§ Mr. HinchliffeTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for his Department's policy towards compensating service men for the alleged effects of radioactivity suffered during the nuclear tests in the 1950s of the letter, dated 20 September 1951, sent by Rear-Admiral Turlesse of the trials metering section at the Admiralty to Vice-Admiral Brooking of the armament research establishment at the Ministry of Defence, stating with regard to the hurricane tests that(a) some degree of risk had to be run by some people if the Government were to achieve the full purpose of the trial, (b) all Government servants were entitled to compensation for injury on duty and (c) the ill-effects from the tests may be long delayed.
§ Mr. SainsburyThe letter to which the hon. Member refers from the naval commander of Operation Hurricane, written more than a year before the first United Kingdom test at Monte Bello, exemplifies what those planning the whole operation had long recognised, namely, the need to control exposure to ionising radiation so that no one should suffer harm. The resulting system of radiological control applied with only minor modifications throughout the whole United Kingdom atmospheric trials programme at Monte Bello, Maralinga and at Christmas Island. It was based on advice from the Medical Research Council and its main provisions are closely comparable with the radiological protection regulations which apply today throughout the nuclear industry. I am confident that it was wholly effective.
The radiation protection standards, both at Hurricane and later, catered specifically for Rear Admiral Torlesse's concern that to achieve the full purpose of the trial some personnel might experience higher exposure and hence correspondingly higher risk. The risk, though higher, was still very small indeed. The regulations required all such operations to be specially authorised by a senior officer for the small number of personnel who were concerned.
It is acknowledged that illnesses caused by exposure to radiation may be long delayed and that they are often indistinguishable from illnesses which occur in people not known to have been exposed. These features of radiation-related illnesses are among the reasons for commissioning the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) study of the health of United Kingdom test participants which confirmed that the chance of anyone suffering harm to health was extremely small. The NRPB 102W study, which analysed mortality data up to end of 1983 and included participants who experienced significant exposure, did not show an association between radiation related diseases and exposure to radiation. The provisions of the war pensions arrangements administered by the Department of Health and Social Security exist to provide compensation in cases where "reliable evidence of reasonable doubt that harm is attributable to Service", can be shown. Furthermore, in answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes), I stated that
if there were definite evidence linking the ill health of participants to their participation in the tests, we would of course be coming forward with offers of compensation".—[Official Report, 28 June 1988; Vol 136, c. 188.]