Parliament told veterans "are dying by the week and month" as ministers withhold evidence of Nuked Blood Scandal
MPs have heard an impassioned plea for ministers to reveal evidence they have uncovered of human radiation experiments on troops.
Parliament was told veterans are "dying by the week and month" without the justice they have sought for decades, while an ongoing government review has uncovered proof that courts were repeatedly misled about what had befallen them.
Tory grandee Sir John Hayes told the House of Commons that the survivors and their families deserved to be told the truth. He said: "Earlier this year, the government announced that there will be a review into the blood and urine tests take at the time of those tests... because of the risk of radiation poisoning.
"The government has said that the review will be published, but we have no clarity as to when. There are tens of thousands of these records which are being examined as we speak... these men are now elderly; they are dying, of course, because of their age, by the week and month."
Ministry of Defence lawyers have repeatedly told war pension hearings, the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court that there was no individual biological monitoring of the 40,000 UK and Commonwealth troops who took part in more than 600 radioactive weapons experiments during the Cold War.
But the Mirror has uncovered thousands of memos, locked on a secret database at the Atomic Weapons Establishment on the grounds of national security, detailing orders for, and discussion of, blood counts, urinalysis, and chest x-rays, without any clinical reason beyond monitoring men's exposure to radiation.
The results are now missing from their individual medical records, denying them war pensions, compensation, and accurate diagnosis of health problems.
As a result of our investigation ministers launched a review which has already examined 43,000 files, and an estimated 1.1m pages of information.
Earlier this week we reported that some of the files seen by the review team included requests for blood tests "from the medico-legal aspect" and orders from Bomber Command instructing RAF members of the weapons task force to be subjected to them.
Yet when ministers are asked for an update on what has been found they decline. Veterans Minister Al Carns told Parliament recently: "I will update the house when I am in a position to share the findings of the exercise that is looking at concerns raised with me about some nuclear test veterans' medical records."
Survivors of the testing claim a catalogue of cancers, blood diseases and rare medical conditions. Their wives show three times the normal rate of miscarriages, and their children 10 times the usual amount of birth defects. Successive governments have always denied troops were part of the experiment.
Government lawyers told judges in sworn statements that 'the planning policy for the tests indicates that the intention was to prevent intake, rather than to allow it and monitor the results" and 'no personal records' of medical monitoring were made.
Ministers also told Parliament the MoD "holds no information about blood testing", only for the evidence to later be uncovered by campaigners.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 minutes ago
- Spectator
Is David Williams the MoD's fall guy?
Yesterday the Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed that its permanent secretary, David Williams, will be stepping down in a matter of weeks. He has served for just over four years, almost exactly the average tenure of his predecessors since the department was created in 1964, but it is difficult to regard the timing as a coincidence. It is still not yet three weeks since the catastrophic loss of data on Afghan nationals and others, and the MoD's use of a super-injunction, were disclosed to parliament by defence secretary John Healey. Williams is not explicitly being sacked: permanent secretaries very rarely are. The Ministry of Defence is being very careful and measured in its language to refer to his impending departure: according to the BBC, Healey had a 'conversation' with Williams before the Afghan data loss story became public knowledge, and 'made clear that this was the right time to make a change'. There is a plausible argument that we should not draw a line directly from the data loss to Williams's departure. The MoD has also briefed that this is 'an appropriate time for a transition' of leadership; under Healey's Defence Reform programme, the senior levels of the Ministry of Defence have been rearranged and streamlined into a 'leadership quad' which will supervise all aspects of defence policy and the armed forces. This is the biggest reorganisation of the MoD for half a century, and it need not be any reflection on Williams that he chooses to step down before implementing the reforms in full, or that the defence secretary would prefer a fresh approach and a new top civil servant. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton will be taking over as Chief of the Defence Staff next month, while the recruitment for a permanent national armaments director is taking longer than expected. While Madelaine McTernan, Chief of Defence Nuclear, has been in post since 2022, replacing Williams at this stage could make sense. Equally, Williams's departure could be seen as part of a wave of changes at permanent secretary level which often happen in the first year or so of a new government. Simon Case (Cabinet Secretary), Sir Matthew Rycroft (Home Office), Dame Tamara Finkelstein (Defra), Sir Philip Barton (FCDO), Dame Bernadette Kelly (Transport), Sarah Munby (DSIT) and Sir Jim Harra (HMRC) have all left the civil service within the past 12 months. And yet… while the MoD is making no explicit connection between Williams's departure and the data loss, it is hard to escape the feeling that we are being invited to join the dots, and that the permanent secretary is an expiatory offering to the political gods. The whole scandal did, after all, take place on his watch, and he was in charge of the overall management and leadership of the Ministry of Defence, as well as formally being principal accounting officer responsible to parliament. The MoD should under no circumstances be allowed to wipe the slate clean with Williams's departure. There is still a great deal we do not know about the Afghan data loss scandal, though the Intelligence and Security Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee will all be inquiring into the issue. But Williams – whatever his individual culpability – cannot be the fall guy. Even based on what we currently know, the MoD has a shameful inability to prevent the loss of secret data, and data breaches have increased threefold over the past five years. There is also a systemic lack of accountability, particularly in relation to a number of disastrous equipment procurement projects. The readiness with which the department accepted the comfort blanket of a super-injunction for nearly two years speaks to a deeply ingrained culture of secrecy and dislike of scrutiny. The Ministry of Defence is secretive, inefficient, unaccountable and almost pathologically unable to learn from its mistakes. That has been common currency in defence circles for decades, but the Afghan data loss cut through to the consciousness of the wider public. There is now a major issue of public trust, already a rare, valuable but rapidly disappearing commodity. If ministers try to usher Williams off stage, bring in a new permanent secretary and assume that previous disasters can then be written off, they must have their feet held to the fire. This is not a failing individual. This is an ingrained, systemic, cultural malaise. And it has to be fixed.
Times
10 hours ago
- Times
The Rev Canon Donald Gray obituary: campaigner for liturgical reform
The solemnity of the Speaker's procession, heralding another day of business in the House of Commons, was perennially interrupted by a squeak. Mice had long been a problem in the Palace of Westminster, but the furry critters had not decided to join the forthcoming debates. In fact the noise was emanating from the shoes of the Rev Canon Donald Gray, the chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons and otherwise known by MPs as 'Squeaky'. Resplendent in black silk cassock with white gloves, and in keeping with a tradition that dated back to the Restoration in 1660, Gray would lead prayers for five minutes before the rough and tumble began in earnest. A genial man with an earthy Lancastrian wit, he took in good part his nickname; squeaking aside, he went about his pastoral business quietly having been appointed by the Speaker Bernard Weatherill in 1987 and serving under Betty Boothroyd until 1998.
Telegraph
13 hours ago
- Telegraph
Trump's reckless nuclear performance is high-stakes but low cost
In normal times, this would be an extraordinary, epoch-changing and terror-inducing moment. Not even during the Cold War did a US president publicly move nuclear submarines towards Russian waters. Never before has a US leader chosen to engage in nuclear brinkmanship of this kind. True, the Soviet Union famously triggered a nuclear showdown in 1962 by moving nuclear warheads to within 90 miles of the US shoreline during the Cuban Missile Crisis. For 13 days, the world feared Armageddon. But given Donald Trump 's quixotic style of governing, few are panicking today. A Cuban Missile Crisis Mark II, this quite patently is not. Yet, that does not mean that what the US president has just done is risk-free. He has shifted Washington's nuclear posture towards Russia in a way that none of his predecessors dared, climbing – almost casually – the first rung of the nuclear escalation ladder. Should Vladimir Putin choose to respond in kind, a major crisis could follow. That seems unlikely – a calculation Mr Trump has presumably made. In fact, he appears to be borrowing from the Russian playbook. Putin has long used nuclear posturing as a tool of coercion. During bouts of tension with the West, he has deployed Iskander missiles, capable of firing nuclear warheads, to the exclave of Kaliningrad on the border with Poland, a Nato member. In 2023, he stationed tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus – the first time since the Cold War that Russia has placed nuclear weapons outside its own territory. He has also repeatedly hinted at using a tactical weapon in Ukraine. And on Friday, Putin announced that Russia had started producing Oreshnik hypersonic intermediate-range missiles, reaffirming plans to deploy them to Belarus this year. He boasted he had already selected sites for their deployment. In recent days, Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and now Putin's social media attack dog, who has previously rattled the nuclear sabre, warned that Mr Trump's threats could spark war between the US and Russia. Mr Trump, who has recently tempered his admiration of Putin, made it clear that he was calling Russia's bluff. In so many words, he told Moscow he was taking its threats literally rather than figuratively – an inversion of the advice his supporters usually give about him. He wrote in a social media post directed at Mr Medvedev: 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences.' Mr Trump's threat is therefore best seen as performance – high-stakes, reckless performance, but performance all the same. Other motives may be at play. In the coming days, the US president will have to unveil how he intends to counter Russia's continuing aggression in Ukraine, underscored on Friday after an attack on Kyiv killed 31 people. Secondary sanctions on countries buying Russian energy – chiefly China, India, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates – pose a major diplomatic headache. Should Mr Trump choose to retreat on these threats, he can point to the submarine deployment as proof he is serious about Russia – a strategy whose stakes are higher but costs potentially much lower than escalating tariffs on allies Washington needs for goodwill in other arenas.
