543 Squadron Valiants and the Official Secrets Act

[DougGordon]

I'm doing some research about the activities of 543 Squadron when they flew the Reconnaissance Valiant in the late 1950s/early 1960s with a view to writing an article. I have a number of contacts as the squadron has a very active association; but there are a number of missions/detachments etc which were of a fairly clandestine nature.
This has never been a problem when I've been writing about the USAF overflights etc in the same time scale; but I fear Brit red tape may be more obstructive. I'd like to find out.
Could anyone give me any details about how the Official Secrets Act works in relation to events some 50+ years ago; and if there is an organisation I could contact which could clarify this for me.
I think that the story of the squadron at this time would be an interesting one.

[sisemen]

I suspect that the Official Secrets Act for this has about as much relevance of posting a list of targets for Lancaster squadrons in May 1944.

Try re-posting on the Military Aircrew thread. You're bound to turn up an ex aircrew mate on 543 at the time.

[DougGordon]

Thanks for the response.
I agree with you completely. However you might, or might not, be surprised to know how many would be aircrew correspondents are not happy to aid with research of this nature because of their ignorance as to whether or not the material has been declassified even after 50 years!

[ColinB]

My researches begin in 1938 and mainly concern the Valley Works, Rhydymwyn and the connection with the initial R&D on the Atomic Bomb. It also covers their postwar disposal.
All of the relevant files were released in the 1990s to TNA and what is now DEFRA records at Alnwick. We have copies of most of these. There are no secrets we are aware of but when we question some of the wartime workers they are adamant that they signed the Official Secrets Acts and they are sworn to silence for ever. The questions we wish answers to relate to everyday events and their social life but the answer is still no.
It appears that there was a later Cold War use of the site from the 1960s onwards but with a little persuasion MOD, the Treasury and the Cabinet Office all released files up to 1980. Very interesting files concerning the Bank of England gold and other now redundant contingency plans.
My conclusion is that with rare exceptions you can access information and use it publicly up to 1981 under the 30 Year Rule but there is a problem with whether potential witnesses will accept this.
Hope this helps.

[golfbananajam]

Have you tried the Air Historical Branch

Air Historical Branch - Home (http://www.raf.mod.uk/ahb/)

[sedburgh]

A quick search in the National Archives catalogue for 543 in AIR 27 gave me this:

AIR 27/2855 No 543 Squadron: Operations Record Book. With appendices 1958 June-1960 Dec
AIR 27/2875 No 543 Squadron: Operations Record Book. With appendices 1955 Sept-1958 May
AIR 27/3117/2 No 543 Squadron: Operations Record Book. Appendices only. 1960-1965
AIR 27/3122 No 543 Squadron: Operations Record Book. With photographs 1961-1965
AIR 27/3201 No 543 Squadron: Operations Record Book. opened in 1996 1963-1967
AIR 27/3202 No 543 Squadron: Operations Record Book. With appendices opened in 1996 1966-1971

Looking at those records should give you an idea about what has been officially released.

--
Philip

[Tankertrashnav]

I am one of the organisers of a number of V Force reunions. Our most recent reunion last year was well attended by ex Valiant guys, and I am sure the same will be true of next year's event. If you want to visit our website V-Force Reunion (http://www.vforcereunion.co.uk/) you would be welcome to leave a message on the guestbook asking for any ex 543 Valiant people to contact you. Cant guarantee results, but it would be worth a try.

[Hipper]

My impression was, when I used to research at the then Public Records Office, Kew, was that most items are released after thirty years, but some - in my case German prisoner of war records where actual names can be put to comments - were held back, possibly fifty years. The idea presumably was so as not to cause difficulties for those still alive. The irony was that it was quite easy to identify some of these personnel by the jobs they did - indeed often someone, a researcher I guessed, had helpfully written the name in.

I would imagine that if interviewing personnel reluctant to talk about their experiences because of having signed the Official Secrets Act, you would need some sort of official letter to convince them it's OK. I presume that's what happened when all the Enigma stuff came out in the 1970s.

[DougGordon]

Thank you very much for all the input so far. It has been very useful. I've been in touch with Kew and, yes, I will post on V Force reunion web site.
It is difficult for me to come to terms with such a high level of secrecy such as pervades the history of various units in the RAF. In my researches on the USAF I have never encountered any reluctance to talk about the various secret missions in the 50s and 60s and, indeed, I have always found the various departments keen to help. Obtaining records is relatively easy and inexpensive.....it being possible to buy microfilm from the Air Force Historical Research Association at Maxwell very reasonably. I am waiting with some trepidation the estimate from Kew for the copies of 543 Squadron operational records. From Maxwell the equivalent in microfilm for a unit history over the same time scale would have cost about $75.00. We'll see.
A friend, ex Wing Commander, has also found it time consuming and tiresome at times and has no end of hassle just getting permission to use MOD photos. Fortunately he has persisted and published some very interesting and informative books on RAF Cold war history.
All this is a great shame because it could mean that some interesting Cold War stories never get to be properly told, like the Canberra flight over Kapustin Yar for example.....and that was in 1953, nearly 60 years ago.
Wish me luck!!

[Heimdall]

Good luck in your research and I hope you manage to uncover some interesting material. There are persistant rumours that Valiants conducted some shallow incursions into Russian airspace around the Black Sea area, but I never seen anything officially published on this topic.

The other problem you may encounter is that the really interesting files are missing from those available at Kew and if so they may well have been destroyed.

Heimdall

[ColinB]

I would imagine that if interviewing personnel reluctant to talk about their experiences because of having signed the Official Secrets Act, you would need some sort of official letter to convince them it's OK. I presume that's what happened when all the Enigma stuff came out in the 1970s.
The original revelations by F.W.Winterbotham came in November 1975 and were with official help and approval.
There are occasionally special cases for unrestricted access, Margaret Gowing had it for her trilogy on the Atomic Bomb, Hinsley for his HMSO books on intelligence and the SIPRI authors also have had this privilege concerning a number of publications. I believe institutes such as RUSI probably benefit from such special treatment.
There also appears to be be an arrangement where certain authors are given access to files just before their appearance in TNA. Peter Hennessey probably benefitted from the early viewing of the War Book before his last update of a previous work.
So, finding someone with an inside track who may have already seen the relevant TNA files may save you a lot of time

[wiggy]

I suspect that the Official Secrets Act for this has about as much relevance of posting a list of targets for Lancaster squadrons in May 1944.



Perhaps you are right but there are some who believe that where they flew their Lysander's in 43/44 should go with them to the grave......frustrating from a (amatuer) historian's point of view but maybe they are right.....

[NRU74]

I was on 543 Valiants at the end, before they were grounded, in 63/64.I only did one flight, I think out of Lossie, flying over the Kola Peninsula looking for subs leaving , once the ice had melted, from whatever the name of their base was near Murmansk
The 543 Reunion Dinner is on 7th May at Wyton- see the web site- [I'm not attending this year] suggest you write/contact one of the chaps organising it and ask that your request for info be read out and ask if anyone could give you any details.
Suspect most of the information is now so old and is no longer classified-in fact I think there are coach tours occasionally from N Norway to see what's left of the facilities there.

[27mm]

NRU74, you may have known my late Father-in-Law, George (Glyn) Stratford, who was an AEO on both Valiants and Victors. He retired in '67 from 543 Sqn at Wyton. There were certainly many interesting entries in his log books from both Valiants and Victors, which I could never persuade him to talk about!

[VIProds]

Please take a look at your PM.

Last year I filmed a Gentleman giving a talk & who flew the " Murmansk run" in Valiants with 543 Squadron & also happens to be the 543 Squadron Historian.

[DougGordon]

VIProds
Thanks for the input. I've sent you a pm

[DougGordon]

NRU74
I've sent you a pm.

[MartinSanderson]

have come in a bit late on this. I also have an interest for a book I'm writing. Two surveyors, I was one, travelled up to Northern Rhodesia in 1960 to carry out ground control for some 1/80,000 scale photography. Suspect it was a 543 mission.

[Agaricus bisporus]

Oh dear, this ridiculous British bureaucratic obsession with "signing" the Official Secrets Act. I haven't signed the Road Traffic Act or the Public Order Act. Does that mean I'm able to speed and riot with impunity, or am I just as bound by them as I am any other law? How does signing change this? Am I somehow especially bound by the OSA? Am I even more bound by it due to multiple signings? It's an interesting and novel legal concept, that!

The second (or maybe the third) time I was "asked' to sign the OSA I mischievously told them that I'd already done so previously so there was no need. I was told in a rather snotty manner that I "had to sign it" so I asked why, if I had already done so it clearly wasn't necessary to do so again and pointed out the logic used above, but no, I had to sign it again. I then asked for a copy of the act to read first as no one ever signs something without reading the small print. That almost got them cross, they didn't have one! I pointed out that a contract made under duress is invalid and if I couldn't read the Act but "had" to sign it then this was clearly compulsion. Despite this being done in a humourous spirit they were pretty crinkly-mouthed about it and I was told sharply that I signed or didn't get the job.

Interesting to know the legal position on this. If you're forced to sign something the "agreement" is invalid, that's a very basic legal fact, is it not?
Does that also nullify your basic obligation to obey the law that you had before you signed it? And what principle in Law makes adherence to any particular one more binding than the obligation you already have? Variable levels of adherence to a law depending on a signature? Fascinating concept.

Any Lawyers like to comment on this bizarre business?

[Harley Quinn]

From Wiki (yes I know), but this does make sense:

People working with sensitive information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_sensitivity) are commonly required to sign a statement to the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act. This is popularly referred to as "signing the Official Secrets Act." Signing this has no effect on which actions are legal, as the act is a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law), not a contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract), and individuals are bound by it whether or not they have signed it. Signing it is intended more as a reminder to the person that they are under such obligations. To this end, it is common to sign this statement both before and after a period of employment that involves access to secrets.

[ricardian]

Being pedantic - you don't sign the Official Secrets Act, the Queen signed the Bill thus making it into an Act. What you sign is a a certificate (containing a precis of the important bits) which says you've read and understand your responsibilities. However, most folk find themselves signing the same certificate several times to fulfill some local rules.

[ian16th]

I signed it for the last time, the day I was demobbed.

If I'd declined, would I have been kept in?

[boguing]

I signed it in 1980-ish. As a twenty something year old.

I think that it focuses the mind. I know stuff about ships and submarines that people would probably pay for. But I would do the patriotic thing. I no nuffink..

So don't beat anybody up because of it. A lot of us use our own judgement as to what we know and can tell.