Page 17 - CAMPAIGN Spring 2022

Focus on War Pensions
Owen Thompson MP led the Back Bench War Pensions’ debate in the House of Commons on the evening of March 28th. Owen is in close contact with the BNTVA concerning issues regarding nuclear test veterans and war pensions.
The BNTVA provided the following questions to Carol Monahan MP (SNP Defence) and Stephanie Peacock (Labour Defence), and both MPs mentioned the nuclear test veterans in their speeches to Leo Docherty, Veterans’ Minister. Points raised by the BNTVA were:
• Last month the government study into the mortality rates and cancer incidence of the British nuclear test veterans was released. In 2018, the MOD agreed to discuss adaptations to war pension claims based on the outcome of this study. Apart from higher levels of incidence for specific cancers, there are concerning figures within the new data about an increased number of suicides and cerebrovascular diseases as a cause of death amongst British nuclear test veterans compared to the control group. How will the MOD interpret this mortality data in context of living nuclear test veterans with chronic physical and psychological issues? Their average age is 85 and the survivors struggle with the claim forms, the lengthy wait for forms to be processed as well as the actual tribunals.
• The 4-page fast track form for nuclear test veterans introduced by the Office of Veterans’ Affairs has not appeared to speed up claims in any way and must be completed in addition to the existing 22-page claim form. Our brave cold war veterans are suffering a collective moral injury caused by the government due to the participation in the atmospheric tests and radiation clean-ups. This includes an act of commission about ‘being volunteered’, an act of omission concerning the lack of protective equipment including film badges and an act of betrayal by rocking their fabric of existence, changing a whole life-long outlook. The impact of this ethical breach runs deep and has had a profound effect on the lives of these men ever since. Will the Ministry of Defence look at these aspects in the context of the war pensions’ claim process and compensate all within this unique and harmed group of veterans?
• During a recent tribunal hearing at Fox Court attended by the British Nuclear Test Veterans' Association, the veteran's representative was told by the Judge to prove that every medical condition listed for the nuclear test veteran should be proven to be as a result of ionizing radiation. Why isn't the emphasis on service-related injury as for other veterans, which may or may not include ionizing radiation? The average age for our British nuclear test veterans is 85; why does the bar continue to be set higher by the judiciary in cases brought by these Cold War heroes?
• Concerning war pensions' claims for British nuclear test veterans, the MOD continues to rely on film badge dosimeter readings as part of the claims' process. The recent Fourth Analysis results of the British Nuclear Weapons' Test Participants Study commissioned by the MOD reveals that only 23% of test participants were issued with dosimeters and these weren't given to all men due to a non-evidence based pre-judged "likelihood" of non-exposure to radiation. Government and scientific AWRE records reveal that due to the constant humidity at Christmas Island, the pre-1958 dosimeters weren't fit for purpose due to the quick erosion of the emulsifying layer, and readings could not often be recorded. In light of the results of the recent study, why does the film badge remain such an issue and will you remove this obstacle for the nuclear veterans with immediate effect?
• In a recent war tribunal hearing for a nuclear test veteran, the MOD presenting officer spoke at length to the panel before the veteran's representative was invited into the room. During the hearing, the Judge told the veteran's representative to leave the room to continue a conversation with the MOD. At one point, the virtually- present MOD presenting officer, who was only visible to the judge via laptop, asked for one medical condition to be struck out. The Judge reminded him that the veteran's BNTVA representative was still in the room.
Can you explain why this is a fair process when it is clearly presented against the veteran?
The BNTVA is delighted to be working with the Head of Military Claims, Simon Ellis, at Hugh James Solicitors’ on this nuclear test veteran’s current case. Simon is frustrated at how our elderly nuclear test veterans are treated by the Veterans’ Agency and the judiciary during their War Pensions’ process.
15
CAMPAIGN SPRING 2022