|
Scottish Public Petition PE1312
(RESPONSE) FromPETITIONER: - W. Leitch,PETITION PE1312 ToFergus D. Cochrane, Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, TG.01, The ScottishParliament, Edinburgh. EH99 1SP RESPONSE Dear Sir, I acknowledge receipt of your email and attachment to the same, which you sent to me 22 November 2010 having noted the term of all related therein, I thank you. With respect, within the first paragraph of Mr Robathan’s correspondence, his ref: D/Min(DPWV)/AR MC05087/2010 he writes the following which I now quote for its terms therein; * “The Yangtze Incident will long remain a memorable event in the Royal Navy’s illustrious history, the institution of this medallic recognition is a matter of historic interest and the MOD has responded to recent enquiries about the qualifying criteria.”*Unquote. Then Mr Robathan, in paragraph two of his communication, continues by writing the following that I now quote; * “The contemporary records relating to the institution of this recognition are now available for unrestricted public access at the National Archives, Kew under the reference: T300/71 (former Treasury Ceremonial Office file, CSM 232): “General Service Medal: Yangtze”. * Unquote. Note: that Mr Robathan, fellow’s up on that above, quoted, by stating, “As far as can be ascertained from the National Archives’ on-line catalogue, this is the only record relating to the institution of this medal (clasp) that is now available. Under the provisions of Public Records legislation, official records of this vintage will have been reviewed and either selected for permanent preservation and transfer to the National Archives or otherwise destroyed. This Treasury file is, however, specific about what the responsible authorities at that time had intended the medal (clasp) to recognise. It is a matter of historical record that HMS CONCORD did not match the qualifying criteria, i.e. the ship was not involved in events in anyway similar or equivalent to those that the medal (clasp) was instituted to recognise. Here I feel the necessity to repeat, by underscoring the following in order emphasise complete and utter contempt for the ‘buffoon’ who in the first instance chose to write the same, “It is a matter of historical record that HMS CONCORD did not match the qualifying criteria, i.e. the ship was not involved in events in anyway similar or equivalent to those that the medal (clasp) was specifically instituted to recognise.” That following is not from the contemporary records held within the National Archives at Kew, under the reference; T300/71 relating to the institution of the Yangtze Campaign medal or (clasp). No it comes from the House of Commons, its reference; YANGTSE OPERATIONS (MEDAL) (Hansard, 1 November 1949) from that, I now quote; * “ Commander Noble asked the Prime Minister whether approval has been given for the issue of a General Service Medal for service in operations on the River Yangtse earlier this year. The Prime Minister (Mr Attlee) Yes, Sir. His Majesty has approved proposals for the grant of the Naval General Service Medal for specified service on the River Yangtse between 20th April and 31st July, 1949. A short White Paper on the subject is available in the Vote Office.” * Unquote. There in Hansard, you have the precise wording to the question that Commander Noble, put to Prime Minister, Attlee, within the House of Commons, on the 1 November 1949 and again, in Hansard, you also have the precise wording and terminology used by Prime Minister, Attlee in structuring his reply to Commander Noble’s, question, (plus) there is that reference by Prime Minister, Attlee, to ‘A short White Paper on the subject, being available in the Vote Office.’ From below the Royal Crest bearing the Royal Crest and motto (DIEU-ET-MON-DROIT) on page one of that short White Paper that was in the Vote Office, for it historical value, I now quote the terms shown there; *
COMMITTEE ON THE GRANT OF THE NAVAL GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL
SERVICE ON THE RIVER YANGTZE
Presented by the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury
to Parliament *Unquote. and further, quoting from page 2 of the Short White Paper; *
THE NAVAL GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL 1.-(i) The Committee on the grant of Honours,
Decorations and Medals have had under consideration the need for the
general recognition of certain services in the Forces on the River
Yangtze in the period between 20th April and 31st
July 1949, with special regard to the exceptionally trying and
dangerous conditions in which duty there was carried out. ROYAL NAVY 3.-(i)
Service in the following of His Majesty’s ships, on the dates or
within the period shown :- H.M.S. Consort …
… … 20th April, 1949. (ii) Officers carried to H.M.S. Amethyst on 21st April or 22nd April, 1949 in the Royal Air Force Sunderland aircraft are also eligible. Army
Royal Air Force 5. Royal Air Force personnel in the Sunderland aircraft which flew to H.M.S. Amethyst’s position on the 21st or 22nd April, 1949 including the Royal Air Force Medical Officer who was transferred to H.M.S. Amethyst, will qualify. Awards 6. Awards of the Naval General Service Medal will be made forthwith to those eligible, including Officers and other ranks in the Army and the Royal Air Force who have qualified. The Ribbon will be issued shortly. The manufacture and issue of the General Service Medals themselves will be under-taken as soon as circumstances permit. Clasp 7. I is the intention that there should be a Clasp to the Naval General Service Medal bearing the inscription “Yangtze, 1949,” indicating that the General Service Medal was granted for the service named. When a grant of the appropriate General Service has already been made the award of the Clasp for these services will be recorded forthwith. The Manufacture and issue of the Clasps themselves will be undertaken as soon as circumstances permit. *Unquote. There, for all to see are the existing terms that were laid out in that historical document, the White Paper, that Prime Minister, Attlee, referred to when replying or responding to the question put to him by Commander Noble, within the House of Commons with all assembled there on 1st November 1949. For the record, (See above White Paper item 1. -(i) and (ii). As at the time of Prime Minister, Attlee, acting in his official capacity as advisor to His Majesty, the operational service of H.M.S Concord, on the River Yangtze, 28th July 1949, to 31st July 1949, was within the knowledge of Prime Minister Attlee, just as it was on the 1st November 1949 when called upon within the House of Commons, before all assembled there, to answer the question put forward by Commander Noble. Now if we look at item numbered 3 on page 3 of the Review of records pertaining to the institution of the Clasp and the eligibility of HMS CONCORD that within the Review of the Naval Secretary S01 which Mr Andrew Robathan, submitted for the attention of the Scottish Parliaments Public Petitions Committee 15th June 2010, it shows that; * “In 1949, the HD Committee consisted of the Permanent Secretary at HM Treasury (Chairman), and senior officers and officials representing His Majesty, the Prime Minister, Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood, the Admiralty (the Permanent Secretary, and the Naval Secretary), War Office (Permanent Under-Secretary, and the Military Secretary), Air Ministry (Permanent Under Secretary, and the Director-General of Personnel, the Colonial Office, Commonwealth Relations Office, Foreign Office, Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade.”* Also within the review by the Naval Secretary S01, on page 4 under the heading HMS CONCORD at item numbered 11, it is stated, * “Examination of T300/71 shows that the HD Committee were not invited to consider whether HMS CONCORD should be included as one of the units whose personnel would be eligible for the medal. This is central to the veterans’ claim that HMS CONCORD’s part in HMS AMETHYST’s escape on the night of 30/31 July 1949 was deliberaterately covered up and that this alleged cover up led to HMS CONCORD being omitted from the list of units that were specified as qualifying for the medal.”* Then the following item numbered 12 it is written, * “This allegation is not sustainable. As the HD papers show, eligibility for the medal was based on actual risk and rigour experienced by those ships and units that were involved in the actions on 20 and 21 April 1949. It is a matter of historical fact in accounts of HMS AMETHYST’s escape down the river on the night of 30/31 July, that HMS CONCORD was not subjected to the same degree of actual risk and rigour as that which the other ships and units had experienced in April 1949. In fairness, this has never been alleged.” * With the above terms form item 12 pointed out it is in my opinion, essential that I draw attention to the precise wording within the Short White Paper, at item 1-(i) where it is written; * “The Committee on the grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals have had under consideration the need for the general recognition of certain Forces on the River Yangtze in the period between 20th April and 31st July, 1949, with special regard to the exceptionally trying and dangerous conditions in which duty there, was carried out.”* On page three of this ‘Response’ by reproduction I have shown the offices, that the 1949 HD Committee comprised of, among that group of offices is the Prime Minister, and the Foreign Office. Still on page three of this ‘Response’ where I relate to the terms within the ‘Examination of T300/71’ where its stated that, ‘the HD Committee were not invited to consider whether HMS CONCORD should be included as one of the units whose personnel would be eligible for the medal. Well, for consideration of the terms from another historical document that Prime Minister, Attlee, had knowledge of while acting in his capacity as advisor to His Majesty, and whilst answering Commander Noble’s question within the House of Commons 1 November 1949 these same terms that I am about to quote from a historical document were also within the knowledge of the Foreign Office, that was part and parcel of the 1949 HD Committee. From the telegram of H.B.M Ambassador, Sir Ralph Stevenson, G.C.M.G. Stationed at H.M. Embassy, Nanking. I quote; * INWARD
COMMISSIONER GENERAL IN SOUTH EAST ASIA,
FROM NANKING.
DATED 31st July, 1949 Addressed to Foreign Office, telegram number 1139 of July 31st, reported for information to C. in C. Far East Station, Singapore, Hongkong, Shanghai Embassy Office, Canton. My immediately proceeding telegram. AMETHYST Following further points have occurred to me in connection with public statement.
(a)
No repeat no publicity should be given to the fact that
H.M.Ship Concord entered Chinese territorial waters. Singapore please pass to C. in C. F.E.S. as my
emergency telegram number 177 and to Hongkong as my immediate telegram
number 284. There you have within that historic item, an insight into diplomatic backstabbing and treachery.Here also is the link to the source where the official documentary evidence capable of establishing H.M.S. Concord’s service in operations on the River Yangtze 28th to 31st July 1949 has been deposited, http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2FGBR%2F0014%2FDKNS Public Petition Committee Members, with respect, where this individual purporting to be the Minister For Defence Personnel Welfare And Veterans, in the last paragraph of his communication dated 20 November 2010. Ref: D/Min(DPWV)/AR MC0587/2010., writes stating; “I can only reiterate that there are no plans to reconsider the qualifying criteria for this award. Not only are there no grounds to do so, but, as previously advised, it has been long-standing Government policy of successive administrations that no consideration will be give to reviewing the qualifying criteria for existing medals (clasps) more than five years after the events the medal (clasp) was instituted to recognise. Perhaps some consideration can be given to drawing this matter to attention of Prime Minister Cameron, or the Speaker, within the House of Commons, in that neither I as the Petitioner or the Members of the Scottish Parliaments Petition Committee have by written representation to the UK Government, in an effort to have it, reconsider the qualifying criteria for the United Kingdoms Honours and Awards System, governed over by an HD Committee, a Revised matter exclusive to the UK Government. Clearly, with Petition PE1312 it can be seen that I William Leitch, am calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make representation to the UK Government asking it to investigate the circumstances into the process for awarding medals to those involved in the 1949 Yangtze campaign and, in particular, whether this process was corrupted as a result of the exclusion of relevant and important documents relating to the role of H.M.S. Concord, in the Yangtze Campaign on 30 and 31 July 1949. Once again this link: - http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD%2F0014%2FDKNS takes you to the archived documentation that was excluded from the process for awarding medals to those involved in the 1949 Yangtze Campaign. Further, where in the wording of item numbered 11 on page 4 of Naval Secretary, SO 1., review it is stated, “Examination of T300/17 shows that the HD Committee were not invited to consider whether HMS CONCORD should be included as one of those units whose personnel would be eligible for the medal.” That by fact and inference tends to establish that the process for awarding medals to those involved in the 1949 Yangtze Campaign was corrupted, and as such perhaps this matter can now be drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister, or Speaker, within the House of Commons, in order to have the assembled UK Parliament, find remedy and reparation to the wrongful acts or omissions that have for the past sixty three years excluded recognition of H.M.S. Concord’s, service in operation’s on the River Yangtze, 28th July to 31st July 1949. To conclude, when I read through the Naval Secretary SO 1., Review it did not escape my notice of his reference in small print to Malcolm H Murffet’s, 1991 publication, ‘Hostage on the Yangtze’ (on page 3 of the review) being used as a reference source. Well, within that publication there is a passage referring to a press release given by the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station Admiral Brined, at Singapore, it refers to a Foreign Office dispatch to its embassy in Nanking, which discloses just how the British Foreign Office was caught off guard by Brinds, remarks. A person named Coates minuted caustically; ‘we, of course, had not previously heard of this plan (The fact that Cossack, Comus, and Constance, were prepared to launch an a full scale battle against the PLA should the Amethyst have needed any assistance in getting past Woosung and out of the Yangtze, and to divulge it at this stage is criminal folly.’ In a dispatch to its embassy in Nanking the Foreign expressed its hope that the Amethyst episode might be allowed to die a natural death and that under no circumstances should any new startling revelations find their way into print as they would only keep the issue alive to the detriment of British business interests in China. Amethyst is out, but we still have a large stake in China. Our chances of eventually reaching some sort of agreement with the Chinese Communists are slender enough as it is and we do not want to jeopardise them further by embarking on a prolonged propaganda war if it can be possibly avoided. In this connection we think it unfortunate that the preparations for attacking the Woosung Forts etc, should have been unnecessarily divulged after the event. Surely that above demonstrates the desire for a cover up to be introduced. (Yes indeed the Amethyst was out of the River Yangtze, but only, due to the fact that H.M.S. Concord, was there to cover her while passing the Woosung Forts, and thereafter, fuelling her enroute to the estuary and open seaway where she rejoined the Fleet.)
Yours Respectfully,
|
||||