|
Proliferation in ParliamentBack to Proliferation in Parliament, Winter 2008 Westminster ParliamentNuclear Test Veterans
Chernobyl Children
Nuclear Test VeteransEx-servicemen: Radiation Exposure, Written Answers, 15 Dec 2008 : Column 337WAnnette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on commissioning research into the potential health effects on children and grandchildren of nuclear test veterans of their forebears' exposure to radiation during tests; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Kevan Jones: Following an offer I made during the adjournment
debate on 22 October 2008, Official R eport, column 417, I met with the
hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and my hon. Friend the Member for
Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and members of the British Nuclear Test Veterans
Association on 29 October to discuss the possibility of a new MOD funded
study on health experiences particularly in relation to offspring. Officials
have been discussing the scientific and ethical issues relevant to such
a study with the BNTVA and scientific advisers and I hope to be able to
make an announcement in the new year. Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 15 Dec 2008 : Column 339WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the answer of 24 November 2008, Official Report, column 904W, on nuclear weapons, whether beryllium was used in the nuclear trials codenamed (a) Hurricane, (b) Totem, (c) Mosaic, (d) Buffalo, (e) Grapple, (f) Antler, (g) Grapple X, (h) Grapple Y and (i) Grapple Z. Mr. Kevan Jones: I can confirm that Beryllium was used in the
nuclear trial series codenamed Hurricane, Totem, Mosaic, Buffalo, Grapple,
Antler, Grapple X, Grapple Y, and Grapple Z. Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 24 Nov 2008 : Column 904WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the UK's nuclear bombs exploded during (a) the major trials of the 1950s and 1960s in Australia and the Pacific Island Oceans and (b) the minor tests code-named Kittens, Tims, Rats and Vixen conducted at Maralinga, contained beryllium. Mr. Kevan Jones: Beryllium was employed in major weapon design trials undertaken in Australia and the Pacific Islands in the 1950s. The UK did not carry out any major trials in the 1960s. Beryllium was also used in minor trials in the 1950s and 1960s, including
some in the four series referred to. It has not proved possible in the
time available to determine which individual tests in these four series
did involve Beryllium. Beryllium, Written Answers, 29 Oct 2008 : Column 1030WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has (a) undertaken and (b) evaluated on the possible health effects of beryllium on humans. Mr. Kevan Jones: The MOD has undertaken three studies on the health effects of beryllium between 1979 and 1990 as part of an ongoing commitment to the health and safety of its employees. These studies involved 338 individual tests for an allergy to beryllium. 16 positive test results were found from workers at the Atomic Weapons Establishments at Aldermaston and Cardiff. The significance of positive tests remains uncertain and no firm conclusions can be drawn. MOD continues to evaluate and contribute to the understanding of the
possible health effects of beryllium through AWE’s contribution to national
and international industry working groups on the subject. British Nuclear Test Veterans, Adjournment Debate, 22 Oct 2008 : Column 417Mr. John Baron (Billericay) (Con): Not many people have witnessed a British nuclear explosion, but those who have will be following this debate closely, for I intend to ask the Minister whether the Government will repay a debt of honour to surviving veterans of our nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s. The issue is not new. Successive Governments have been aware of the facts for quite a while, but I am raising the matter again because a number of new factors have come into play. The first is that there has been new scientific evidence from Dr. Al Rowland in New Zealand to suggest that veterans have suffered as a result of their exposure to radiation. Secondly, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and I held a cross-party inquiry last year which raised new facts and disclosures. Meanwhile, other countries are moving well ahead of us in recognising their veterans. Here in Britain we lag shamefully behind. The Government even appear to be backtracking on a promise to replicate the New Zealand study on our veterans. The history to the debate needs to be understood. Between 15,000 and 20,000 servicemen took part in Britain’s nuclear tests, which included Operation Grapple on Malden Island and Christmas Island in 1957-58. Other tests took place at Monte Bello islands, Maralinga, and Emu field. It is thought that only about 3,000 veterans are alive today. Many of those involved believe they were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation that resulted in their own ill health and that of their descendents. Veterans and their families seeking redress in the form of a war pension encounter a frustrating tribunal system that is both inconsistent and subject to delays. For many years, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association or BNTVA has campaigned for recognition for its 800 or so surviving veteran members, and many more widows and offspring, but successive Governments have used a controversial series of reports by the National Radiological Protection Board or NRPB to insist that no harm was done. It was against that backdrop that research from New Zealand last year threw light on a possible link between participation in the tests and possible genetic changes in veterans. The hon. Member for Norwich, North and I therefore believed that the time was right to hold a cross-party inquiry to look at this question again. We took evidence over two days from scientists and veterans, but the Ministry of Defence declined to contribute. Our inquiry heard clear personal testimony that makes us question whether adequate radiological safety standards were followed for the tests. For one thing, there is a concern that some veterans were simply too close to the epicentre of the blast. Witnesses described their experiences of a heat wave of extraordinary intensity, leading in some cases to temporary blindness or a sensation of blood boiling within their bodies. Others developed skin rashes and flu-like symptoms immediately after the detonations. My constituent Mr. Eric Everard says: “The whole of my back was a blister afterwards. There was no protective clothing; we didn’t go in bunkers or anything. We just stood on the beach.” 22 Oct 2008 : Column 418 There were many similar stories of men being mustered on to beaches or on the decks of ships to witness the explosions and many suffering afterwards. In our inquiry, we also saw little evidence that fallout and the dangers from ingested radioactive particles were taken seriously after the tests. Servicemen were free to move around the island, drinking local water, eating local fruits, bathing in the lagoons and breathing in dust, all of which could have been contaminated. That is worrying, because ingested radioactive particles from fallout can remain in the body and continue to harm for many years. As I have suggested, successive Governments—I hope that the Minister realises that this is not a party political issue—have used the NRPB series of reports to argue that test veterans have not experienced poor health, but endless concerns have been raised about those reports, which have never commanded the respect of veteran groups. I do not intend to go into the issues now, as time is not on our side, but I suggest to the Minister that the key point is that NRPB reports go only so far. They are studies of cancer mortality—in other words, counting cancer deaths—that tell us nothing about the underlying genetic changes in veterans or other ill health among them or their descendants. That is why our inquiry took such a close interest in the Al Rowland study from New Zealand and the Chris Busby survey undertaken through the BNTVA. The study of the genetic status of New Zealand veterans, which was carried out by Dr. Al Rowland and his team at Massey university, showed a very high frequency of translocations in the chromosomes of veterans as compared with a carefully matched control group. Dr. Rowland certainly believes that the probable cause is exposure to radiation, which can be attributed to participation in Operation Grapple. The report concluded: “We would encourage those in authority to initiate research to” confirm “our findings by conducting a similar study on British and Fijian personnel who also took part in Operation Grapple.” That call was wholeheartedly endorsed by our inquiry last year. We believe that funding should be made available by the Ministry of Defence for a new independent research team to replicate the Rowland study in this country. After I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Member for Norwich, North and I had a meeting with the Prime Minister and then with the Minister’s predecessor in February this year. It was our clear and distinct impression from that meeting that the Rowland study would be replicated here by the British Government if it was peer-reviewed. Yet despite its being peer-reviewed in a respectable scientific journal, the Government seem now to be prevaricating. A letter from the Minister’s predecessor dated 23 August stated that the Government would be “carefully considering comments from the scientific community before making any decision”. Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his tenacity and acknowledge how enjoyable it has been working on the survey with him. 22 Oct 2008 : Column 419 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the scientists who came to our inquiry had some ideas about conducting it along the right lines in order to get an answer one way or the other. It certainly was my understanding when we talked to the previous Minister that that was going to happen. I would like publicly to congratulate Al Rowland, whom I met at Massey. He gave me the data relating to his work; it has opened up a hornet’s nest that cannot be denied in terms of further research. Mr. Baron: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I have already put on record my thanks to him for being a co-party in our inquiry, and in the efforts that we have made so far. I am pleased to hear his confirmation that it was our understanding that an Al Rowland-type study would be undertaken if it was peer-reviewed, which it has now been. I hope that the new Minister will tell us whether the Government intend to keep the promise made at our meeting. The Busby report is important for a similar reason. It examines the legacy of nuclear testing for subsequent and future generations. The results of a questionnaire study of BNTVA members and their offspring conducted last year suggest much higher levels of miscarriage, still birth, infant mortality and congenital illness in veterans’ children, both in a national context and in the context of control children. Some of the experiences revealed by the study are quite distressing. Among veterans the number of miscarriages was 105, compared with 18 in the control group. The rate of still births was 26 per 1,000 births, compared with 10 in the control group. The rate of congenital defects among veterans’ children was almost 10 times that among other children. The defects included cataracts at birth, deformed spines, muscle wasting, deafness, excess and missing teeth, and holes in the stomach and heart. My constituent Mr. Eric Everard certainly believes that the effects of the radiation to which he was exposed were passed on to his son Darran, who died of a genetic connective tissue disease when he was only 22 years old. Such reports are not unusual among veterans. Dr. Busby concluded: “It is clear that the veterans received significant genetic damage as a result of their period near the test sites.” The findings of that research echoed the earlier findings of Dr. Sue Rabbitt Roth of Dundee university, which I understand was peer-reviewed in 1999—a fact overlooked by the Government. That snapshot is deeply worrying, and suggests a sinister genetic legacy for future generations. I would go as far as to suggest that there is a ticking time bomb of ill health that the Government need to recognise. The Minister must not underestimate the real anger that exists outside this place about Government inaction. To help future generations, we need to understand the scope of the problem. That is why I believe that Dr. Busby’s study should be replicated rigorously, and the Government should provide the funds. The final recommendation of our inquiry report concerned pension appeal tribunals, which provide the mechanism for veterans or their widows to appeal against the more or less automatic decision not to award a war pension. The system is complex and long-winded and judgment is often inconsistent, with precedent not being applied from one hearing to the next. Veterans with 22 Oct 2008 : Column 420 almost identical experiences and conditions receive different outcomes. Our inquiry therefore called for a complete overhaul of the system, perhaps even removing nuclear test veterans from the war pensions process altogether because they are such a unique group. I suggest that the Minister and representatives of the Ministry of Defence should sit down with the veterans and sort the problem out—a process that will require political courage and leadership. Let me deliver a final thought to the Minister. We are not dealing with this issue in isolation, and we are already being left hopelessly far behind other nations in terms of honouring our debt of gratitude to veterans. The Isle of Man Government will pay compensation in the region of £8,000 to each of the estimated eight Manx veterans involved in the tests, the New Zealand Government have already provided money for the Al Rowlands experiments and scientific tests, and the Canadian Government have offered to settle with their test veterans. In the United States, “atomic veterans” are eligible for presumptive compensation based on 21 identified cancers. A person who has one of those cancers and was involved in the tests will receive compensation automatically. The contrast between the different approaches is well illustrated by the case of Mr. Roy Prescott, whose son wrote to me during our inquiry. He was one of 500 British servicemen who, having served on Christmas Island, were loaned to the United States for further tests on the island in the early 1960s. Mr. Prescott later became ill and applied for a British war pension, but that was turned down. He then applied to the United States compensation programme, was accepted and received a substantial one-off payment. We therefore see the absurdity of other countries compensating our own veterans because we have failed to do so. The Ministry of Defence has been cagey and resistant for too long. We owe a duty of care to our test veterans. The Minister is new in his position and I ask him to commit to a fresh appraisal regarding our debt of gratitude. This is not a party political issue. My early-day motion 156 attracted signatures from Members in all parts of the House. I therefore ask the Minister some very simple questions. Will he now replicate the Rowland study on British veterans? What further study is he prepared to carry out on the descendents of veterans—a matter that could be with us for many years to come? Will he sit down with veterans and address the question of tribunals and compensation, and do it now? These veterans just want justice for themselves and their descendents. They served their country. What they now expect is their country to be honest with them. While any solution is likely to be characterised as much by political compromise as by scientific rigour, this is, without doubt, a political problem. Time is now short, and I suggest to the new Minister that the best should not be the enemy of the good. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Kevan Jones): I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to the work done by him and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). I know about the tremendous work they contributed to the inquiry of last year. 22 Oct 2008 : Column 421 I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I wish to begin by putting it on the record that the Ministry of Defence recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in these nuclear tests. They were important tests that helped to keep this nation secure at a difficult time in terms of nuclear technology. The hon. Gentleman rightly noted that if harm has been caused to these individuals and the Ministry of Defence and this nation are responsible, they should be offered redress. However, I think he would agree with me that any claim for compensation should be evidence-based. Evidence should be brought forward and determined on an individual basis. I also think we can agree that there is no doubt about the sincerity of the veterans; I would not question for one minute their testimony or that of their families. It is important that we do not question or criticise them in any way. The vital issue, however, is whether we can link the conditions that some individuals and families have with those individuals having been present at the nuclear tests. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, previous Governments as well as this Government have looked at the evidence and have come to the conclusion that no evidence has been demonstrated to link those conditions with presence at the tests. The hon. Gentleman’s report conceded that current scientific evidence does not generally support the view that there has been an increased risk of ill health or death among the test participants. Even though Dr. Rowland’s recent study indicates that genetic damage was present among the small cohort of individuals that he examined, it did not go on to draw any link between the genetic abnormalities found in the chromosomes and any conditions such as cancers. That report has been held up as an important piece of research, but it does not help to move forward the argument for drawing that link between damage to chromosomes and conditions such as cancers that developed later. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give a commitment to replicate the Rowland study. He mentioned a meeting. I was not present, so I have asked my officials what was said. They have told me that it is quite clear that no clear commitment was given. I have examined the study in detail since I found that the debate was coming up, and I have come to the conclusion that it would be very difficult to replicate in the case of the individuals whom we are discussing. I am not sure what such a study would add to the debate if it led to the same conclusions that Rowland came to. Mr. Baron: Nevertheless, it is an important piece of the jigsaw. The clear recollection from our meeting with the Minister’s predecessor is that a promise was given on condition that the study was peer-reviewed. It now has been, and we hope that the Government will reconsider their position. I am not expecting an answer now, but all I ask is for the Minister to think about it. Mr. Jones: I shall certainly address that point and return to the matter of the peer review at a later date. When my predecessor met the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, he stated clearly that the Department would examine the Rowland research and take expert advice on it, and that has been done. 22 Oct 2008 : Column 422 The hon. Gentleman mentioned other countries’ payments to their nuclear test veterans. What is unique in this country is that consecutive Governments have accepted that people who can prove that exposure to radiation caused them harm can apply for the war pensions scheme. That is not the case in other countries, so to say that we have done nothing is a little harsh on the current and previous Governments. I add that the burden of proof in the war pensions scheme is generous. The hon. Gentleman complained about inconsistency in the cases involving the war pensions scheme. I accept that people have felt that, but they do have the right to go to a pensions appeal tribunal and ultimately, on a point of law, to the social security commissioners. I used to deal with tribunals and I accept that inconsistencies can appear to happen, but individual cases have to be considered on an individual basis. The Department has examined some of the cases involved and has not found inconsistencies, but if the hon. Gentleman or the nuclear test veterans want specific cases to be examined, I am quite prepared to ask the Ministry of Justice to do so. It is important to get credibility. A separate system would be difficult, and it would not lead to the payments that many of the individuals who come forward currently get. The other route of access to justice is common law, and the hon. Gentleman will know that 1,000 nuclear test veterans have taken group litigation. The Ministry of Defence served a summary defence on 21 January, and a preliminary trial on the issue of limitation is due to commence on 19 January next year. It has been reported in the media that the matter of limitation is simply a technicality, but that is not the case. It is important that the matter is examined from a legal point of view, especially given that many of the key witnesses are no longer alive and that the evidence of others needs testing because of age or infirmity. I do not want to say a great deal more about that, because it is right that we let the legal process take its due course. The hon. Gentleman made some emotive points about the offspring of test veterans. I accept that it is not easy for the families that have disabled children and that they find some of the responses that politicians give difficult to take. We need to examine the matter, but to say that there has been no research is wrong. I am told that good-quality research has been done on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, examining ill health among children born to survivors. That needs to be taken into account. I genuinely do understand the British nuclear test veterans’ concern about this issue, on which they have placed a great deal of importance. At a recent meeting with my predecessor, they expressed the view that they wanted this issue to be looked at, putting more weight on doing that than on carrying out a “Rowland mark 2” type study. I have listened carefully and looked at the files in the short time that I have been in the Ministry, and I think it is important to get experts to look in detail at what has already been done and what can be done. This is not a simple task, and this afternoon I perhaps upset some of my officials by being a bit impatient in trying to get instant answers. The logistics will prove difficult because of the passage of time, loss of data and other such issues. However, my predecessor said he would meet representatives of the group in the autumn, and I am determined to move this agenda forwards. I 22 Oct 2008 : Column 423 make an offer tonight to meet the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and representatives of British nuclear test veterans next week, so that we can discuss the possibility of taking forward a study on health experiences and issues associated with veterans’ offspring. Once that meeting has taken place, I propose to ask officials to discuss with the experts the best way to design and develop a possible research programme. It is important that this study and the terms of reference for it are correct, and that we are not asking people to do the impossible. That is a commitment that I give today. Dr. Gibson: I welcome my hon. Friend’s very positive attitude towards helping in his early days in office. One of the logistical problems that we came up against was finding out where vets were, which is why it is very important that he has invited them along, because they may be able to help in finding out where all those folks live now, so that we can get decent numbers. It will be difficult, but I really do welcome my hon. Friend’s positive approach. Perhaps we will get to the bottom of this once and for all. Mr. Jones: I am very grateful for that, and it is important that we meet next week to see what input the nuclear test veterans can have into the process. That could help, and I am quite prepared to listen to what they have to say. Once officials have met and experts 22 Oct 2008 : Column 424 have come together to design and develop a research programme, I will make an announcement, before Christmas. Mr. Baron: I sense that the Minister is about to conclude, so may I, too, put on the record my thanks for his positive response? He has decided to try to move this issue forward, certainly with regard to descendants, which I very much welcome. I look forward to that meeting next week, and I know that the BNTVA will also be looking forward to it. We should not forget that it has a database of at least 800 surviving veterans, which can help with that process. I want also to thank the Minister for his promise to sit down with the veterans and look at inconsistencies in the tribunal process, and to explore whether any progress can be made where inconsistencies have occurred. Those are two positive steps that we did not necessarily have months ago. Mr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I hope to make
an announcement before Christmas on the way forward. It will not answer
all the issues raised in his inquiry, but I am determined to see whether
we can at least get some movement and give some comfort, although I accept
that the report might not come to any great conclusion. At least we are
going to move the process on, which will give the sense to nuclear test
veterans that they are being listened to. Nuclear Weapons: Compensation, Written Answers, 15 Oct 2008 : Column 1250WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs to his Department to date of legal advice relating to claims made by nuclear test veterans claiming compensation from the Government; and how much is expected to be spent in the next 12 weeks. Mr. Kevan Jones: Legal costs to the Department relating to compensation
claims brought by nuclear test veterans up to 24 July 2008 amount to £968,050.00.
The estimated subsequent costs are £543,300.00. Chernobyl ChildrenChernobyl Children, Written Answers, 4 Nov 2008 : Column 279WMr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will take steps to facilitate arrangements for children from Chernobyl to be able to travel to the UK in accordance with the motion passed at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 13 October 2008. Caroline Flint: The Government support the motion of the Council
of Europe calling on the Belarusian authorities to end the travel ban
for children who participate in various assistance programmes. The British
ambassador to Belarus has been in close contact with the authorities in
Minsk, raising our concerns. UK arrangements have worked well, with a
high standard of care and safe return of the children to their guardians.
We hope to find an amicable resolution of the issue to allow the resumption
of these programmes. Back to Proliferation in Parliament, Winter 2008 © 2009 The Acronym Institute. |