1-20 of 150 results for subject:"General Service Medal"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.337 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"General Service Medal"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"General Service Medal" OR subject_ses:298184
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has made a recent assessment of the potential merits of awarding the General Service Medal to military veterans who served in Aden during the early 1960s.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he has made a recent assessment of the potential merits of awarding the General Service Medal to military veterans who served in Aden during the early 1960s.
The award of the General Service Medal (GSM) for those who served in Aden during the early 1960s would be a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider, rather than the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The AMSC is a sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) at the Cabinet Office which provides advice to The Sovereign on honours and medals.
The qualification period for the GSM for service in Aden has previously been considered by the Committee. It was decided that there would be no retrospective issue of the GSM for service between July 1960 and April 1964 as there was insufficient evidence to justify overturning the decisions made at the time. Whilst the MOD has no plans to review this case, this does nothing to lessen our appreciation of the professionalism, courage and contribution of all those who served in Aden.
That this House recognises the courage, service and commitment of the service personnel who served in the British Commanders’-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany (BRIXMIS) in East Germany during the Cold War; further recognises the high risk involved in the conduct of the intelligence collection patrols campaign against Warsaw-Pact forces, unarmed, without protective equipment or communications devices; highlights the vital value of the raw, actionable intelligence gathered; also recognises that the East German secret police and military forces were directed to kill or injure members of the Allied Military Liaison Missions, British (BRIXMIS), United States (USMLM) and French (FMLM) military personnel; notes that the duration of the operation which spanned from September 1946 to October 1990 saw the award of 58 OBE, MBE and BEM awards and honours, but leaves around 900 former service personnel with no formal recognition of their endeavour; highlights that there is a precedent for the award of a clasp to the General Service Medal for non-kinetic operations; and recommends that there should be an award of a BRIXMIS clasp for the General Service Medal, with all those who served during the campaign eligible for receipt of the clasp.
That this House recognises the courage, service and commitment of the service personnel who served in the British Commanders’-in-Chief Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany (BRIXMIS) in East Germany during the Cold War; further recognises the high risk involved in the conduct of the intelligence collection patrols campaign against...
To ask His Majesty's Government under what circumstances they would reconsider the decision not to award a clasp to the General Service Medal for service in BRIXMIS.
To ask His Majesty's Government under what circumstances they would reconsider the decision not to award a clasp to the General Service Medal for service in BRIXMIS.
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.
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 13 April (HL6933), what are the official definitions of 'risk' and 'rigour' as used by the Cabinet Office’s Advisory Military Sub Committee.
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 13 April (HL6933), what are the official definitions of 'risk' and 'rigour' as used by the Cabinet Office’s Advisory Military Sub Committee.
The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) adheres to the same principles and rules for defining risk and rigour as set out in the independent Military Medals Review (2012). As per paragraph 12 of the review ‘the idea is that campaign medals should only be awarded where deployed personnel have been exposed to a significant degree of risk to life and limb, and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties, whether deployed or in the home base’. There will always be a subjective element of judgement involved when determining what constitutes appropriate risk and rigour, on a case by case basis[1].
The AMSC’s recommendation on the case for retrospective medallic recognition for all those who participated in the British Nuclear Test Programme 1952 - 1991 was not to award a military service medal. This followed the AMSC’s assessment of the evidence provided against the longstanding framework for military medallic recognition. The HD Committee reviewed the conclusions reached by the AMSC and was in agreement that this programme does not meet the criteria of risk and rigour required for a military service medal.
However, despite the decision not to award a military medal, and after considering inputs from other stakeholders, the HD Committee felt that there was a case for alternative recognition outside the remit of AMSC. The service given by the nuclear test veterans - both military and civilian - was significant in providing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the Cold War.
The HD Committee agreed that an official commemorative medal, which recognised both military and civilian contributors to the nuclear tests, would be most appropriate. This commemorative medal was approved by His Majesty The King.
[1] The full report can be found on GOV.UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61398/Medals-Interim-Report-July-12.pdf
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 13 April (HL6933), what assessment they have made of the decision by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2022 to overrule the Cabinet Office Advisory Military Sub Committee's decision not to award medallic recognition to UK Nuclear Test...
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Goldie on 13 April (HL6933), what assessment they have made of the decision by the Prime Minister on 21 November 2022 to overrule the Cabinet Office Advisory Military Sub Committee's decision not to award medallic recognition to UK Nuclear Test...
The Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) adheres to the same principles and rules for defining risk and rigour as set out in the independent Military Medals Review (2012). As per paragraph 12 of the review ‘the idea is that campaign medals should only be awarded where deployed personnel have been exposed to a significant degree of risk to life and limb, and to arduous conditions, in excess of what might be expected as part of normal service duties, whether deployed or in the home base’. There will always be a subjective element of judgement involved when determining what constitutes appropriate risk and rigour, on a case by case basis[1].
The AMSC’s recommendation on the case for retrospective medallic recognition for all those who participated in the British Nuclear Test Programme 1952 - 1991 was not to award a military service medal. This followed the AMSC’s assessment of the evidence provided against the longstanding framework for military medallic recognition. The HD Committee reviewed the conclusions reached by the AMSC and was in agreement that this programme does not meet the criteria of risk and rigour required for a military service medal.
However, despite the decision not to award a military medal, and after considering inputs from other stakeholders, the HD Committee felt that there was a case for alternative recognition outside the remit of AMSC. The service given by the nuclear test veterans - both military and civilian - was significant in providing the UK’s nuclear deterrent during the critical early years of the Cold War.
The HD Committee agreed that an official commemorative medal, which recognised both military and civilian contributors to the nuclear tests, would be most appropriate. This commemorative medal was approved by His Majesty The King.
[1] The full report can be found on GOV.UK: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61398/Medals-Interim-Report-July-12.pdf
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to reconsider the decision not to award a clasp to the General Service Medal for service in BRIXMIS.
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to reconsider the decision not to award a clasp to the General Service Medal for service in BRIXMIS.
Cases regarding historic medallic recognition are a matter for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee (AMSC) to consider.
In 2020, the AMSC considered the issue of awarding a clasp to the General Service Medal for service on the British Commander-in-Chief's Mission to the Soviet Forces in Germany (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. Any review of this issue would be for the AMSC to consider in the first instance.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will revise the eligibility criteria for the General Service Medal (1918 GSM) with Canal Zone Clasp in order to allow service personnel who served in the Canal Zone at other times besides those specified in the present criteria to receive...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will revise the eligibility criteria for the General Service Medal (1918 GSM) with Canal Zone Clasp in order to allow service personnel who served in the Canal Zone at other times besides those specified in the present criteria to receive...
There are no plans to extend the award of the General Service Medal with Canal Zone clasp. The Canal Zone clasp was introduced in 2003 and was awarded retrospectively for 30 days’ service between 16 October 1951 and 19 October 1954.
A challenge to the eligibility criteria was the subject of an independent review in 2013. That review recommended that there were insufficient grounds to extend the criteria, and this decision was endorsed by the Advisory Military Sub Committee.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 11 September 2017 to Question 8803, how many personnel have (a) applied for and (b) received the General Service Medal 2008 with the West Africa clasp.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 11 September 2017 to Question 8803, how many personnel have (a) applied for and (b) received the General Service Medal 2008 with the West Africa clasp.
As of 13 September 2017, 98 personnel were eligible for the General Service Medal 2008 with the West Africa clasp, of which five have been issued.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will consider the merits of awarding the General Service Medal to British forces personnel who served in Mali in 2013.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will consider the merits of awarding the General Service Medal to British forces personnel who served in Mali in 2013.
UK Armed Forces personnel who completed the appropriate service in Mali in 2013 are entitled to the General Service Medal 2008 with the West Africa clasp.
On 16 February, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to ammunition technicians and ammunition technical officers serving in Northern Ireland and assisting the Police Service of Northern Ireland, by dealing with bomb scares, for example. The Army wanted to award these soldiers—our troops—General Service Medals...
On 16 February, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to ammunition technicians and ammunition technical officers serving in Northern Ireland and assisting the Police Service of Northern Ireland, by dealing with bomb scares, for example. The Army wanted to award these soldiers—our troops—General Service Medals...
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, there are long-standing rules in place that govern the award of medals, but I will ask the Secretary of State to attend to his letter at the earliest possible opportunity.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know, there are long-standing rules in place that govern the award of medals, but I will ask the Secretary of State to attend to his letter at the earliest possible opportunity.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will change the qualification criteria for a General Service Medal with Suez canal zone clasp so that navy personnel qualify for a medal after 30 days aggregated service.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will change the qualification criteria for a General Service Medal with Suez canal zone clasp so that navy personnel qualify for a medal after 30 days aggregated service.
Westminster Hall adjournment debate on the Suez campaign and the general service medal.
Westminster Hall adjournment debate on the Suez campaign and the general service medal.
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...
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...
Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the membership of the sub-committee that considered the issue did not actually include any personnel with naval experience?
Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the membership of the sub-committee that considered the issue did not actually include any personnel with naval experience?
I speak on behalf of Bill McKnight and other Royal Navy personnel who served in the Suez campaign from October 1951 to October 1954. First, I apologise to the Minister that, having said that I would give him my notes prior to the debate, I could not do so because...
I speak on behalf of Bill McKnight and other Royal Navy personnel who served in the Suez campaign from October 1951 to October 1954. First, I apologise to the Minister that, having said that I would give him my notes prior to the debate, I could not do so because...
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate and providing me with an opportunity to speak about this emotive issue. My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of veterans and he takes great interest in veterans’ issues. He has done so for a...
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate and providing me with an opportunity to speak about this emotive issue. My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of veterans and he takes great interest in veterans’ issues. He has done so for a...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to allow the wearing of the Suez Medal alongside National Service medals; and if he will make a statement.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to allow the wearing of the Suez Medal alongside National Service medals; and if he will make a statement.
(2) when he will reply to the question (a) 65386 and (b) 65389, on the Suez Canal Zone campaign, tabled for named day answer on 27 April 2006.
(2) when he will reply to the question (a) 65386 and (b) 65389, on the Suez Canal Zone campaign, tabled for named day answer on 27 April 2006.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) why (a) questions (i) 65386 and (ii) 65389, on the Suez Canal Zone campaign, tabled for named day answer on 27 April and (b) question 72193, on those questions, tabled for named day answer on 23 May, has not been substantively...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) why (a) questions (i) 65386 and (ii) 65389, on the Suez Canal Zone campaign, tabled for named day answer on 27 April and (b) question 72193, on those questions, tabled for named day answer on 23 May, has not been substantively...