 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996;

(d) undertaking any training or duty (whether or not in pursuance of an obligation); or

(e) serving on the permanent staff of a reserve force.

Individuals liable to recall (4) are not members of a reserve force under the Act and would only be subject to service law if they were recalled.

Civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence and immediate family members (if they are civilians) (5) would not be subject to service law under the AFA 06. In certain circumstances they could be subject to service discipline under Section 370 of AFA 06 and these circumstances are set out in Schedule 15 of the Act, such as when they are on an HM aircraft in flight or on a HM ship afloat or they are living or staying with someone who is subject to service law outside the UK.

The Defence Gateway remains a valued digital portal which enables effective communication, information sharing, and system access to users across the Defence community. Work to address its contracting is underway, due to commercial sensitivities I am unable to disclose further detail at this time.

The Defence Gateway remains a valued digital portal which enables effective communication, information sharing, and system access to users across the Defence community. Work to address its contracting is underway, due to commercial sensitivities I am unable to disclose further detail at this time.

Statistics regarding the timeliness and average time taken to close a Service Complaint can be found in the annual statistical tables published by the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF). The tables can be round below.

Whilst the SCOAF has not made a specific assessment on the transfers that take place between individuals during the course of a Service Complaint, the implementation of a new Service Complaints Case Management System and the introduction of regular workshops between the Services and the SCOAF will ensure that working practices are standardised.

Service Complaints Ombudsman For the Armed Forces Annual Statistical Tables

This information is available in the public domain. The average time required to process a Service Complaint is contained within the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report statistics which are available at the following link: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/annual-statisticals-tables.

The information you have requested on the average time required to process a Service Complaint is shown in Annex A, below.

No information is held about the cost of each complaint. This information is not routinely recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Annex A

Information regarding how many Service Complaints have been received, and how many have not been upheld, is publicly available and can be found in the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces Annual Report statistics available at the following link: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/annual-statisticals-tables. Please note that the most recent year for which information is currently available is 2023.

The data you have requested is shown in Annex A, below, by Service. Please note that Complaints are recorded by Service and not Command and therefore no data is available for Strategic Command.

The following information details how many extra reservist posts have been recruited by the single Services in each year in order to process Service Complaints. The data has been provided by the three Services, who manage the Service Complaints process. Service Complaints are managed by the single Services, not by Commands, and thus Strategic Command is not included.

Royal Navy

• 2020: no extra reservist posts recruited.
• 2021: three Volunteer ex-Regular Reserve (VeRR) posts were recruited.
• 2022: no extra reservist posts recruited.
• 2023: seven extra VeRR posts were recruited.
• 2024: no extra reservist posts were recruited.

Army

• 2020: no extra reservist posts recruited.
• 2021: eight ‘lifed’ Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS) posts made enduring.
• 2022: two additional FTRS posts were recruited.
• 2023: 14 additional VeRR posts were recruited.
• 2024: no extra reservist posts recruited.

Royal Air Force

• 2020: no information held.
• 2021: no information held.
• 2022: no information held.
• 2023: no extra reservist posts recruited.
• 2024: ten additional VeRR posts recruited.

While the Armed Forces Commissioner will absorb the functions of the existing Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces, the Bill does not make any substantive changes to the Service Complaints System. Families will not be able to access the Service Complaints system, which is specifically designed for serving personnel. The Bill focuses instead on the additional powers and functions the Commissioner will have to launch and report on investigations into general service welfare matters.

The Commissioner will be a direct point of contact for service families, providing a route for families to raise concerns on matters which could form the topic of a service welfare investigation. The financial implications of establishing and maintaining the office of the Armed Forces Commissioner, with their additional functions, are estimated to be within the range of £4.5 - £5.5m per year. This is only an initial estimate and represents a significant uplift on the annual running costs of the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The 2023 expenditure for the Service Complaints Ombudsman was in the region of £1.8m.

This information is not routinely recorded and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

While the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF) is a public appointment, entirely independent from the Ministry Of Defence (MOD) and has an office outside the MOD estate, the Department has a responsibility to ensure the Ombudsman is provided with sufficient funding.

Since the establishment of the SCOAF in January 2016, the MOD has worked closely with the current Ombudsman and her predecessors to regularly review and identify the required resources for them to carry out the functions associated with the role. Should additional resource be required, the MOD will work with the Ombudsman to determine how best to address the need.

The work of the Ombudsman is currently supported by two full time Civil Servants working within the Royal Navy, in addition to one Regular Officer (0.75 full time equivalent) and two full time Civil Servants within the Army. The Royal Air Forces does not have any formal positions established to directly support the SCOAF.

The following guidance is provided in Joint Service Publication 831 (Redress of Individual Grievances: Service Complaints) for complaint handlers should it be considered that a complaint may be vexatious:

All complaints are to be taken seriously and handled professionally and with consideration. If it is considered that a complaint may be vexatious, legal advice should be sought before making a decision on admissibility. Decision makers will need to consider if the complaint is substantially the same as a Service Complaint that has already been submitted and which has either been decided previously under the Service Complaints system or is currently being considered under the Service Complaints Process.

The funding for the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces (SCOAF) is provided wholly through the Ministry of Defence’s Head Office and Corporate Services Top Level Budget (TLB) and agreed annually. The Ombudsman has discretion over how those funds are used and publishes details of expenditure in their annual report to Parliament.

Since the creation of the role of the SCOAF in 2016, each of their annual reports to Parliament have included, as an appendix, a financial statement detailing expenditure incurred for that year. This information can be accessed on the Service Complaints Ombudsman’s website: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/application-forms-factsheets-and-pamphlets/scoaf-annual-reports

Whilst the projected budget for Financial Year 2025-26 has not yet been confirmed, we would expect this to be broadly the same as the previous year. Further information on their budget and allocation can be found in the SCOAF Business Plan on the SCOAF’s website: https://www.scoaf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-05/scoaf_business_plan_2024_25.pdf