|
7th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3) - Minute
Tuesday 6 November 2007
Present:
|
Bashir Ahmad
|
|
|
Nigel Don
|
Jim Hume (Committee substitute)
|
|
Rhoda Grant
|
Frank McAveety (Convener)
|
|
Nanette Milne
|
John Wilson (Committee substitute)
|
|
Claire Baker
|
|
Apologies were received from Angela Constance MSP and John Farquhar Munro MSP.
Also present: Malcolm Chisholm MSP, Bruce Crawford MSP, Christine Grahame MSP and Mike Pringle MSP.
The meeting opened at 2.00 pm.
1. Declaration of interests: Nigel Don MSP indicated that he had no interests to declare.
2. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee did not agree to take item 6 in private.
3. New Petitions: The Committee considered and agreed action on the following new petitions—
- PE1062 Petition by Mark Hirst, on behalf of the Lancastria Association of Scotland, calling for the Scottish Parliament to commission a commemorative medal to be awarded to all those (or the relatives of victims, or relatives of survivors who have now passed away) who were aboard the troopship Lancastria on 17th June 1940 when she was sunk by German bombers, claiming the lives of an estimated 4000 people, mostly troops of the British Expeditionary Force, and which resulted in Britain’s worst ever maritime disaster and worst single loss of life for British forces in the whole of World War 2, in recognition of the sacrifice of the victims and the endurance of those survivors who have tried to keep the memory of their fallen comrades alive for the past 67 years.
- The Committee agreed to seek responses to the petition from the Ministry of Defence, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.
Fergus D. Cochrane
Clerk to the Committee
Room TG.01, The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh, EH99 1SP
0131 348 5186
fergus.cochrane@scottish.parliament.uk
OFFICIAL REPORT OF PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE HEARING AT THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, 6TH NOVEMBER 2007 (transcript of proceedings)
New Petitions
Lancastria Commemorative Medal (PE1062)
14:03
The Convener: We have a particularly full agenda, with nine new petitions and 11 current petitions for consideration.
PE1062, by Mark Hirst on behalf of the Lancastria Association of Scotland, calls on the Scottish Parliament
"to commission a commemorative medal to be awarded to all those (or the relatives of victims, or relatives of survivors who have now passed away) who were aboard the troopship Lancastria on 17th June 1940 when she was sunk by German bombers, claiming the lives of an estimated 4000 people, mostly troops of the British Expeditionary Force, and which resulted in Britain's worst ever maritime disaster and worst single loss of life for British forces in the whole of World War 2, in recognition of the sacrifice of the victims and the endurance of those survivors who have tried to keep the memory of their fallen comrades alive for the past 67 years."
The petition was hosted on the Parliament's e-petitions system, where it gathered 313 signatures.
To speak to the petition, I welcome petitioner Mark Hirst, Fiona Symon and Lieutenant Commander Chris Walsh. I understand that all three of you will contribute to an opening statement. Mark, do you wish to go first?
Mark Hirst (Lancastria Association of Scotland): Thank you, convener, for giving us the opportunity to say a few short words. The journey that brought our association to Parliament today began 67 years ago, when many ordinary men volunteered to fight fascism and defend democracy. For many, the journey ended in the most horrific events aboard the Clyde-built Lancastria. Although it was acting as a troop ship and was heavily loaded with airmen and soldiers of the British expeditionary force, the Lancastria was also carrying about 200 refugees of various nationalities. In the 20 minutes that it took for the liner to sink, an estimated 4,000 people were killed and many hundreds more were wounded.
As members will have seen from the briefing notes, on hearing of the scale of the tragedy, Churchill issued a D-notice, banning all publicity. As a result, the story of the Lancastria and the extraordinary sacrifice of the thousands of victims have been forgotten, as has the endurance and determination of the survivors, whose strong feeling was that their comrades and friends died without formal acknowledgement.
Successive British Governments have consistently chosen not to mark or commemorate
the incident formally. In Britain—although perhaps not elsewhere—the custom is not to commemorate a crushing blow. The association's view is that those who took part in this forgotten event deserve a level of official recognition that has, in large part, been afforded to numerous other so-called worthy examples. Such recognition has been denied the people who were aboard the Lancastria on 17 June 1940.
We firmly believe that the sheer scale of the sacrifice that was made on that day, combined with the officially sanctioned censorship of the disaster, sets it aside from all other events involving British forces and refugees in world war two. Our plea to members of the Public Petitions Committee is that you correct decades of silence and reverse the sense of ingratitude that survivors and relatives of victims feel to this day. We call on Parliament to commission a commemorative medal in recognition of the ultimate price that the victims paid, and of the endurance of the survivors who continued to fight on long after the sinking of the Lancastria. I hand over to Fiona Symon, whose father, Andrew Richardson from Kirkcaldy, was one of the victims.
Fiona Symon (Lancastria Association of Scotland): As Mark has said, the sheer magnitude of the loss of life in the worst disaster in British maritime history cries out for acknowledgement. My mother died in 1992, still very bitter and sad that the country seemed to regard my father's life and the lives of the thousands who died with him as being of less value than the lives of others who died in world war two and who are remembered with honour.
In many cases, the survivors suffered more than any of us. They had to live out their lives with horrendous memories and nightmares. Today, they would have been offered counselling; instead, they were forbidden to talk about the sinking. As a result, they are forgotten and ignored. Recently, I spoke to a survivor who described the disaster as "hell on earth". He recounted how he had to swim for three hours in the oil spill from the liner, with some of it on fire and tracer bullets landing around him. He had to push dead bodies out of the way as he struggled to reach the rescue boats 5 miles offshore. That is what those men had to live with.
The sinking of the Lancastria and the resulting colossal life of life is unique in our history—no comparison can be made and 67 years is far too long to wait for recognition of the sacrifice of thousands of men who gave their lives for their King, country and the freedom that we enjoy today. No shame was involved in the disaster: it did not have to be covered up, but desperate times called for desperate measures. The shame is in the silence and cover-up of the past 67 years. As President Theodore Roosevelt said:
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have."
Unless someone has walked in the footsteps of the victims, survivors and their families, they cannot even begin to understand the depth of the human tragedy involved, the effects of which continue to this day. I am here today to represent not only the association but the many people who, like me, never knew their fathers. I was 10 months old when he died—the only child. My heartfelt plea to the committee is that Parliament acknowledge the sacrifice that was made 67 years ago by commissioning a commemorative medal and putting the record straight. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you today.
Lieutenant Commander Chris Walsh (Lancastria Association of Scotland): Good afternoon. I am a member of the Lancastria Association of Scotland. However, unlike the other two petitioners, I have no blood link to the Lancastria incident.
I learned about the Lancastria as Mrs Symon discovered the fate of her father. I knew nothing about it prior to that, although I had always known about military campaigns that had been lost and won. Arnhem and Dunkirk, for example, have been immortalised in thousands of feet of newsreel, numerous books and movies, but public awareness of Lancastria is nil by comparison. At 11.40 on the morning of 14 April 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank and 1,635 lives were lost. The Lancastria's death toll was three, perhaps even four, times higher than that.
After Dunkirk, 140,000 soldiers and airmen were stranded in France. They retreated across several hundred miles to St Nazaire in the north-west of France, pursued all the way by the German army and the Luftwaffe. Imagine their relief when they were offered the chance to escape on a luxury liner. They were crammed on to that liner—many thousands more were on it than should have been; the crew simply stopped counting. The ship set sail, suffered direct hits and began to sink. As a Royal Navy engineer officer, I am well trained in damage control. I know what it is like when the lights go out, the water starts to flood into a closed compartment and the ship begins to list badly—it is frightening even in a controlled training environment and one quickly becomes disoriented. What must it have been like for the men and women on that liner, who were in totally alien surroundings? Many thousands drowned in fear and panic.
Those who made it to the surface found themselves clinging to bits of wreckage and choking on heavy fuel oil from the ship's tanks. Even then, hundreds survived and were delivered
back to Britain. If that was not enough, they arrived home to be told that Mr Churchill had forbidden their mentioning what had happened. The able bodied among the survivors were cleaned up, kitted out and sent off to fight the rest of the war. Guided by a sense of patriotism, integrity, loyalty or simply blind obedience, many of those men took their experience to the grave. I believe that they deserve a medal.
The Convener: Thank you very much. We have received a request from Christine Grahame MSP to contribute to the debate. Committee members may ask questions first before I invite her to say something.
Nanette Milne: I have a comment to make rather than a question to ask. I doubt that anyone around the table failed to be moved by what we have just heard about people's personal experiences. It is particularly appropriate that the committee consider the petition in armistice week. I have huge sympathy for the petitioners. We must seek a way forward.
My understanding is that legal advice has been sought and that it appears that commissioning a commemorative medal may not be within the Scottish Parliament's competence. If that is the case, how should we progress the matter?
Mark Hirst: The model that we are looking for Parliament to adopt was adopted when Dunkirk municipal town council in France issued a commemorative medal to British veterans who defended Dunkirk. I have seen some of the legal advice that has been provided to the committee and think that there are probably issues with it, if not confusion surrounding the matter. The Ministry of Defence is clear about the distinction between commemorative medals and war medals: only the MOD can issue a war medal, but it says that any competent body can issue a commemorative medal. Therefore, we are asking the committee to answer a question: if French municipal town councils can issue commemorative medals to British veterans, why cannot the Scottish Parliament do so? I do not know whether it would be possible to seek a second opinion on the legal advice that the committee sought, because the advice that we have received is that Parliament can commission a medal.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): I seek clarification. What advice have we received about commemorative medals, especially about whether we can issue them?
14:15
Fergus Cochrane (Clerk): The advice that was given before the petition was lodged was that the matter would be outwith the competence of the Parliament. However, that is only advice, and
members can reflect on what recognition we give to that advice.
Rhoda Grant: Where did that advice come from?
Fergus Cochrane: It came from the Parliament's legal advisers. It is appropriate for clerks to seek advice for clarification from Parliament's lawyers in consideration of such petitions where there is an issue of competency.
Rhoda Grant: Have the petitioners made any representations to the MOD about the matter, or have they spoken to anyone at the Westminster Parliament?
Mark Hirst: The issue has been raised—we wrote to the previous Administration to ask about a commemorative medal, but the matter was passed immediately to the MOD. The MOD sent back a rather terse response saying that veterans' issues were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. There is a precedent with regard to commemorative medals in that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—as I understand it from the September 1999 business bulletin—issued a commemorative medal for MSPs. Although that was an unfortunate precedent as it attracted a bit of unfortunate publicity, there is, nonetheless, a precedent for commissioning a commemorative medal.
Rhoda Grant: Was the MOD's response that this Parliament could do something?
Mark Hirst: It said that any competent body can commission a commemorative medal, but commissioning a war medal is reserved to Westminster, and specifically to the MOD.
John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP): The question that I was going to ask regarding representation to the MOD has already been asked. As a committee, we have to express some disappointment in response to the MOD's decision. Based on what we have heard today, the majority of those who died and were injured were clearly in the service of their country at the time. That the petitioners are asking the Scottish Parliament to pick up where the MOD is failing to deliver concerns me—I hope that it also concerns other members of the committee.
The committee should make a representation through the Government to the MOD that, although the MOD previously decided not to mark the event, we urge it to do so. Although I do not want to get into the numbers game in terms of how many people from outside Scotland were killed or injured during the incident, the Scottish Parliament could end up being liable for striking commemorative medals for a large number of people who are not covered by its jurisdiction. It is an issue on which the MOD has failed to deliver.
Although I accept the comments that have been made, we need to make the strongest possible representation through the Government to the MOD, to urge the MOD to mark the event and recognise it not by issuing just a commemorative medal, but a medal that is recognised as a war medal.
The Convener: Are there any other questions from the committee at present? I know that Christine Grahame has expressed an interest.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): The MOD route has been exhausted. I am quite affected by Mark Hirst's question: if a municipal authority can issue a commemorative medal, what on earth is to stop the Scottish Parliament doing so? I challenge the legal advice and am quite happy to do so on the record. Parliament has set precedent by issuing a commemorative medal to frankly unworthy MSPs—I was one of them—who had done nothing, so we ought to challenge the suggestion that it cannot strike a commemorative medal for people who were much more worthy than us. The matter ought to be pursued
We know that the matter is not reserved, because the MOD website asks the question:
"What is the difference between 'official' and 'commemorative' medals?"
In response it says:
"The term 'official' could be used to describe any medals for which Her Majesty, or her predecessors, has given approval. Only these medals are permissible for wear on a service uniform. Commemorative medals are those which have been produced by organisations or private medal companies to commemorate particular branches of service or areas of operations."
It seems odd that some town council or company can produce a commemorative medal but the Scottish Parliament cannot.
On funding, which might be an issue, I know from shadowing a former minister who had responsibility for communities that that post has within its remit responsibility for taking up veterans' issues. Indeed, the previous Government contributed funds to various commemorative events. It gave £9,500 to the Dundee Combined Ex-Services Association, £5,000 for national veterans day and £5,000 to another war-associated commemorative event.
I have campaigned on the issue for a long time—although not as long as the campaigners—and I would be very disappointed if the matter were not pursued with vigour, even if the aim were simply to test the legal opinion. MSPs have commemorative medals in our houses, so we should pursue the case of people who are much more worthy of medals than we are.
Bashir Ahmad (Glasgow) (SNP): The Government at the time said that acknowledging the event would be bad for the morale of the country. What about now, after so long? Why cannot they acknowledge it after 67 years?
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD): I have a lot of sympathy with the petitioners.
Do we have a comprehensive list of the names of people who were on the Lancastria? I know that there are varying estimates.
Mark Hirst: We have a list of people who have come forward to contact the association over the years. We also have a list of 103 units that we know were aboard. The retreat in the face of the German advance was shambolic—in May in particular—and the British forces were just trying to get out any way they could. However, we have a list of casualties, which has been compiled by a British Commonwealth organisation, and we have lists of survivors.
Realistically, we might be looking at having to produce about 500 medals, initially. There are many members of our association who are from the same families: our proposal would be that each family who had a relative that was killed on the Lancastria would receive one medal.
The Convener: Is there a reasonable approximation of what that would cost?
Mark Hirst: We have sought a couple of quotes already. We would be happy to work in conjunction with procurement officials to ensure that best value was guaranteed. The cost will depend on the sort of metal and the die that is cast. The question that I ask in return is this: What price would you put on the ultimate sacrifice?
The Convener: It was more a practical question to ensure that if, during investigation of the issue, people suggest that the cost would be prohibitive, we can say that we have been given a reasonable ball-park figure. I do not want to get into a discussion of how we value people who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Clearly, the family members and others are concerned with the commemorative value of the medals.
Fiona Symon: The issue is to do with symbolism and the formal acknowledgement, at last, of what happened. That is what is important. The commemorative medal would be a symbol of that and that is what we all desperately need.
The Convener: I will try to summarise the views that have been expressed. If my understanding of what has been said is wrong, members can put me right.
It strikes me that there are three issues. The first is the issue of the MOD fully recognising events that have taken place during conflicts. I get from
the committee a sense that, even although there has been an exhaustive process, we should raise the point again with the MOD.
The second issue is how, if we cannot get the MOD to do what the petitioners are seeking, we can commemorate the incident, if that is appropriate, and which body makes the decision. Again, if I am wrong, members will tell me, but I believe from their contributions that Parliament's corporate body or the Scottish Government could explore that option with the remit to issue commemorative medals, if what Mark Hirst has said is accurate.
The third question is how to raise the issue with those who are responsible. Obviously, the Public Petitions Committee cannot issue commemorative medals, but we can raise the debate. It is a given that we can still raise with the MOD whether it can recognise the incident through a war medal. That is an on-going process, and I am sure that the Lancastria Association is working on that as well. Christine Grahame mentioned that the Minister for Communities and Sport has some responsibility for commissioning medals, and we could write to the corporate body to seek its views on whether Parliament could recognise the incident.
Are members comfortable with those next steps? There seems to be a general consensus to try to move the issue on—we have heard powerful testimony this afternoon.
Members indicated agreement.
The Convener: I thank Mark Hirst, Fiona Symon and the Lancastria Association for the petition. We will raise the matters directly with the responsible ministers and the corporate body, giving them a copy of the Official Report of today's discussion. We will also raise directly with the MOD that we have heard a powerful testimony this afternoon and that we hope that it can reconsider its views.
I am conscious that there was a debate around a legal interpretation—Christine Grahame is a lawyer, so she obviously has a special interest in those matters—but I do not know whether anyone wants still to explore that. The three steps that we will take are positive.
I thank Fiona Symon for her personal testimony. I know that Mark Hirst and Chris Walsh have been involved at administrative and organisational levels, as well as feeling strongly about the issue, but Fiona's submission encapsulated the challenge in trying to address commemoration. I hope that the committee might be able to move things forward. We cannot guarantee it—that is always my one caveat as convener—but the committee will certainly explore the issues on your behalf.
Fiona Symon: By 2040, when the D-notice will be lifted, I will no longer be around; neither, possibly, will my children. We are already into the third generation of families since the disaster, so it would be so good to feel that at last I had been able to do something positive for my father and all the others. Thank you.
The Convener: That is a strong message to end on. Thank you for your time, and good luck.
|
