Nuclear Test Programme Veterans
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-1229, in the name of Andrew Welsh, on nuclear testing-related illnesses. The debate will be concluded, without any question being put, after 30 minutes.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the possible correlation between participation in the UK's Nuclear Test Programme in the 1950s and the development of subsequent illnesses; congratulates Dundee University on its progress toward the development of a new diagnostic procedure and management clinic for individuals exposed to injurious amounts of ionising radiation, and supports the University's attempts to develop a centre of excellence to deal with the health hazards of long term and accidental radiation exposure.
The tale of the United Kingdom's nuclear test veterans is one with which most members should be familiar. The image of men lined up on the beach with no protection other than their bare hands is the image that springs most readily to mind. More than 40,000 servicemen took part in 12 British atomic tests in Australia and the Pacific ocean between 1952 and 1962. Few could have suspected that they would be the subject of a debate almost 50 years later. However, the sorry conclusion to the UK's nuclear testing programme is that of the veterans' fight for compensation.
Many veterans believe that health problems that they have developed subsequently are attributable to their exposure to ionising radiation from the tests. Although successive British Governments have refused to recognise such a link, it is the veterans' determination to seek justice that has brought the issue to the Scottish Parliament today. My interest in the topic came as a result of a visit from my constituent Mr Tom Duggan who, I am delighted to say, has joined us in the gallery today.
A former Royal Air Force catering assistant, Tom Duggan witnessed four nuclear blasts while stationed on Christmas island during 1958 and 1959. In 1991, he developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which was followed by a prolonged period of illness. Following his fight back to health, Tom Duggan applied for a war pension, believing that his illness was attributable to his participation in the nuclear tests. Although ionising radiation is a textbook cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and one of the 15 conditions recognised in the United States Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 1990 as being associated with exposure and thus eligible for compensation, the War Pensions Agency refused his application.
When Tom Duggan challenged the decision, the pensions appeals tribunal stated that although there was considerable doubt about the evidence submitted by the Ministry of Defence, Mr Duggan had not himself produced enough evidence to raise a reasonable proof that his condition was attributable to service. Tom has never accepted that ruling and has continually challenged the tribunal's decision. As he says:
"They keep on denying, denying, denying until you're dead. They're mad at me because I'm still alive. I hate the anger inside of me from all their denials because they know we are telling the truth."
Although Tom Duggan's case is tragic, it is by no means unique. In fact, it is symptomatic of the treatment that test veterans have experienced at the hands of successive UK Governments. Their justification for denying the link between the tests and the subsequent development of illnesses comes from two reports by the National Radiological Protection Board, the most recent of which was published in 1993 and concluded that there was no disproportionate death rate amongst nuclear participants.
However, research by Sue Rabbit Roff of Dundee University has challenged those findings. Her research has uncovered new evidence of very high rates among test veterans of one form of blood cancer, multiple myeloma. As a result, last year the Ministry of Defence announced a further study into the incidence of multiple myeloma among British test veterans, which has subsequently been extended to cover all cancers and causes of death.
Further to that research, Sue Rabbit Roff has put together a world-class team of experts who could take the research beyond the statistical. Along with her colleagues at Dundee University, she has commenced pilot studies of the blood and saliva of surviving nuclear test veterans to establish the amount of damage that their systems sustained as a result of radiation exposure 40 or more years ago.
Although the research has focused on veterans of the UK's nuclear tests, the development of a new diagnostic procedure could have a wider application. It could be used in the nuclear industry in all its forms to establish occupational health hazards. With its nuclear industry and military facilities, Scotland could benefit greatly from a centre of excellence to deal with the health hazards of long-term and accidental radiation exposure. The internationally recognised, state-of-the-art team at Dundee provides Scotland with an opportunity to develop this resource and, potentially, to market it throughout the world as an occupational health measure and as a rapid response to nuclear accidents.
To date, funding for the research has totalled £100,000, of which £40,000 has come from the New Zealand Government, as an expression of its duty of care to the New Zealand naval contingent that was seconded to the UK tests.
Sue Rabbit Roff and her team are currently in dialogue with Scottish Enterprise in an effort to secure the £250,000 that is necessary to carry out this project. As Remembrance Day approaches and we remember the dead of world wars, we should also remember the living. The Scottish Parliament may not have jurisdiction over compensation and pensions, but today we can take a crucial step towards helping our nuclear test veterans. Not only can we send a strong message to our Westminster colleagues, but by supporting Sue Rabbit Roff in developing her research, we can use the power of the Parliament in Scotland to help her cause. More important, we can send a message to all our nuclear test veterans—the Tom Duggans of this world—that this is a listening Parliament and that we care. I ask Parliament to support the motion.
I welcome Andrew Welsh's motion. I note that he has raised this issue in the House of Commons, which is appropriate given Westminster's responsibility for pensions.
If we have learned anything from issues such as BSE, it is that we should always listen to the patient. When we lose sight of that, we become divorced from reality. I am delighted that Mr Duggan is here today. We are listening to him and congratulate him on the progress that is being made on this issue as a result of one man's anger.
My colleague Ben Wallace was scheduled to speak in this debate. He is more familiar with this matter than I am, but he regrets that he is unable to speak in the debate because he is not well today. The chamber will have to forgive my lack of knowledge on the issue.
There have been two NRPB reports. It was stated in a written answer to Andrew Welsh in the House of Commons that the report in 1988 confirmed that
"participation in the UK tests has not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life, nor on their risk of developing cancer in general. It did, however, raise a reasonable doubt that leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and multiple myeloma might be due to participation. Whilst the NRPB Report did not causally relate leukaemia and multiple myeloma specifically to participation in the nuclear weapons tests, its evidence was nevertheless accepted as raising a reasonable doubt that leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and multiple myeloma may have resulted from such participation."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 12 May 2000; Vol 349, c 497W.]
I am pleased to reiterate the point that Andrew Welsh made about the 1993 report, although its conclusions may not have been to his satisfaction.
The 1993 report suggested that the small hazard of myeloma, which was suggested in 1988, was not supported by the additional data. However, the possibility of a risk of developing leukaemia in the first 25 years after participation could not be ruled out. There is no change in the policy, which was effective from 11 December 1993, if the participant developed a condition within 25 years of participation in the tests.
I am pleased that the research did not begin and end in 1988 or 1993. From that point of view, I welcome the contribution that Dundee University—and Sue Roff in particular—is making to moving the research forward. I know that politicians are easy targets for criticism, but how many members—apart from Richard Simpson—are scientific academics with a great knowledge of the research on these complex matters? I will put in a word for politicians here—we can rule only on the best evidence available to us.
I am delighted to hear that the clinical assessment programme studies will help to clarify the situation and that the work in Dundee will help to develop a diagnostic system for use in the nuclear industry, in all its forms, to establish occupational health hazards. I am delighted that that will help in the understanding of variations in radiosensitivity among individuals. Although I appreciate that the funding relates specifically to war veterans, there is no doubt that the research will enable us to gain a greater understanding of these issues for the benefit of everyone who works in the nuclear industry. At this point, I note the billions of pounds that have been allocated to decommissioning the Dounreay plant.
I am the reporter for the Health and Community Care Committee on the alleged link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism. If I have learned one thing from that, it is that it is very difficult to consider contradictory evidence and make a reasoned, considered, fair and just judgment.
I thank Andrew Welsh for raising this issue today.
I begin by congratulating Andrew Welsh on securing this debate. He succeeded where I failed, as I lodged a similar motion earlier in the year. I thank all the members who signed that motion. It is an example of teamwork that Andrew took the opportunity to lodge another motion.
Earlier this year, Andrew Welsh and I organised a small reception with the nuclear test veterans here at the Parliament in Edinburgh. They provided considerable insight into their experiences when they participated in nuclear tests in a variety of places around the world.
I pay tribute to the work that Sue Roff has undertaken at Dundee University. Andrew Welsh detailed the research that has been carried out there. She has put in a tremendous amount of work to try to establish the link between nuclear test veterans and the cancer that many of them have suffered.
I, too, welcome Mr Duggan, who I met earlier this year in Edinburgh. I remember well his recollections of his experiences when he was working during nuclear tests. Unfortunately, my constituent, Ken Sutton from Bonnybridge, who is also a nuclear test veteran, is unable to be with us for the debate. Ken is a former RAF electrician who witnessed the hydrogen bomb tests on Christmas island. He also tested the warheads at Maralinga in the Australian desert. When he was sent to Australia he was given no warning of what he was going to do there; he was told that he would be working on wiring up the airfield. When he arrived, he found that his job was to fly through the mushroom cloud caused by testing the bombs to assist in measuring the density of the radiation.
He was told to look away when the bomb exploded. The only protection he had was a cotton cloth to cover his mouth and nose. Decontamination consisted of having a shower. In the 1940s and 1950s, health and safety was not a priority for the Government or the services. Ken now suffers from a form of skin cancer that he believes is attributable to flying through radioactive clouds.
Ken and his colleagues in the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association have fought a dignified campaign for recognition of what they experienced for many years. All they are asking for is that the Government recognises that mistakes were made while they were on active service for their country. They do not blame this Government; they argue that a mistake was made by a Government in the past. It is time to recognise that. Some form of compensation or pension would mean the Government giving the elderly gentlemen concerned a better quality of life.
It would be appropriate, in this week of remembrance, when we remember all those who sacrificed their life for their country, that we recognise the sacrifice of such men. We should also remember that they were not informed about the potential risk they were put under. I hope that the Minister for Health and Community Care will take the matter up and make it clear to ministers at Westminster that action must be taken sooner rather than later because the gentlemen concerned are getting older by the day—and there are fewer of them every year.
I had intended only to listen today but having heard the passionate advocacy of the nuclear veterans' case by Andrew Welsh and Michael Matheson, and the considered speech by Mary Scanlon, I felt that I should make a contribution.
One of the greatest dangers for politicians is that, when we are faced with cases that are of such deep concern and where lives have been seriously affected, we are moved to a compassionate judgment that may not be a considered one. The analogy that Mary Scanlon made is a good one—
I am surprised that Dr Simpson refers to the judgment as compassionate rather than rational, given that New Zealand and the United States of America have already recognised such cases.
I was going to go on to say that the problem is that the analysis must be based on the evidence available. The NRPB reports up to 1993 were fairly clear that the numbers of cancer cases at that point were not statistically significant. We are faced with the question of how valid that judgment is now. One thing that we must do, just as we must with the link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism, is to say that at this point in time—1993 in the case that we are discussing and this year in the case of MMR—the evidence does not show that there is a link. However, the negative is also difficult to prove. The matter is severely difficult.
It is all about proof. That is why it is important to carry through the research of Sue Roff. Is Dr Simpson aware that, among her sample, which is made up of 12 per cent of all British nuclear veterans, 30 per cent of the men had already died—mostly in their 50s—and that, as the men grow older, the rate of deaths is accelerating? That is the sort of evidence—as opposed to the previous evidence—that we should be considering much more carefully.
I support what Andrew Welsh is saying. We must constantly keep this under review. If there is new evidence, or if the previous evidence was inadequate and did not cover the field well enough, we should definitely review it. However, this issue is not like the case that has recently been discussed in another place—mesothelioma in relation to asbestosis. In that case, the link is absolutely clear; there is no question but that exposure to asbestosis causes that form of cancer. Many people have Hodgkin's disease, for example, which may or may not be caused by the exposure that they have had.
In every generation to come, we will be faced with risks that we will be unable to quantify. This Parliament will do its best to ensure that the health and safety elements are dealt with at the level and standard that we regard as appropriate at that time—although we may find that level inappropriate later. We must deal with the situation as we find it now. In other words, we should be compassionate and support the individuals affected. We should perhaps not even require the level of proof that is normally required. We should perhaps say to people such as those whose situation has been described by Andrew Welsh that, even if the proof is not available, we should do something to support their quality of life, remembering that they served us well and that we must do something for them.
I congratulate Andrew Welsh on obtaining this debate. Several effective contributions have been made and I am aware that Andrew has taken a sincere interest in this subject—indeed, he has raised it through questions at Westminster. I recognise the real concerns that have been raised by test veterans over a long period and I have listened carefully to the points that have been made.
In responding, I wish to address two strands. The first is the substance of the debate; the second is the constitutional point and where responsibility lies. As Andrew Welsh rightly said, this Parliament and Executive have no jurisdiction over compensation or pensions issues with respect to this matter, nor do they have any responsibility for the United Kingdom nuclear test programme, which is a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, I hope that it will be appreciated that, as a member of the Scottish Executive, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to express a view on matters that are the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament.
Which of the Ewings would you like, minister?
I will let them choose.
I am grateful to both the minister and my wife for giving way. The minister has just said that it is not appropriate for the Scottish Executive to take a view on this matter, but it might be a helpful precedent were this Parliament to express a view in public on such a matter. Does she agree with the views of Tony Blair, Donald Dewar, Alistair Darling and Jim Wallace, among others, in 1990, when the Labour party supported an amendment that would have given war pensions to nuclear test veterans with cancer?
There are a number of sensitive, important issues in this debate that I would like to comment on. It would be unfortunate to treat this issue as a constitutional football. I simply note the factual position on jurisdiction and the respective responsibilities: I would certainly object if the Westminster Parliament told this Parliament what decisions to take and I respect the respective roles of the two Parliaments in terms of our constitutional settlement.
Will the minister give way on a different point?
I want to move on to some of the substantive points that have been raised, and to comment on some of the delicate issues that Richard Simpson has highlighted.
In my job as Minister for Health and Community Care, I regularly meet people suffering from debilitating conditions who are searching, with their families, for the root cause of their condition. Research continues all the time into a range of different areas. All the time, we get better at answering questions about what caused an individual's disease or ill health, but sometimes we cannot answer such questions. As Mary Scanlon rightly said, all we can do is to rule on the best evidence available to us. That often results in the fact that we, as the Government, have to reach judgments that do not always satisfy.
Independent advice is in place on these issues and I want to put some facts on the record. The Scottish Executive obtains advice from and part funds the National Radiological Protection Board, to which members have referred. The NRPB is an independent statutory body, established in 1970 to provide advice on how to protect the public, workers and people undergoing medical treatment from radiation health hazards. The NRPB gives advice on ionising and non-ionising radiation. As has been mentioned, two epidemiological studies into the health of nuclear test veterans have been carried out by the NRPB in conjunction with the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, which is an independent charity. On the basis of the results of those studies, published in 1988 and 1993, the authors concluded that participation in the test programme had not had a detectable effect on the participants' expectation of life or on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases, although the possibility that test participation may have caused a small risk of leukaemia in the early years after the test cannot be completely ruled out.
The minister does not want to comment on UK policy, but she and the Executive are in a position to assist research. If the New Zealand Government is willing to give money to research, why cannot the Scottish Executive?
I will come to that issue in a moment. I want to comment further on the work that is under way.
I stress that the situation is kept under review. I understand that the NRPB, with funding from the Ministry of Defence, is conducting further studies into all causes of death and incidences of cancer among nuclear test veterans, with special attention given to multiple myeloma. I welcome the fact that that work is under way.
Does the minister ensure that, when individuals ask for their medical records to be released from the Ministry of Defence, those records are released? Many of my constituents have experienced difficulty.
I am aware that that issue has been raised before. If Margaret Ewing is aware of specific cases into which she wants me to look, I am happy to do that.
As I said, further work is under way through the NRPB, funded through the Ministry of Defence. The period of follow-up and cross-checking of data has been extended and that phase of the research is approaching completion. When completed, the study will be evaluated by peer review and will be published in open literature. Subject to the time that that process takes, it is hoped that the results of the study will be available early next year.
As a number of members have said, research is also being undertaken at the University of Dundee. I am aware of the work and I understand that veterans of UK nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and 1960s approached Sue Roff in 1996 in relation to the research into the issues that concerned them. The Ministry of Defence has been aware of the studies being undertaken by Sue Roff for some time. The MOD has advised us that it and experts in the field of analytical studies have some reservations about the methodologies used. A particular concern is whether the sample population will be truly random or composed of volunteers and therefore self-selecting. I am sure that that is a matter that the MOD and Sue Roff will pursue further.
Andrew Welsh asked whether the work that is being undertaken at the University of Dundee should be pursued to establish a centre of excellence. It is worth noting what would constitute a centre of excellence. We often face requests for centres of excellence to be formally recognised. Such a centre is best described as a body or location that is recognised by industry as a centre of expertise that involves close co-operation between private industry and higher and further education and delivers skills support of international standard. I advise members that the enterprise and lifelong learning department is considering how to progress that concept in Scotland. Such an idea would apply across a range of areas.
As I said, members will appreciate—even if they do not agree with the position—that much of the subject of the motion is a matter for the MOD. There are aspects on which the Scottish Executive cannot take decisions and on which it is not my role as a Scottish minister to comment.
However, I hope that anyone following the debate recognises that that is not because the Executive is not interested in the subject. I have listened carefully to the points that have been made and I will be pleased to take forward matters that can be progressed in our jurisdiction.
Meeting closed at 17:36.