The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-01242, in the name of Christina McKelvie, on nuclear test veterans. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. There is a current active case in relation to this issue. To avoid straying into matters that could be considered sub judice, members are advised to avoid making specific references to that active case and to issues relating directly to it.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that over 20,000 servicemen were involved when the United Kingdom carried out nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific Ocean and at Maralinga, Australia, between 1952 and 1967; further notes that there are now only around 1,000 surviving British nuclear veterans and 70 in Scotland, including in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse constituency, and believes that society owes a debt to nuclear veterans and that their unique service and contribution should be recognised in the UK.
17:10
Usually when we open debates, we say that we are delighted to be speaking in the debate, but I open this one with a heavy heart. I thank and pay tribute to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association for attending the debate and bringing this issue not just to my attention but to the attention of a number of my colleagues across parties and Parliaments. [Applause.]
I want to share some very wise words:
“The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death as a result of their duty. Families also play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. In return, the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families. They deserve our respect and support, and fair treatment.”
I could not agree more, but those are not my wise words; they are contained in “The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow”, which is a heavy document, although it is light on commitment to thousands of servicemen who did their duty and, in fact, went above and beyond the call of duty when they either volunteered or were conscripted to take part in the atomic tests in the south Pacific and Australia. They undertook that duty with honour and dedication.
The men were primarily young conscripts simply carrying out their national service who were exposed to radiation during nuclear weapons testing near Christmas Island between 1952 and 1958. At the time, the veterans had no idea what was going to happen; the only protection they were provided with was the instruction to hide their eyes or turn away when the A-bombs went off. Many of the surviving veterans are now terminally ill—there is a death rate of approximately three veterans a month.
Those servicemen may not have been on the front line of any conflict or theatre of war, but they were indeed on the front line of the cold war—at the beginning of that race for ultimate power through nuclear dominance, in which the United Kingdom was at the forefront.
My heart is heavy as a consequence of the realisation that those servicepeople who did their duty have not had that respected. Many Governments of many colours have neglected their duty of care to the people who served them with honour in the south Pacific and Australia.
The stories of those servicepeople are well documented and each is a heartbreaking account of ill health and misery—from the men who became infertile, developed terrible skin cancers and other conditions or suffered with bone problems, bowel cancer, leukaemia, eye conditions and many more horrible cancers and illnesses; to the wives who suffered multiple miscarriages at three times the normal rate; the children who suffered 10 times the expected rates of birth defects; and the grandchildren suffering horrible defects at eight times the normal rate for deformity. That all comes on top of new medical research that suggests that DNA could have been damaged by radiation exposure.
There is now robust scientific evidence that those previously thought to be safe from exposure were in fact exposed. The Rowland report on New Zealand naval servicemen upwind of tests at Christmas Island suggests that veterans’ DNA was damaged by radiation. Leading scientists agree that the exposure could have caused a catalogue of health problems.
It is alleged that the Ministry of Defence did not monitor for alpha or beta radiation at the tests. Residual plutonium and uranium—both alpha emitters—weapons material will remain a hazard for thousands of years. Alpha particles have a higher radiation weighting by a factor of 20 compared with beta and gamma rays in International Commission on Radiological Protection guidelines. The orthodox view is that they are 20 times more damaging. If alpha particles lodge in the body, they continue to be hazardous for life.
The United States, our wartime ally, passed an act in the House of Representatives in 1988, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan, recognising the sacrifice that had been made in the name of global security and peace. The US paid more than $100 million to its servicemen. Canada and France have already agreed to pay compensation to their nuclear veterans without the need for litigation. The UK now stands alone as the only western nuclear power not to offer such recognition and not to honour its duty to take care of its servicemen.
A previous Government at Westminster committed £412,000 to fund a study of the health of the nuclear test veterans. However, when the current coalition came to power, it cut that amount to just £75,000. I am ashamed to say that no members of the parties represented in that coalition are here to answer for that today. A total of 633 men came forward to take part in the study, and the results make for stark reading. They show that only 18 per cent of those polled were in good health. Of those with a serious condition, only 16 per cent thought that it was caused by something other than radiation. That means that 84 per cent of those respondents believe that their health issues are directly related to exposure during the tests on Christmas Island.
It is important that we represent our constituents as best we can, and I hope that people will listen and remember as I tell their stories in this debate. My constituents are blighted by ill health. They are a father and a son, and they have an uncertain future. They need genetic testing to prepare for that future, but the Ministry of Defence has informed both of them that their medical records have now been lost. I urge the MOD to find those records, and to allow my constituents to investigate their health issues, which would enable them at least to have a fighting chance. I hope that, in summing up, the minister will join all the members in the chamber and across the Parliaments in standing shoulder to shoulder with our veterans, to give them the dignity and respect that they deserve.
In “The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow”, Liam Fox stated:
“The Armed Forces Covenant is the expression of the moral obligation the Government and the Nation owe to those who serve or have served in our Armed Forces and to their families.”
In return, those people deserve not only our respect and gratitude but constant attention to how they are treated and to the impact that service life has on them and their families. I ask that the duty that those men did for their nation be respected. Some of them are left today, but none of them has too many tomorrows.
I have a long list of members who would like to contribute, so I ask for speeches of a tight four minutes.
17:17
I thank my colleague Christina McKelvie for securing this debate on a subject of great importance to many people, including some of my constituents. Earlier this year, I tried to submit a motion on this issue but, due to the on-going case in the High Court, it was deemed unacceptable under the sub judice rules. I also wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence at the time, Liam Fox, and the Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans, Andrew Robathan.
The notion of nuclear testing is alien to most of us. It beggars belief that such apocalyptic weapons were deployed while thousands of service personnel were instructed to watch, without protective clothing.
I recall that UK Cabinet papers that were released in 1985 under the 30-year rule revealed that, in 1955, the Prime Minister at the time, Winston Churchill, contemplated evacuating Scotland north of the Black Isle in order to test a nuclear device in Scotland. Opposition from the Norwegian Government, which was concerned about prevailing wind conditions, meant that the suggestion was, thankfully, never taken forward. However, between 1955 and 1963, the British Government conducted secret nuclear tests at Maralinga in South Australia and on Christmas Island. Seven major nuclear tests were performed, as well as 500 minor tests.
In 2001, Dr Sue Rabbitt Roff at the University of Dundee uncovered evidence that suggested that troops had been instructed to walk across the detonation sites within hours of detonation and on the subsequent days, in order to expose themselves to radioactive materials. That was later confirmed by the British Government, contradicting previous statements that no humans were used in experiments related to nuclear weapons testing. Sadly, only 1,000 out of the 20,000 service personnel who were involved in nuclear tests still survive. Seventy of them are in Scotland, including my constituent Thomas Brandon.
Although I realise that we may not discuss details of an on-going legal case, it is known that many surviving nuclear test veterans and their families believe that they have a compensation claim against the UK Government and have suffered poor health, mutation and shorter life expectancies as a direct result of the tests.
Sadly, the experience of UK test veterans is not unique. During the cold war, forces personnel from the United States of America, Canada, France, Russia and China took part in similar trials. However, as we have heard, service personnel from those nations were afforded decent compensation settlements by their Governments. Indeed, in 1993, the British Government paid the Australian Government £20 million to settle all claims that were made by Australian personnel who were subjected to tests at Maralinga. That is somewhat baffling considering that the letter that I received from Andrew Robathan MP states:
“This and previous Government’s position has been that there is no evidence of excess illness or mortality among veterans as a group which could be linked to the participation in the tests or to exposure to radiation as a result of that participation.”
We can only assume therefore that the £20 million was an extraordinary act of generosity.
Although the MOD maintains that service personnel suffered no ill effects as a result of the tests, the evidence that has been presented by veterans and their families is compelling. This morning, I read the account of Mr Ken McGinley, who I believe is in the public gallery. He said:
“All we were told to do was cover our eyes – but when the bomb went off we could see the bones in our clenched fists as they were tucked tightly into the sockets of our eyes.
The heat was tremendous and the ill-effects started almost immediately, it was horrendous.
That evening there was men crying and couldn’t sleep properly. We were running to and from the toilet with sickness and diarrhoea not to mention the water blisters. And that was just the start.”
Two thirds of British Nuclear Test Veterans Association members died before they reached the age of 60. It is argued that ionising radiation, a known mutagen, impacted on veterans’ children and grandchildren in the form of physical deformities. Of course, such matters are the subject of legal proceedings and it would be improper to comment on them directly. However, we owe a debt to veterans such as Mr McGinley, Mr Brandon and thousands of others who were forced to take part in those tests. Their unique service will never be forgotten and I am glad that our Parliament recognises it.
Here in Scotland, secret Government records show the political manipulation and manoeuvring that went on behind the scenes in the 1970s to ensure that Scotland did not thwart plans to test fire depleted uranium munitions at the Dundrennan military range near Kirkcudbright. An MOD memo from 1973 warned that test firing would leave parts of the range contaminated, adding:
“It will probably be impossible to remove this completely and initial consideration of this fact is essential.”
Mr Gibson, you will have to conclude.
I have one more sentence, Presiding Officer. The Labour Secretary of State for Scotland at the time, Bruce Millan, protested to Prime Minister Jim Callaghan that depleted uranium testing would compound the problems that he was having with nationalists and environmentalists who were opposing Scotland becoming a nuclear dustbin. Nevertheless, the MOD pursued its plans, opting to hide them.
17:22
I welcome today’s debate, as it highlights one of the great injustices that were carried out by the Ministry of Defence between 1952 and 1967.
The testing of nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean at Christmas Island, in surrounding areas and Australia has left a lasting effect on the ex-servicemen who were involved, and their families. Many of those who were exposed to radiation during the nuclear tests suffered severe ill health and early deaths. Of the 2,500 British servicemen who were surveyed by the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association in 1999, 30 per cent had died; most of those were in their fifties and many had died from cancer. The Johnstone boys, whose plight was highlighted in The Sunday Post in February this year, are probably the most well-known case in Scotland but, like many of us speaking in the debate, I have constituents and their families who have suffered from the effects and are still fighting their cases against the MOD.
The MOD acknowledges a debt of gratitude but denies negligence, and the Conservative Minister for Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans has described the general merits of veterans’ claims as “extremely weak”. On the other hand, affected constituents are asking why the MOD is denying nuclear veterans the opportunity to obtain M-FISH analyses to discover the level of genetic damage that has been caused by radiation, whereas chromosome analysis has been successfully undertaken on 294 retired workers from the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield.
As far back as 1983, Professor Evans of Edinburgh’s Western general hospital used cytogenetic blood analysis on blood samples from a nuclear veteran and discovered an inordinate level of chromosomal damage. Ex-servicemen are demanding that all nuclear veterans should have that blood test carried out, but the MOD has refused and no British nuclear veteran has been able to have that blood analysis undertaken since then. In New Zealand, in contrast, members of the Royal New Zealand Navy who were exposed to the nuclear tests had the M-FISH blood analysis performed in 2004 by Professor AI Rowland, with similar results of chromosomal damage as those detected by Professor Evans.
We have to ask why the MOD is refusing to release relevant documents from this era, and refusing to carry out relevant cytogenetic blood tests. What does it have to fear from the results?
The MOD’s refusal to grant nuclear veterans the elementary right to discover the degree of damage that was caused to their DNA indicates that it is deliberately attempting to hide the atrocities that were committed against those servicemen who were ordered to assist in the testing of a British nuclear deterrent and the effects that excessive radiation has on the human body. Many civilians among the Pacific islands communities were similarly affected and they, too, have had no acknowledgement or compensation from the UK Government.
It is not only the harm that was done to the ex-servicemen and the islanders that requires attention; the long-lasting effects on families of DNA damage that can affect future generations can and should be monitored.
The suffering that the victims of the British nuclear testing programme have endured has been ignored by previous Westminster Governments and the MOD. It is about time that the MOD accepted responsibility for the effects of its past policies instead of fighting to avoid its responsibility in the courts. I urge it to bring the matter to a conclusion quickly, and to do the right thing for our nuclear veterans and their families.
17:26
Like other members, I have constituents who have been affected by the tests, and I thank Christina McKelvie for giving us the opportunity to put on record our feelings about what happened.
Mention has been made of Ken McGinley, who is a constituent of mine and who is here today. I have also been contacted by Archie Morris of Johnstone and Agnes Rettie, whose late husband witnessed the nuclear explosions as a serviceman.
When we see what happened, it is hard to articulate our feelings, but when we listen to the words of some of those who were involved in the tests, it gives a sense of the awe that they felt and, perhaps, of their naivety. At the time, one young soldier said:
“It was an amazing sight, a cauldron of fire—like seeing a mini-sun being born.”
As Christina McKelvie said, the men concerned were largely young conscripts, many of whom had probably never left these shores before and who probably thought that they were engaged in a great adventure, little knowing what was before them. These words describe that naivety and their sense of trust:
“We had complete faith in our masters. We were trained not to ask questions. We knew what had happened in Japan. I thought it could not happen here. They would not do it to us.”
That reflects not just their naivety, but the faith that they had in the powers that be that they would be protected.
In 1983, as a result of the information that was beginning to come through, Ken McGinley formed the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association. When I spoke to him this afternoon, he told me that of the test veterans whom he knew in Johnstone, of whom there were probably about 20, 10 have died and four are bedridden. I am not too sure what the status of the others is. Why should the mortality rate among such a small group of people known to one man be so high? It is not because knowing Ken McGinley has somehow visited misfortune on them, but because all of them were exposed to the same dangers in the same areas at the same time. That is a remarkable and tragic statistic.
When we send young conscripts to do their duty, the Government and the state have an obligation and a duty to protect them. Kenneth Gibson quoted Ken McGinley, who said:
“I witnessed five bomb tests. Basically we had no protection and warnings at all. All we were told to do was to stand and look at the bomb and cover our eyes up in case we got blinded by the flash.”
Such was the compassion and care for those who served for us.
Others have described themselves as being human X-rays. One also said something that reflects the realism and, to some extent, the cynicism that those who were involved now feel about how they were treated:
“I would be amazed that the so-called experts did not know the guinea pig status that we were being subjected to.”
Mr Henry, I have to ask you to conclude.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer. The clock is not working.
I know, but you have had more than four minutes.
I will finish on this point.
Other Governments have realised that they have a duty to their service personnel—America, France and others. The very least that we could do is show the diminishing band of veterans that we recognise that they did something over which they had no control. They were conscripted and sent to do their duty. We owe it to them to do the right thing. They are suffering and, as Christina McKelvie said, there is a diminishing band of them. It is disappointing that they are having to battle their way through the courts. We owe them that, and I hope that they succeed.
Before I call Christine Grahame, I reiterate that members should not stray into matters that could be considered sub judice because that could affect the outcome of cases and they could be held in contempt of court.
17:31
I am glad that you reminded a former lawyer of that, Presiding Officer.
I will tell the story of Alex McCue of Galashiels, who is in the public gallery. These are his words.
“In 1956 I was sent out to Australia as a Government official to take part in the Atomic tests in Australia.
On 11th October 1957 a number of personnel and myself were flown up to Maralinga for a day trip to witness one of the detonations code named Kite. This was an airburst dropped from a Valiant aircraft and detonated at 150 metres. We watched from the airfield about 14 miles from ground zero.
A month or so later, I was posted up to Maralinga to work in the Radio Chemical Department in the Village about 20 miles from ground zero and 14 miles from the airfield. This operation was called operation Antler and I was involved in 4 explosions.
I worked in the Radio Chemical building for the scientists to calculate the dirtiness of the bomb. When an explosion took place and the fire ball had died down you get the familiar mushroom cloud with all the muck and rubbish from the ground (sand, rocks, earth) being sucked up. This caused the fallout.
Rockets with containers are fired through the cloud and Canberra bombers with wing tip containers fly through the cloud to pick up samples of the fallout debris. These are then taken to the Radio Chemical building where the boffins broke them down into their elements and sent them into us to calculate their half-life. This determines the dirtiness of the bomb—for instance Strontium 90 has a half-life of 28 years. That is until it decays.
We used to go to laboratories soon after the explosion and we always knew when the canisters came into the building because the Geiger counters used to go crazy.
One of these tests, Taranaki, was the biggest—about the size of the Nagasaki bomb. This was a balloon explosion at 300m at night. We were invited up to the forward area (about 5 miles from ground zero). They said it was to relieve boredom.
We assembled in rows and our instructions were to turn our backs from ground zero and on the counts from the loud speakers of minus 20 we had to shut our eyes and put our hands up to our eyes until plus 10 when we could turn around and open our eyes.
The flash was quite bright to say the least. Even with our eyes shut and hands in front of them it was like a very bright sunny day and we could see the bones in our hands like an x-ray. When we turned around the fire ball was just forming and it was like a giant sunset but up in the air. I think the word awesome is not an exaggeration.
What we did not know at the time was that the tests were not just to show the world we were still a world power but to test its effects on personnel.
Personnel called the Commonwealth Indoctrination Force stood just a mile from Ground Zero. They were mainly middle ranking officers with good career prospects who would be sent back to their regiments as visible proof that there is life after a nuclear attack and conventional warfare could continue. In fact of those taking part in the exercises in the forward area 30% have died, mostly in their 50s.
Another interesting fact was that after the Canberras landed after flying through the cloud they were—should we say—humming so they had to be decontaminated. The aircraft taxied into a roped off area and the contamination squad went over to them with buckets and mops and washed them down. It was very hot so they usually only had shorts and shoes.
A few years ago I was at the AGM of the Nuclear Test Veterans Association and was talking to someone who had known some of them.
He told me they were all dead.”
I ask members to bear in mind the fact that many of those men were conscripts. As has been said, the rates of cancer, early death and infertility are all disproportionate in that group and extend through the generations. Members should also bear in mind the fact that some 30 Scottish claimants who would automatically qualify for compensation and pensions under the US and New Zealand schemes do not qualify here. The MOD denies liability and, even if it were liable, claims are time barred.
Rule Britannia.
17:35
I thank Christina McKelvie for lodging the motion for debate. Like Mr Gibson, I tried to lodge a motion earlier but the matter was, of course, declared to be sub judice. Also like Mr Gibson, I wrote to and got a reply from Mr Robathan. Although I could talk about that—it would not be sub judice—if I strayed into it, I might go into some unparliamentary language.
Therefore, I will talk about the victims of nuclear testing worldwide, who have suffered immeasurable pains and who deserve justice and the Parliament’s deepest respect. I will explore some of the policies that other countries have made in response to the call for compensation for the victims of nuclear testing, along with the compensation policies that the UK Government has offered the Australian Government while it neglects the people in its own backyard.
I am interested in the subject because, early doors after the election, I was visited by a nuclear test veteran—Bill Bryce, who stays in my constituency—and relived with him some of the moments that he experienced. The things that those folks have faced over the years are absolutely horrific and, although four of the five original nuclear weapons states—the US, France, Russia, and China—have concrete compensation policies for nuclear test victims, we still fail on that.
Following the passage of the US Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in 1990, any victim of nuclear weapons testing in the US was entitled to receive an apology from the US Government and monetary compensation for any diseases that were contracted as a result of radiation exposure. Compensation varies from case to case. However, all awards fall within the range of $50,000 to $100,000—or £32,000 to £64,000. There is also a special fund of $45 million to compensate those who were affected by testing in the Bikini Atoll and the Enewetak Atoll of the Marshall Islands.
Since the compensation programme began to operate in 1992, more than 34,000 claims have been filed and the US Government has awarded $1.6 billion. The huge number of claims reflects the widespread effects that nuclear testing can have on a country and its people.
Although the other countries with compensation programmes have not been as forthright in their reparations, France, Russia and China also have policies to compensate their victims of nuclear testing.
In France, long-standing opposition to even acknowledging the French Government’s responsibility for nuclear testing was finally put to rest in 2009. After significant arm twisting by advocacy groups and politicians, the French Government agreed to set aside a €10 million fund to compensate cancer victims and others who were affected at the north African testing sites. There is also an amendment to the law that states that additional funds will be added if the first €10 million runs out.
The Russian and Chinese compensation packages are not quite as good as that, but their Governments have recognised their nuclear test victims. It is time for the UK Government to live up to the words of the armed forces covenant and compensate the men who were affected by the tests that the United Kingdom carried out.
17:39
I, too, thank Christina McKelvie for securing this very important debate, although I agree with her that it is a shame that we need to have it. Despite the constraints that the Presiding Officer has put on our ability to debate the issue—or should I say the constraints that the law has put on us—it is still important that we have the debate for our many constituents who have asked us to speak on their behalf. Given those constraints, I will put on my health librarian hat and discuss the research that has been done on the health of nuclear test veterans. I also refer members to my speech in the veterans debate on 3 November for background information.
From both her Nobel prize-winning research and death from aplastic anaemia in the early 20th century, we learned early on from Marie Curie of radioactivity’s applications and radiation’s risks. Despite that, when our nuclear test veterans—many of whom, as we have heard, were conscripts—were sent in to witness nuclear explosions, there was an almost cavalier attitude to their personal protection. Although they were given no protective clothing or respirators, they were sent in to the sites shortly after the bombs exploded, had to fly and sail through radioactive dust clouds and had to clean the craft afterwards, often with paper tissues. I said that the attitude was cavalier; I wonder whether it was negligent or, indeed, deliberate.
Given what those men were put through, it is not surprising that, since the 1980s, there has been a lot of research into their health. Of course, as a health librarian, I looked for information on that research on PubMed, a premier public access research tool run by the National Library of Medicine, itself part of the US National Institutes of Health. I was able to find 533 papers, but will quote from only one of them: “Blood money: the duty of care to veterans of UK nuclear weapons tests” by Sue Rabbitt Roff, which was published in the journal Medicine, Conflict and Survival. The abstract, which I have abridged, points to evidence of
“deliberate and repeated decisions not to provide adequate radiation protection ... even by the standards of 50 years ago ... to most of”
those
“who participated in the British”
nuclear bomb-testing
“programme. ... The evidence lies in the minutes and memoranda of the scientists, doctors and military leaders overseeing these tests”
and in
“Archival material in the United Kingdom Public Records Office and the National Archives of Australia”.
Despite that paper and the number of other papers on the topic, I have been unable to find any meta-analysis of all the work—and I have to wonder why. Indeed, the conspiracy theorist in me began to wonder what was happening and when I followed some links to find the medical research programmes listed, which should be on the National Information Governance Board for Health and Social Care website, I got a “404—Not found” message. We need to ask where that information has gone; in fact, I have sent an e-mail asking where the research has disappeared to. In investigating the ill health of these brave survivors, we must accord them the dignity of scientific rigour, not political spin.
17:43
I, too, thank Christina McKelvie for securing this timely debate. Although I want to follow the Parliament’s etiquette, I cannot help but mention that, at the start of the debate, there were 17 Scottish National Party MSPs and Labour representation, but a lack of representation from the parties of the coalition Government. I mention that because, previously, there was cross-party support on this issue. I find it unfortunate that some now seem to wish to procrastinate in supporting the nuclear veterans; as Hugh Henry pointed out, they are a diminishing band. Of course, I would not like to suggest that it is a deliberate move by the MOD or British Government to see a diminishing band of those entitled to pursue compensation.
I also want to follow the etiquette that the Presiding Officer has outlined on not compromising the veterans’ legal challenge or, indeed, ourselves. I do not know what parliamentary jail looks like and I do not want to find out. The last time that I was in a police cell was related to campaigning against nuclear weapons at Faslane because of their immorality. The concept that we would unleash nuclear weapons on our so-called enemies is bad enough, but the fact that we were willing to use our own people as guinea pigs in testing nuclear weapons is even worse. Irrespective of what members think were the health consequences of doing that, using our servicemen to try out those weapons and that technology was immoral. We do not need a court of law to tell us that that was wrong.
I pay homage to Ken McGinley and his association for their work. Ken in particular has also helped people with welfare issues, to ensure that widows and others have had financial support to see them through very difficult times. He has championed that cause through ill health and has not let the flame or the cause of justice die.
I know about the issue because of my Renfrewshire connections—we debated it in the Renfrewshire Council chamber and all the parties agreed. It is frustrating, however, that although some people have very strong views in opposition, a lack of action is forthcoming when they make it into government in Westminster. In opposition, those people said that support—not necessarily for compensation—should be given to the test veterans, but that support has not been forthcoming and there is absolutely no sign of it being forthcoming. Why can the UK spend £100 billion on new weapons of mass destruction, but not a fraction of that amount on supporting our veterans and servicemen? That is immoral, too, and absurd with the resources that the UK has at its disposal.
The work that has been carried out has been very encouraging, but the diminishing band of nuclear test veterans deserves the support of the Parliament and all members. We have constituents throughout the country who require our support.
There is a degree of disappointment about how some of the cases have been handled. Files have gone missing and medical records have not been accessed, and that has disadvantaged those who have sought justice. Irrespective of the live legal case, the MOD must do better. There is a David and Goliath battle, and the Parliament should commend those who have served their fellow servicemen so well.
If people think that the issue will go away because—to be frank—the servicemen are going to die, I say to them that the children of those servicemen will live on with the effects and with the battle for justice to ensure that the veterans are not forgotten and that they are given the support that they rightly deserve.
17:47
I, too, thank Christina McKelvie for lodging the motion.
The Presiding Officer will be well aware that, in my short time in the Parliament, I have tended to speak about subjects that mean something to me. Ken McGinley is someone who means something to me. I met him years ago, when I was a young man involved in politics. At that time he was a Labour councillor and we did not agree on many issues, but we did agree on not having nuclear weapons.
Ken told us his stories about Christmas Island. If it were not for him, a person in my generation probably would not have known what happened. He told me years ago that, between 1957 and 1958, there were up to six test detonations in the Pacific Ocean at Christmas Island that involved weapons that were many times more powerful than those that were used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As the years moved on and he was no longer a councillor, I did not see him for a while, although I always saw him in the Paisley Daily Express—he would be talking about his latest campaign to represent the veterans in the area. I met him again earlier this year at the peace garden in Barshaw park in Paisley on the anniversary of Hiroshima, and we had another discussion. Once again, he captivated an audience of young and old people. He talked about what he went through and highlighted the horrors of nuclear weapons.
What Ken said meant something to me and others in my generation as we grew up in the 1980s, during the cold war, with the idea that the world could come to an end because of a nuclear holocaust. That sounds like hyperbole now, but as teenagers in the 1980s, we discussed that regularly. I think that so many of us in that generation became political because that was a major issue.
Ken McGinley and I spoke after we met at Barshaw park and I invited him to the opening of my constituency office. That was an important day for me and I wanted to include a man who had made an impact on my life. On a lighter note, that evening Ken met some people from Glenburn seniors forum, who have also helped me along the way. He told me that a woman told him that they had met before, saying, “I’m sure we danced at the Templars dance hall in Paisley.” Now, Ken must be quite a charismatic individual. That dance hall has been shut for about 40 years and the rest. The story just goes to show the kind of impact he has when he puts his mind to something.
Ken McGinley currently represents 16 Renfrewshire men. The 16 men from Johnstone were taken to the test destinations wearing little more protection than old-fashioned goggles, two T-shirts, a poncho—I do not know how that was going to help them—a denim jacket and woollen gloves. It is incredible to think that soldiers were left in that state.
The word “hero” is often used in conversation to apply to anyone from football and other sports stars to community activists and voluntary workers. For people in the services, the word tends to be used to describe people who are called on to defend their country. The veterans that we are talking about might not have been involved in a traditional battle, but they served their country and they have suffered as a consequence. There has been talk of acknowledging a debt of gratitude to them. The young men who served from 1952 to 1958 are heroes and deserve much, much more.
17:51
I congratulate Christina McKelvie on securing this important debate on the veterans of nuclear tests.
The health and welfare of Scotland’s veterans are at the centre of the Scottish Government’s policy thinking, as has been demonstrably the case for a number of years and was evidenced in the recent parliamentary debate on veterans. The speeches in today’s debate, including Christina McKelvie’s supportive and passionate speech, illustrate clearly that there is a groundswell of good will and support across Scotland for the surviving veterans of the UK nuclear test programme.
The motion indicates that around 70 such veterans live in Scotland, but the figure might not be entirely accurate. We know that 70 Scotland-based veterans are involved in the litigation that is before the UK Supreme Court, but there might well be many more. We just do not know, and there is no way of verifying the true figure.
I should say that I took advice and double-checked it before my speech and that although I will refer to the legal case I will not do so in a way that jeopardises it.
That we owe the nuclear test veterans and, indeed, all veterans a debt of gratitude is not in doubt. All the service personnel served with honour and distinction, and we applaud them for that. A member—I cannot remember who—made the point that veterans’ families should be equally in our minds, which is true. I think that Mrs Jessie Munn from East Kilbride, who is the widow of a man who served during the tests, is in the gallery. It is often the families who pay a huge price for the activities that our service personnel are involved in.
We show our gratitude across the country: it is never as poignantly demonstrated as it is at the impeccably observed remembrance Sunday commemoration services, which took place earlier this month. The Government tangibly demonstrates its support by putting veterans’ issues at the heart of policy making, for example by ensuring that veterans can access the best possible medical care and support services. I think that we have delivered on that, and I have not yet heard of any case in which less than the best medical attention was provided to veterans by the national health service in Scotland.
On whether veterans of nuclear testing should be financially compensated, I fully support the position that where ill health is proved to be a result of service in the armed forces, wherever and whenever that service took place, it is right that the UK Government provide adequate compensation. Ultimately, however, that is a matter for the UK Government and the Ministry of Defence.
I understand that the UK Supreme Court sat for 3.5 days from 14 November to hear an appeal by the veterans, and that the court’s decision will be handed down in the new year. Should the case that the veterans brought before the UK Supreme Court prove to have been successful, that will not mean that they are entitled to compensation. Rather, it will mean that their case will be returned to the Court of Appeal in England and they will be required to win that particular battle.
It would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to comment on the validity or otherwise of the veterans’ cases. For a start, we have not seen all the evidence that has been put forward by the veterans’ legal team or, indeed, the case that has been made by the MOD. In any event, were that evidence to be made available to us, the Scottish Government does not have access to the necessary expertise in the field to evaluate it thoroughly. I am not going to defend the MOD’s position; that is a matter for UK ministers. I am aware, however, that it is the MOD’s contention that the veterans and their legal team cannot prove a causal link between the tests of the 1950s and 1960s and the majority of the conditions and illnesses that are now being experienced by some veterans. Nevertheless, compensation through the mechanism of war pensions is being paid to some veterans who have been able to demonstrate that their specific illness is directly linked to exposure to radiation as a result of the tests.
Listening to the debate, it occurred to me that it would be interesting to examine the links between what was experienced by those who underwent the nuclear tests and the training that has been provided subsequently, since a few years after the tests to all armed forces personnel for nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. It must be the case—it cannot be otherwise—that lessons were learned from the tests that were incorporated into subsequent training. That bears further examination. I will say no more than that.
The MOD and the UK ministers hold the line that the link is not proven in the vast majority of cases. Many people can and do point to academic studies and research that have been carried out overseas, but none of those papers appears to have moved the UK Government. As members have mentioned, other countries have also offered compensation, although it is the MOD’s case that that is not always what it seems. That is its case to make. What we must do is ask how the Scottish Government can help.
As many members have, I met on 17 August Ken McGinley, who is a leading light in the veterans’ campaign, as well as representatives of the veterans group and Mr Neil Sampson, who is a partner in the legal firm that is acting on their behalf, to hear for myself details of their fight for compensation. I think that they would agree that we had a very productive and useful meeting. I was very much moved when I listened to their stories. The veterans and their legal team fully accept that the matter is wholly reserved to Westminster and that it is for the UK Government to resolve.
At that meeting, however, I offered to pass on to the appropriate UK minister any evidence that they have in support of their claim. That offer was made because the veterans felt that some of the data that they had gathered were being blocked by MOD officials and were not, therefore, reaching the appropriate UK Government minister. So far, I have not had that information passed to me by the veterans, but that may be because they are still suffering from that blockage. I remain intent on honouring the commitment that I made to pass on that information to the relevant UK Government ministers.
Before concluding, I offer an apology to Kevin Stewart. At the earlier debate that we had on veterans, I said that I had written to Andrew Robathan on the issue. I had actually written to him on a different issue to do with the Atlantic convoys. I apologise for that. As I have just said, however, we remain committed to writing to the UK minister on behalf of the veterans when we receive the further information that they themselves are seeking.
My view is very much that the issue demands to be resolved. It reflects badly not only on the UK Government but on society as a whole when veterans of our armed forces feel let down, ignored and aggrieved—especially when they feel let down enough to go to court to try to resolve a dispute. I hope that the veterans get a verdict on their appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of urgency. If it is proved that those people have experienced, and continue to experience, conditions and illnesses as a result of their service and participation in the nuclear testing programme of the 1950s and 1960s, the UK Government is morally bound to pay compensation. I also hope that, whatever the outcome, the decision is open, transparent and, above all, fair. Those who have served this country in whatever capacity deserve nothing less.
Meeting closed at 17:58.Previous
Decision Time