HL Deb 20 July 1990 vol 521 cc1113-5

Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether in the light of the decision of the coroner in the case of the late Mr. Walter Fazackerley they will review the decisions in other cases of claims to war pensions by persons exposed to radiation resulting from nuclear tests on Christmas Island and elsewhere in the Pacific.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley)

My Lords, the war pensions scheme provides for pensions where there is reliable evidence which raises a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service or that death was due to or substantially hastened by service. It is accepted that the evidence raises such a doubt in the case of participants in the United Kingdom nuclear weapons test programme who have contracted leukaemia (excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia) or multiple myeloma, the condition from which Mr. Fazackerley died. Any claim to a war pension by such servicemen or their widows is therefore likely to succeed. Consequently, a review of decisions on claims for war pension as a result of the coroner's decision in the case of the late Mr. Walter Fazackerley is unnecessary. I am pleased to advise my noble friend that a war widows pension has been awarded to Mrs. Fazackerley.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Did I understand him to say that, nonetheless, the war pension authorities are not to review radiation cases which had been turned down despite the clear decision of the coroner's court? Surely in the circumstances of this case of exposure to radiation, at a time when very little was known about it, the finding that death had resulted from it must raise a reasonable doubt in all similar cases. Would it not be in accordance with the traditions of the war pensions scheme, with its bias towards the applicant, that these cases should be reviewed?

Lord Henley

My Lords, the coroner found that Mr. Fazackerley died of multiple myeloma. We have agreed in the past that we will award war widows pensions for deaths caused by multiple myeloma. There is no evidence that other forms of cancer apart from leukaemia have been caused by taking part in these tests.

My noble friend went on to say that we should review all cases. He may know that we previously rejected Mr. Fazackerley's claim on the grounds that he had not taken part in the tests but had been involved only in the clean-up operations. After representations from the right honourable Member for Stoke on Trent, Mr. Jack Ashley, I apologised for that decision, which was an error, because Mr. Fazackerley had been present in the area. I said that we would review all the claims to see whether the cause of death, if it came within those two categories, would give entitlement to a war widows pension.

Lord Dean of Beswick

My Lords, is it not a fact that in a general sense we treat the people involved rather more shabbily than other countries, such as Australia and America, that took part in nuclear tests? If that is the case, is it not time that we put matters right for the diminishing number of people involved?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I cannot answer for other countries. All I can say is that evidence shows that there is a slightly increased likelihood in the case of multiple myeloma and leukaemia. There is no evidence in the case of the other cancers.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while it is common sense that there should be some identifiable boundaries to bring people within the category for the purposes of war pensions, other factors such as our way of life today can sometimes account for the problems lying behind my noble friend's question? Is there no way of running alongside the formal agreement to give a pension by providing an ex gratia alternative? That would allow us to get over the rigid borderline which brings about these uncertainties.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I have already said that we have a generous standard of proof. I do not think that we can go beyond that. All we ask is that there is a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service. In those circumstances, we will grant a pension.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, will the noble Lord he good enough to consider having talks on this trying subject with the Royal British Legion, which has many members who are so affected? It is beginning to examine the proposition whether or not such exposure could be treated as a form of war wound.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I have met the Royal British Legion on a number of occasions and it has raised this matter with me. I cannot go further than I have gone. If there is a reasonable doubt that a condition is caused or aggravated by service, we will grant a pension.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that there is strong feeling on all sides of the House that something should be done? I support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It is a question of a little generosity and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said, a little imagination. Will the Government think again about that?

Lord Henley

My Lords, I honestly cannot go any further. As I said, the standard of proof for the war pensions scheme is already very generous. We can award pensions only where there is some reasonable doubt that disability is caused by war service.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it seems to some of us who have been concerned in war pensions administration that it is contrary to the whole spirit of that system to rely on the highly technical question of which form of cancer has arisen? Is it really sufficiently certain that while radiation can produce some forms of cancer it cannot in any circumstances produce other forms? Is that really being maintained?

Lord Henley

My Lords, we are relying on the evidence produced by the report published by the National Radiological Protection Board. It stated that there was a slightly increased hazard of mortality in those two cases, but not in other cases.

Lord Mellish

My Lords, in the past there was the War Pensions Appeals Tribunal. Anyone who was rejected for a pension by the Ministry had a right to appeal to what was mainly a lay body. The two issues involved were attributability and aggravation. I speak as one who went before that board many times. I found that if one could show that some aggravation was caused through war service or, in this case, radiation, the tribunal would without any shadow of doubt find in one's favour. Does that still apply today, and have these people the right to appeal?

Lord Henley

My Lords, obviously these people still have a right to appeal. The appeals tribunal still exists.

The Earl of Selkirk

My Lords, what action should be taken as regards someone who was present at this explosion and who subsequently died of cancer? Further, what type of cancer would bring such a person into the pension range either for the benefit of his widow or indeed any of his relatives?

Lord Henley

My Lords, if someone who took part in those tests subsequently dies of or contracts leukaemia, excluding chronic lymphatic leukaemia or multiple myeloma, there is a likelihood of entitlement to a war pension. In the case of a person's death, his widow would be entitled to a war widows pension. Such claims should be made through my department.

Back to