I will call David Baines to move the motion, and will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move,

That this House
has considered the potential merits of a medal for service personnel wounded in combat.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. The UK’s military honours system is comprehensive. We recognise gallantry through the Victoria Cross and the George Cross. We commemorate operational service through campaign medals. We created the Elizabeth Cross in 2009 for families of the fallen. Yet there remains no official recognition for those wounded in service. Unlike the United States, with their Purple Heart, the British armed forces have no equivalent. While everyone who serves deserves recognition, I believe that those who are injured deserve special acknowledgment of their sacrifice.

Let me start by saying that serving in the military is a positive and honourable career choice. Like everyone in my Constituency of St Helens North, I am proud of our community’s history and heritage of service, and I am incredibly thankful and respectful of all those who serve today and everything they do. I have heard at first hand from servicemen and women that a life in the forces brings with it fantastic opportunities for those who join—opportunities for education, training, travel and personal development.

Our armed forces play a significant role in defending and protecting us all and we should celebrate that, but those who join the armed forces know that by the intention and design of their role they are significantly more likely to face hostile action than those in other public services. Military personnel are deployed specifically to environments where armed enemies attempt to kill or injure them. That is the fundamental nature of military service, not a criticism of it, but we need to recognise the unique sacrifice that it entails.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I spoke to him beforehand. Obviously, I am a Northern Ireland MP, and I declare an interest as someone who served in the forces in Northern Ireland for some 14 and a half years. I gently remind Members that many soldiers were wounded in combat while serving in the Northern Ireland troubles. I believe they deserve formal recognition for their sacrifice—the very thing the hon. Gentleman is referring to.

For over three decades, British soldiers, many barely out of their teens, patrolled our streets, stood between communities and faced down threats to protect civilians from terrorism and uphold the law. What the hon. Gentleman refers to is about acknowledging the lasting physical and emotional scars borne by those who serve. Does he agree that awarding a dedicated medal to those wounded in combat during the troubles would be a moral gesture and the right thing to do?

I completely agree with the hon. Member; he makes an excellent point.

According to Ministry of Defence statistics, since January 2006 a total of 2,644 personnel have sustained battle injuries while on operation—that is, they were wounded as a result of hostile action. Behind every one of those numbers is a person like my constituent Corporal Andy Reid MBE, whose life has been permanently altered in service to this nation yet who receives no specific recognition for the wounds that he carries.

On 13 October 2009, Andy stepped on an improvised explosive device while on patrol in Helmand Province. He was 33 years old. The explosion destroyed his right leg below the knee, his left leg above the knee and his right arm above the elbow. Medical professionals doubted that he would survive, yet after just two weeks in hospital Andy made his first trip home to St Helens. Within a month, he met up with members of his patrol again.

What Andy has achieved since is extraordinary. He married his wife Claire and became a father to two children. He climbed Mount Kilimanjaro on prosthetic legs, becoming the first triple amputee in the UK to do so. He raised over £200,000 for armed forces charities and he has established the Standing Tall Foundation in St Helens, providing mental health support and counselling for veterans and non-veterans alike. He received an MBE in 2019 for voluntary service to veterans and people with disabilities.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward the debate. I fully support this excellent campaign to create a brand-new medal for all servicemen and women who have been wounded in combat. He mentions Andy Reid’s charitable works, which are legendary in themselves. I had the pleasure of meeting Andy at the recent Rochdale Man of the Year awards, where he raised many more thousands of pounds for our local Springhill hospice. Does my hon. Friend agree that Andy’s main motivation is his motto that he is not a victim but a survivor? That goes to the heart of this medal: all those wounded in the line of service deserve recognition by their country. Those like Andy who have literally risked life and limb deserve that recognition more than anyone.

I completely agree. Andy’s motto, that he is a survivor, not a victim, is not about wallowing in what has happened but recognising it and using it to grow and help others. That is exactly what he is doing day in, day out.

Andy wears his operational service medal for Afghanistan with pride, but that medal tells only part of his story. It records where he served, not what he sacrificed; it does not mark the physical wounds he carries or the daily challenges he faces with tasks that others take for granted. Andy’s story is tragically not unique. The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan created a generation of wounded veterans. Thousands carry visible injuries—amputations, severe burns, blindness—while others carry hidden wounds, both physical and mental.

Advances in battlefield medicine mean that many personnel thankfully survive injuries that would have been fatal in previous conflicts. That means more wounded veterans living among us, many facing lifelong challenges. Those men and women deserve formal recognition. Andy has been publicly advocating for the medal, drawing on his experience and extensive work with the veterans community.

This is not the only campaign being fought for such recognition. Recently, Mr Morrison led a debate on establishing an injury in service award for emergency service personnel: police officers, firefighters and paramedics who have been injured in the line of duty. I fully support that campaign; it is good to see Parliament giving serious attention to recognising those injured while serving the public, which is long overdue. The campaigns for emergency services recognition and for a wounded in action medal both speak to the same principle: when people put their bodies on the line in service to others and pay a physical price, their sacrifice deserves formal acknowledgement.

I want to be clear that this debate and a call for a medal for service personnel injured in combat is not about comparing public services. I completely support the call for recognition of those in the emergency services. Some would maybe combine the two campaigns into one medal, but I believe that our emergency services deserve unique recognition. I would also argue that the fundamental nature of military service—men and women deployed specifically to environments where armed enemies attempt to kill or injure them—is likewise worthy of separate and significant recognition.

The Government have set an admirable goal: to make Britain the best place in the world to be a veteran, using a whole-society approach. This proposal for a new medal fits squarely within that vision. Defence companies have expressed positive interest in funding it. They recognise their obligation to support those wounded in service. With industry support, the cost to the public purse could be minimal. Even bearing the full cost, we are talking about recognition for individuals who have surely paid far more than any price we could put on a medal.

This is the whole-society approach in action: Government setting policy, industry contributing resources, and the voluntary sector providing support, as I am sure it would. The medal would be the visible symbol at the centre of this effort. I believe it could also help to boost recruitment and retention, which the Government are keen to do. Those considering military service rightly want to know that any sacrifice they may have to make will be formally recognised. This new medal is, therefore, practical policy as well as a moral imperative. As to the injuries that might be eligible for the medal and how far back it would apply, my strong feeling is that veterans’ organisations and forces personnel should be involved in setting the terms. This would be their medal and they should own it. I do not believe it should be for MPs or civil servants to decide those details.

Andy Reid does not lead this campaign because he seeks personal glory. He already has an MBE, the respect of his community and the gratitude of the charities he has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for. He campaigns because recognition matters. He has met countless wounded veterans who feel that their sacrifice too often goes unacknowledged. He believes those who have been injured in service to this country deserve to have that sacrifice formally recognised.

I completely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying and his plan for a medal. Does he agree that organisations such as Veterans in Sefton in my Constituency do a remarkable job, supporting people across Merseyside? This would be another symbol of our support for our veterans, who do such a fantastic job for our country.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In our part of the world, we have a long and proud history of service in the armed forces; I know it is the same in his part of Merseyside as it is in mine. I thank him for raising that point and putting it on the record.

I agree with Andy Reid and all those calling for this new medal. I am sure that many people in this country would agree too. It is time to address the gap in the system, honour our wounded and introduce formal recognition that says to every serviceperson wounded in defence of our nation, “We see you, we honour you, and we’ll never forget what you’ve given.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend David Baines for securing this debate and highlighting the continued importance of properly recognising those who have served in our armed forces. I know how much work he has been doing, both in his role as an MP and with St Helens borough council—including in his time as leader—to lead the way on implementing the armed forces covenant and showing support for the veteran community, for which I thank him, both as a Minister and as a veteran myself. I also thank Andy Reid MBE and acknowledge his amazing work. Again, he has done so much campaigning on this and other causes to support veterans. He is a fantastic campaigner and a huge inspiration.

I thank other hon. Members who have spoken today to highlight their support for veterans. Jim Shannon rightly highlighted the role of those who served in Northern Ireland; I have the greatest respect for those who served in that conflict. My hon. Friend Paul Waugh movingly spoke of how much work Andy Reid has been doing, particularly on behalf of Springhill hospice, which shows the impact that he has had on his wider community. I thank my hon. Friend Peter Dowd for his fantastic work as well.

Although I recognise that the debate was originally aimed towards my Cabinet Office colleagues, as it is they who administer the UK honours and awards system, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North will see the practical reasons for me responding, given the focus on the armed forces. If it is the Government’s first duty to protect the population, they can do so only by asking the men and women of our armed forces to do extraordinary things. As I saw during my own deployment to Afghanistan, regular and reservist members of our armed forces served with courage, commitment and resilience, separated from their loved ones, often in difficult and dangerous situations. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for highlighting how many people who are veterans of that conflict still have to deal with the impact on their lives every day.

If we are to expect our armed forces to display such qualities in protecting our country and the values that we hold dear, it is only right that we, as a Government, ensure that they are properly supported and recognised for doing so. That means expressing our gratitude on behalf of the British people through practical support—here I want to highlight our Valour initiative to improve the co-ordination of support for our military veterans; Fortitude, which houses homeless veterans and those at risk of homelessness; and the work to expand the armed forces covenant, which, as the Prime Minister announced in June, will be extended across central Government—and, of course, through the rightful award of medallic recognition.

Medals are a form of recognition from the Government on behalf of the monarch, instituted by royal warrant, and sitting firmly under royal prerogative powers. That is important, because it places the medals system and other honours and awards above the political fray. As such, it is a process underpinned by a Cabinet Office–led system of committees that make evidence-based judgments on the merits of individual endeavour to ensure that our system is fair. For that reason, I believe that the British model for medallic recognition is highly respected across the globe.

Medals for members of our armed forces mark an individual’s contribution to a military operation that has protected this country or enhanced global security. They may also recognise acts of exceptional courage. It is a basic principle that those who wear a medal must have earned it. Therefore, eligibility is always checked carefully against the person’s service record. Similarly, when a new medal is proposed, there must be a clear and robust rationale that doing so evidences the delivery of and furthers the UK’s aims.

Let me turn specifically to service personnel wounded in combat. Currently, those injured and evacuated from an operational deployment that attracts a campaign, operational or general service medal are automatically awarded the relevant medal, regardless of whether they have met the standard eligibility criteria. Effectively, the automatic award is made in recognition of the fact that the individual has sacrificed their wellbeing while on the operation. I recognise that there are those who wish to see a more specific acknowledgement of service personnel injured in the course of their military careers, and in particular, those wounded on military operations. With an awareness of the proposals, my officials are considering this, in terms of whether a defined injury medal would be the best method of recognition in such circumstances, whether such an award would be viable, and the hows and wherefores.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North for raising this important topic. I acknowledge that he, and indeed the House, might want me to go further today and make a commitment to implement an injury medal for armed forces personnel, but I hope that he will understand that that is not possible at this time, as any consideration of this matter must be progressed through the correct channels. However, I trust that he is reassured that the Government are fully committed to ensuring that those who serve this country with bravery and dedication will be supported in the practical sense, but will also have their selflessness and sacrifice properly recognised through the award of medals.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.