Nuclear Test Veterans

Debate between John McDonnell and Rebecca Long Bailey

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Debate between John McDonnell and Rebecca Long Bailey

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I want to thank the whole range of colleagues who have spoken today. It has been a fantastic collegiate debate that has shown the House at its best. For those outside of the Chamber who are watching, the campaign continues. It is a campaign that brings so many of us together, and there are so many formidable campaigners in this Chamber who need to be celebrated.

I know that the Minister is in a difficult position, and I have a lot of time for him, as I say. I know that he is bound by the Government’s current position on this issue, but I want to pick up on some of the information he gave in his speech. He said that I referred to a piece of research from 2024, but it was actually from 2003, and it is research that the ombudsman itself relies on in saying that 43% of women did not know that the state pension age was increasing. The Minister again made the point about letters being ineffective, but he must understand that to people watching this debate, that is an absurd thing to say. I know that he says that DWP research states that, but the research is absurd and does not really have any basis in reality.

I do not want the Minister to go down in history as the man who denied justice for the 1950s-born women— I honestly do not. I want to see action on this, and I want him to go down as the person who finally managed to award these women justice. He has to understand that the arguments being put forward by the Government are absurd to say the least. In fact, in denying the ombudsman’s report, the argument is akin to arguing that the world is flat.

[John McDonnell]

It is certainly not an argument that the Resolution Foundation would have put forward when the Minister was director of it.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right; it is not. That is why I place so much hope in the Minister to take action on this.

To conclude, there were two statements made by colleagues that stood out for me. The first was from the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who said that in the name of decency, justice must be done. The Minister must recognise that, so I urge him to get round the table with the women and present a package before Parliament that we can all support and celebrate. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, we are not going to give up until justice is done, and neither are the women.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s (PHSO) report on Women’s State Pension Age, HC 638, published in March 2024, which found that maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) communication about the Pensions Act 1995 resulted in complainants losing opportunities to make informed decisions about some things and to do some things differently, and diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control; further notes that there will likely be a significant number of women born in the 1950s who have suffered injustice because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about the Pensions Act 1995; and also notes that, given the scale of the impact of DWP’s maladministration, and the urgent need for a remedy, the PHSO took the rare but necessary step of asking Parliament to intervene, laying their report before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and asked Parliament to identify a mechanism for providing appropriate remedy for those who have suffered injustice.