Nuclear Test Veterans

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I almost unable to be here today, because my mum, Una, has been critically ill in hospital. If you will indulge me for a few seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to thank from the bottom of my heart the paramedics and respiratory nurses who saved my mum’s life on Friday night, and the team at the Countess of Chester hospital, who have been working around the clock to make her stable and give us the gift of a bit more time with her. She is now doing really well and is stable. She is watching this debate on her laptop, which my husband has managed to set up for her, and she told me last night that I had better get down here and do this debate—or else. Like most of the public, she is deeply angry about this issue, and she is right to be angry. It is one of the biggest scandals of our generation, involving decades of suffering, unimaginable loss and, ultimately, injustice inflicted on our own servicemen, their families and the communities affected by Britain’s nuclear testing programme.

I expressly thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes)—he has done far more than most—for his years of work and support on this issue, Lord Watson of Wyre Forest for his relentless work in the other place, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), and so many other supportive Members who are here today. I also thank the nuclear test veterans campaign team: Alan Owen and LABRATS, John Morris and his lovely family, Steve Purse and his mum, and, most of all, journalist Susie Boniface, who has been relentless in her search for truth and justice. She has never wavered and never given up, and it is because of her groundbreaking search for the truth that I am standing here today to tell the House about the pivotal information that she has recently uncovered. I thank the Minister and the Defence Secretary for their work and support on this issue so far, and I hope that Susie’s recent work will now act as the catalyst for urgent Government action.

I also thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate; I know that he has long supported the nuclear test veterans. Given the gravity of the recent developments that I am about to outline, I hope that he will look favourably on the request of my friend, the right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings, for a longer debate on this issue. So many Members have contacted us both in the past few days to say that they want to represent their constituents on this very important issue.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to all those who served in our armed forces as part of the nuclear tests overseas, to those who suffered illness or died prematurely as a result of the tests, and to the bereaved families and family members who were born with rare disabilities as a result of the radiation that our nuclear test veterans faced. I am fortunate enough to have worked closely with some of the nuclear test veterans and families due to the Hillsborough law campaign, and I thank them for their incredible solidarity with the Hillsborough families and survivors. I thank my hon. Friend for her outstanding work in trying to gain truth and justice for the test veterans, who have been victims of a state cover-up. Will she join me, the nuclear test veterans and the LABRATS campaign in calling on the Government to deliver the Hillsborough law in full, without carve-outs for any state institutions, as a matter of urgency, so that we can get justice for our nuclear test veterans and their families?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work and for his support of the Hillsborough law campaign over the years. He has done an inordinate amount of work to try to make justice for the victims a reality, and I know he continues that work on a daily basis. He is right: injustice is injustice. For that injustice to be rectified, we need full transparency. There cannot be any carve-outs of sensitive information or otherwise as part of the Hillsborough law, because that denies justice to those who need it most.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for the warm words that she offered. She gave me too much praise—this is a team effort. She is absolutely right to say that the veterans deserve the most praise. Our friendship in this place was formed through our joint commitment to those veterans and our shared outrage that, over successive Governments and for decades, information was withheld, withdrawn or even distorted. I know she will speak more about that in the short time we have today, but I hope that we get a longer debate. This matter deserves that sort of scrutiny from people from across this Chamber.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Member is spot-on. I often refer to him as my partner in crime on this issue and a number of other issues in this House. It definitely demonstrates Parliament working at its very best when we come together on these injustices and fight for those who have been affected by them. He is spot-on that we need a longer debate in this House on this important issue.

The information I will talk about is a turning point—it is pivotal—and it should spur the Government into taking the necessary action to compensate the victims of this scandal and give them the inquiry they so much deserve. At best, there has been a systemic failure over the years, and at worst, there has been a cover-up, but now is the time to implement a full inquiry and uncover the real truth.

For 70 years, Governments of all colours and successive Administrations, through the Ministry of Defence and the Atomic Weapons Establishment, have maintained the single consistent line that radiation exposure at Christmas Island was negligible; any contamination was minimal, contained and harmless; and those who served there were not placed at any meaningful risk.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend join me in commemorating the life and legacy of Alan Dowson? Until very recently, he was a councillor in my constituency. He was first elected in 1971, and served as a Labour councillor for most of the intervening years. He was 19 years old when he was on Christmas Island, and he was one of the veterans who observed—he spoke about this several times— how he could see the bones in his hands due to the level of light coming through them. He has campaigned on this issue for so many years, and I just wanted to get his name into the parliamentary record.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I express my full respect for my hon. Friend’s constituent, and I can only imagine what he suffered. Even the tales of people serving on Christmas Island seeing the bones in their hands would have a considerable psychological effect on them for the rest of their life, but it is what these men and their families suffered when they came home that was so brutal and so disturbing.

The men knew that they were exposed to radiation. Studies have shown that they were subjected to the same level of radiation as the clean-up workers at Chernobyl. They suffered cancer after cancer, and many of them died young. Those who were lucky enough to live longer faced miscarriages and a raft of medical problems. Worse, many of their children were born with defects or health issues due to the altered DNA.

Today we know that the claim that these men suffered no risk is wrong. That has been fundamentally undermined, thanks, as I have said, to Susie Boniface’s groundbreaking work. A previously undisclosed 2014 Atomic Weapons Establishment report, which was released only in February this year after months of resistance, reveals that radiation was in fact present across inhabited areas of Christmas Island. It was not just in isolated, uninhabited zones and not just in trace amounts, but in the sea, the fish, the lagoons, near water sources and, crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked.

Let me be clear about what this means: for decades, the veterans were told that no fallout had been recorded. Families grieving the loss of loved ones—young men such as Sapper Billy Morris, who died from leukaemia at just 18—were told that there was no link. The courts were told the same, Parliament was told the same and the public were told the same, but this data reveals a very different story. It shows elevated radiation levels in fish of up to seven times the background levels by some measures. It shows contamination in the very food that servicemen were eating regularly. It shows that drinking water sources were potentially exposed. It shows that monitoring systems were incomplete, inconsistent and, in some cases, entirely absent. Most damning of all, it shows that many of those living and working in these areas were not even issued with film badges to measure their exposure.

When Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box over the years and reassured the House that doses were indistinguishable from background radiation, what exactly were those reassurances based on, because the data was there? The authors of the 2014 report are unequivocal: the earlier reports from 1990 and 1993—the very documents relied on in court cases and for pension claims—were incomplete and inaccurate. They were incomplete and inaccurate, yet they were used as the very foundation for denying these men and their families justice. This is not just a technical discrepancy or a minor administrative oversight; at best, it is a systemic failure, but at worst, it is a cover-up.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I, too, pay tribute to the incredible amount of work done by Susie Boniface, and to Members across the House for this really important work. I was utterly astounded when I read the report and understood that, even though the reports were not available until much later, the evidence has been there since 1957. We have known for that length of time that there were elevated readings; I read that they were double the backgrounds levels, and the hon. Lady said they were seven times those levels. We knew that people had been exposed yet for one reason or another, whether through cover-up or the lack of a good filing system, that information has not come to light. I appreciate that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence have offered warm words of support, but frankly what we need right now is for our heroes—our British veterans—to get the support they need. Some are not going to live for much longer. We need a one-year rapid review right now, so they can get the justice they deserve. It has been far too long. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a matter of immediate urgency?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The hon. Lady has been a doughty campaigner on behalf of her own party on this issue and I thank her for her work in this House. She is right. The veterans are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking for the truth and for justice. Many of these men, if they are lucky enough to still be alive, are in their 80s. Time is running out for them and they need justice now. That is why it is so important to have the urgent one-year inquiry. I will return to that point later.

I want us to look at the lived reality for those servicemen at Christmas Island. The men fished daily—that is known. They ate that fish, sometimes every day. They drank desalinated water drawn from a marine environment now known to have been contaminated. They worked in extreme heat, increasing their intake of water and food—as we do, when we get hot—and therefore increasing the pathways through which radioactive material could enter their bodies.

This is the critical point: ingested radiation is not the same as background exposure. It does not simply pass by. It lodges deep within the body. It decays slowly. It damages tissue. It alters DNA. Governments over the years have long relied on averages and on comparisons to natural background radiation, sunlight or medical imaging, but those comparisons are fundamentally flawed. You can step out of sunlight if it is too hot. You can leave a room that has radon gas in it. You can decline a medical scan if you are worried about it. But you cannot remove radioactive particles that have been ingested and embedded deep within your body. That distinction matters, but it has been completely ignored over the years.

What is equally troubling is not just the existence of this data, which has been around for decades, but the pattern of its concealment. This information could have been disclosed at multiple points: in the 1950s, during the inquests into early deaths; in the 1980s, when public concern first intensified; in the 1990 and 1993 reports; in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights; in High Court cases; in pension appeals; and as recently as 2024, when veterans sought access to their medical records. At every stage, the same narrative was maintained. At every stage, the data was absent. The 2014 report itself warned that the information could

“challenge the validity of statements”

made by the Government and could potentially overturn previous judicial decisions. And yet instead of coming clean and that information being published, it was buried.

We have got to ask ourselves, why? Why was a report that raised “reasonable doubt” not disclosed to the very people whose lives depended on its findings? Why were veterans denied access to information that could have supported their claims for justice and compensation? Why were the courts allowed to rely on evidence that we now know to be fundamentally flawed? These are not abstract questions—they go right to the heart of trust between the state and those who serve it. The men and women in uniform sent to carry out dangerous duties do so on the understanding that their Government will act with honesty, transparency and integrity. That trust has been broken, and we now have a duty—not just a moral duty, but a political and legal duty—to put this right.

Let me be clear about what the Government must do next. First, there must be a full, independent public inquiry into the handling of radiation data from the nuclear testing programme—not a limited review or an internal investigation, but a full inquiry with the power to compel evidence and testimony. Secondly, all relevant documents must be declassified and placed in the public domain—no more partial disclosures and work in progress justifications; the public interest in transparency far outweighs any institutional discomfort. Thirdly, there must be a comprehensive review of all past legal cases and pension decisions that relied on the 1990 and 1993 reports. Where decisions were made on the basis of incomplete or inaccurate evidence, they must be revisited. Fourthly, and most importantly, there must be a fair and just compensation scheme for nuclear testing veterans and their families.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am intervening, first, to send my love to my hon. Friend’s mum.

Secondly, in our debates over the years, we have always emphasised urgency because of the age of the victims. However, we also need to recognise and ensure that any inquiry recognises that this has gone down two generations now. We have met the families—the sons and daughters, the grandchildren—who have suffered extreme conditions as a result. It is just as my hon. Friend said; this has penetrated into the DNA of whole families. There is a sense of urgency, of course, but there must also be a recognition of the significance of this having affected three generations, as we have witnessed.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My mum will be very excited that my right hon. Friend has sent her his love—there will be pandemonium on ward 47 at the moment, I can tell you.

My right hon. Friend is right: there are certainly urgent issues that the Government must consider today, but beyond today, and beyond issuing an urgent and fast compensation scheme, a one-year inquiry and the other points I have referenced, there must also be a wider research project into the impact of the radiation on the descendants and the support they have needed from Governments over the years, because they have been completely neglected so far. We know from our constituency surgeries about the effects that have been felt right within families; it is quite upsetting and harrowing sometimes to hear those stories and to hear that they have received very little Government recognition for what they have suffered.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is obviously a terrible history going back a number of years of cancers and other illnesses caused by exposure in this case. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would forgive me for raising a similar but more contemporary situation: that of aircrew on military helicopters who are developing blood cancer. I have been struggling to get data from the MOD on numbers of cases and testing of helicopter emissions. We want to raise awareness for others now flying those helicopters, in particular the Sea King, because blood cancers, particularly myeloma, seem to be arising in young people when that is normally not the case at all. We want to encourage those people to seek testing for unusual symptoms such as blood clots and to request that the MOD dig deeper for that data.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

My hon. Friend raises another very important issue that goes to the heart of today’s debate. The point is that the Government need to be in a good place on this; they need to acknowledge that mistakes were made historically, and to restore faith to all servicemen and women who put their lives at risk on a daily basis to keep us safe that, where it is found that their lives have been put at risk by the actions of the Government themselves, that will be made right, and they will get the support and care that they deserve. Hopefully that will be at the heart of the Minister’s response.

Finally, I have a number of brief questions for the Minister in relation to the 2014 report. First, on what date did the Atomic Weapons Establishment tell the Ministry of Defence of the report’s existence? Was the document ever produced to any judge? What steps are the Government now taking to inform the judges and courts concerned, and to inform war pensions in the future?

In the past six months, what impact assessments have been produced by the AWE or Ministry of Defence about costs, compensation and the number of people affected? What efforts have the AWE or the Ministry of Defence made to bring in the authors of the report, both of whom have since left the AWE, to discuss their findings? Who at the Ministry of Defence knew of the report at the time it was drafted, and did any Ministers know of the report?

What steps are the Government taking to look at the Athena database at Porton Down, which has confirmed it holds information relevant to nuclear veterans’ service and which has provided heavily redacted disclosures to freedom of information requests? What steps are under way in locating the research on radiation effects on UK service personnel, which the Ministry of Defence has confirmed is held by Technical Co-operation Programme, in an “allied country”?

When will the Defence Secretary and Prime Minister sit down with nuclear veterans and discuss their offer of a one-year special inquiry with capped costs to limit both the time and expense of ending this cover-up once and for all? Finally, on the Hillsborough law, can the Minister confirm that no information relating to nuclear testing veterans will be hidden behind national security concerns?

For too long, nuclear testing veterans have been forced to fight for recognition. For too long, they have been told there is no evidence to support their claims. For too long, they have had to carry the burden of proof themselves, when it is the state that held the evidence all along. That injustice cannot continue. We are the only nuclear power in the world not to compensate our nuclear testing veterans for their suffering.

This is not about rewriting history; it is about acknowledging it. It is about recognising that mistakes were made—serious mistakes—and those mistakes were compounded by decades of denial; it is about ensuring that those who serve this country are treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve; and it is about restoring faith in our institutions by demonstrating that, when confronted with the truth, we are willing to act on it.

The veterans and their families are not asking for special treatment. All they are asking for is fairness, honesty and justice. After 70 years, that is the very least we owe them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the Minister, I am sure I speak for the whole House in sending our very best wishes to the hon. Member’s mum.