The Government recognises, and is deeply grateful for, the selflessness of those who serve our country, and for the noble sacrifices they are asked to make to ensure our safety and protect our values. It is fully committed to ensuring that those who serve this country with bravery and dedication are properly supported in the practical sense, and that their selflessness and sacrifice are appropriately recognised through the award of medals where they are justified.

The Elizabeth Cross maybe granted to the next of kin of regular, reserve or Royal Fleet Auxiliary personnel who have died on military operations, or as a result of an act of terrorism since 1 January 1948, where there is evidence that they were targeted because of their membership of the UK Armed Forces. It may also be awarded for non-medal earning operational tasks where death is caused by the inherent circumstances and risks attributable to service in the Armed Forces.

The names of those who die while in Service may, according to the circumstances of their death, be considered for recording on the Armed Forces Memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum. Similarly, the names of individuals who die during their military service, regardless of the cause, are recorded upon the Armed Forces Memorial Scroll.

The Government recognises that there are those who wish to see a specific acknowledgement of Service Personnel who are injured in the course of their military careers. At a Westminster Hall debate on 9 December 2025, the Minister for Veterans and People recognised this, noting that officials in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) are considering whether a defined ‘Injury Medal’ would be the best method of recognition in such circumstances, and whether such an award would be viable: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-09/debates/DBDED222-7BDA-40BB-AA7D-1D0DE739E84A/MedalForWoundedServicePersonnel

This work is at an early stage, and it would not be appropriate to speculate on whether such an award may be instituted nor precisely what it might look like in terms of eligibility.

Eligibility for the Wider Service Medal (WSM) in relation to Operation INTERFLEX was last reviewed by the Operational Recognition Board (ORB) on 20 November 2025. The Board recognises the challenges of prolonged separation for personnel serving on Operation INTERFLEX and Defence continues to support those affected. While this was considered during recent deliberations, prolonged separation alone does not qualify personnel for the WSM.

UK-based military operations, including Operation INTERFLEX, are eligible for WSM consideration if accompanied by a compelling Operational Impact Statement (OIS). Although several OISs have been submitted, none have yet met the criteria for eligibility. Nevertheless, UK-based activities that deliver significant operational effect may be considered in future reviews.

There are no plans to update WSM eligibility guidance at this time. The current criteria already provide flexibility for UK-based operations to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and the ORB remains open to recommending the WSM for such operations in the future.

This Government continues to hold those who serve, and who have served, in our Armed Forces, in the highest esteem.

The question of whether a National Defence Medal should be introduced has previously been considered at length. The Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals (HD Committee) made its recommendation not to proceed with such a medal following the Independent Military Medals Review in 2012, which is publicly available at Military medals review: report by Sir John Holmes - GOV.UK. Any further review of this issue would be for the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee to consider, and to make appropriate recommendations to its parent HD Committee, not the Ministry of Defence.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has no plans to adopt an unofficial medal in recognition of UK military service during the Cold War.

In the UK, the granting of official Honours and Awards is made at the behest of His Majesty, The King who is advised by the Cabinet Office led Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals. In turn, this committee is advised on matters of historic military recognition, by the independent Advisory Military Sub-Committee, rather than the MOD.

The issue of generic medallic recognition for service during the Cold War was officially considered by Sir John Holmes as part of his review of Military Medals in 2012. The Review did not recommend that a Cold War medal should be introduced.

All UK medallic recognition is at the behest the monarch. He is advised by a Cabinet Office led system of committees that consider the merits of individual endeavour in various fields.

I am aware of calls for a specific acknowledgement for Service personnel who are injured in the course of their military careers, either during military conflict or through incidents of terrorism. For that reason, officials in the Ministry of Defence are considering this issue, looking at whether a defined ‘Injury Medal’ would be the best method of recognition in such circumstances, and whether such an award would be viable.

This work is at an early stage, and it would not be appropriate to speculate on whether such an award may be instituted, nor precisely what it might look like in terms of eligibility.

Since 2021, the Ministry of Defence has received 24 applications for the restoration of medals from, or on behalf of, LGBT Veterans who had forfeited medals. Nine of these cases were found to be eligible for restoration, usually qualifying under the Government’s disregard process for convictions for decriminalised sexual offences (consensual gay sex).

The annual breakdown of applications received, and of those approved, is:

• 2021: 11 requests with two successful.
• 2022: Three requests with none successful.
• 2023: Three requests with one successful.
• 2024: Four requests with three successful.
• 2025 (to date): Three requests, all of which have been successful.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) maintains a long-established policy whereby, upon receipt of proof of loss, due to fire or flood (a successful insurance claim), or theft (a police report), our Medal Office will provide replacement medals.

The requirement for documented proof of loss is applied without exception to all applications, even when illness or other circumstances prevent the individual from expediting their claim. This is to protect the integrity of medallic recognition, and the wider UK Honours system by ensuring, as far as possible, that duplicate copies of medals are not in circulation and to reinforce the intrinsic value of the medals themselves.

The policy and procedure for replacement medals is to be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/apply-medal-or-veterans-badge/replace-a-medal-or-badge

Whilst we are grateful to all those who serve in our Armed Forces, it remains the position that medals are awarded only in recognition of operational Service, acts of gallantry, and long and meritorious Service; they are not awarded for Service alone. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to recommend that consideration is given to the introduction of a new medal for personnel who are not eligible for recognition under existing medallic arrangements. Any proposal for a new medal would require endorsement by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals and approval by His Majesty The King.

Gallantry awards, amongst them Victoria and George Crosses, honour exceptional acts of bravery and courage. The stories they tell form an important part of our national history. The Lord Ashcroft Gallery at the Imperial War Museum, which houses a significant number of these medals, has been well-loved since its creation in 2010 and has been invaluable to the public’s understanding of these acts of heroism.

The Government recognises the importance of these medals and their significance to the recipients, their families and the wider public. The Imperial War Museum has delayed the original date of the Gallery closure until the end of September to allow visitors to see the collection of medals for as long as possible. Following the closure at the end of this month, the Imperial War Museum plans to redisplay their own collection of Victoria Cross and George Cross medals at their sites across the country, meaning public access to them will be maintained and new audiences will be able to engage with these stories.

Unit 731 was a Japanese secret research facility which operated between 1933 and 1945 and conducted human experiments to test potential military uses of biological and chemical agents.

The victims, who were all killed, were predominantly Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian, Korean and Mongolian. Reports of Western and Commonwealth Prisoners of War being victims of Unit 731 are unverified and there is no confirmed evidence of UK nationals being held there.

The Ministry Of Defence has received no correspondence making representations for military awards for bravery, in respect of those involved in the activities of Unit 731 during the Second World War.

There are currently no plans for the Ministry of Defence to give consideration to criminalising Stolen Valour. However, the Department reserves the right to do so in the future. Armed Forces veterans are expected to adhere to the guidance regarding the wearing of medals. However, it is not a criminal offence for veterans, or the public, to wear medals to which they are not entitled, unless, by doing so, an individual is seeking to make personal gain or defraud others.

There is no doubt that the actions of the agents of F section of the Special Operations Executive were very brave, and the Government remains grateful for their service and sacrifice. Indeed, many were recognised with gallantry awards, such as the awards of the George Cross to Odette Sansom, Noor Khan, Cicely Lefort, Diana Rowden and Lilian Rolfe.

It is the long-standing policy of the UK Government, that military and civilian gallantry awards cannot be awarded retrospectively more than five years after the service or actions in question. This policy has been in place since the end of the Second World War and was approved by King George VI. Successive Governments have seen fit not to change it. It is a long-held belief that people making decisions at the time were better placed to make judgements about an individual’s actions than we can be now at a distance of many years and without information about other people’s contemporary actions for comparison.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne’s brave actions and leadership in command of 1 SAS Regiment on Operation HOWARD in April 1945 were recognised with the award of a third bar to the Distinguished Service Order (DSO). Whilst he was originally recommended for the Victoria Cross (VC), it is clear from the associated recommendation form that, at some point during the process, it was considered more appropriate to award him a third bar to the DSO. There is nothing on the form to explain why this change was made, but it is clear that the change was the result of the rigorous review of contemporaneous accounts by his chain of command, rather than an administrative error.

Gallantry awards can be awarded posthumously, as has been the case since 1931 and, in all the years of WWII, in 1945 more were awarded posthumously than in any other. However, it is the long-standing policy of the Government that gallantry awards and other state honours cannot be awarded retrospectively more than five years after the service or actions in question. Revisiting decisions which were made in the past, with the benefit of hindsight, and applying contemporary views and sensitivities, is inappropriate, and we cannot know or understand all the circumstances that may have been taken into consideration at the time.

This policy has been in place since the end of World War Two and was approved by King George VI. It has also been examined and approved by the Cabinet Office Honours and Decorations Committee on numerous occasions since and successive governments have seen fit not to change it. The Ministry of Defence has no reason to recommend that the Government should review this longstanding policy now, neither is there an intention, nor is it possible, to reconsider the award of a VC to Lt Col Mayne.

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Blair Mayne’s brave actions and leadership in command of 1 SAS Regiment on Operation HOWARD in April 1945 were recognised with the award of a third bar to the Distinguished Service Order (DSO). Whilst he was originally recommended for the Victoria Cross (VC), it is clear from the associated recommendation form that, at some point during the process, it was considered more appropriate to award him a third bar to the DSO. There is nothing on the form to explain why this change was made, but it is clear that the change was the result of the rigorous review of contemporaneous accounts by his chain of command, rather than an administrative error.

Gallantry awards can be awarded posthumously, as has been the case since 1931 and, in all the years of WWII, in 1945 more were awarded posthumously than in any other. However, it is the long-standing policy of the Government that gallantry awards and other state honours cannot be awarded retrospectively more than five years after the service or actions in question. Revisiting decisions which were made in the past, with the benefit of hindsight, and applying contemporary views and sensitivities, is inappropriate, and we cannot know or understand all the circumstances that may have been taken into consideration at the time.

This policy has been in place since the end of World War Two and was approved by King George VI. It has also been examined and approved by the Cabinet Office Honours and Decorations Committee on numerous occasions since and successive governments have seen fit not to change it. The Ministry of Defence has no reason to recommend that the Government should review this longstanding policy now, neither is there an intention, nor is it possible, to reconsider the award of a VC to Lt Col Mayne.