Nuclear Test Veterans

Helen Maguire Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his hugely important and tireless work on this issue.

The whole country owes a profound and enduring debt of gratitude to this generation, who helped to pioneer this technology at the very dawn of the nuclear age, and their immense contribution remains as important to UK defence today as it was seven decades ago.

As a veteran who served in Afghanistan, nothing is more important to me than the welfare of those who make up our armed forces. I know that it would be important to me to feel that the MOD had done its duty by me to protect me and those I served with in the things we were asked to do. I was happy to do them in defence of this country, but it was important to feel that the MOD would none the less be there for me too. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the rest of the Members in the House that I take these issues exceptionally seriously.

The Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear to the Department, and I continue to reinforce the message, that we should be operating on a principle of maximum transparency on this issue. I want to repeat and emphasise “maximum transparency”, because it is abundantly clear that, over many decades, some nuclear test veterans have felt mistreated, misunderstood and undervalued by successive Governments. That is something that we are addressing. Again, I repeat that I am a veteran and I am deeply passionate about this issue.

We published our veterans strategy last year, which outlines our ambitions for veterans in society: that they feel pride in their service, and that their lives and the challenges they face are better understood and valued. That is why, since we came to office, we have sought to build the relationship between the Government and the nuclear test veterans, because we want open dialogue and meaningful collaboration.

[Helen Maguire]

I totally feel the Minister’s empathy in this important speech. On collaboration, veterans have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, which has not yet been forthcoming. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to push a little further to try to get that meeting, because I know how important it is for the nuclear test veterans.

[Louise Sandher-Jones]

Absolutely. We are in constant dialogue with them about the right time to have that meeting. I am aware of its importance to the veterans.

The Secretary of State, as well as my predecessor as Minister for Veterans and People—the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—and I have met nuclear test veterans during this Parliament. Just today, I met representatives to discuss the Environmental Information Regulations report, and to hear their concerns and keep them updated on the work that we are doing. My officials also meet with nuclear test veteran representatives on a weekly basis. For example, in the last week alone, they have met with LABRATS and the Nuclear Community Charity Fund.

In addition, we have reviewed, and now twice extended, the criteria for the nuclear test medal to include the UK personnel who took part in atmospheric tests by the United States and those who observed tests by other nations. More than 5,000 veterans or their next of kin have received medals in recognition of their service. “An Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans” has also been recently completed. It is a vital document of veterans history, permanently preserving their testimony and legacy for future generations. It includes 41 interviews with test veterans to capture their experiences and how the nuclear programme has affected the rest of their lives. These measures are to improve our understanding and appreciation of the test veterans’ contributions to national security.

As I have made clear, the Government have committed to maximum transparency, and we recognise that swiftness of action is so important to this community after so many decades. That is why, in September 2025, we started the transfer of records from the Merlin database to the National Archives. These are historical, technical and scientific records relating to the UK’s nuclear testing programme. Over 16,300 of them are already listed and accessible on the National Archives website, and that work is ongoing.

In a bid to address wider concerns about records, my predecessor, the current Minister for the Armed Forces, launched an examination of the Department’s records in three key areas: the policy of blood and urine testing between 1952 and 1967; the information that was captured from those tests; and if records did exist, to find out what happened to them. My predecessor updated the House last year on progress, noting that tens of thousands of files have already been reviewed. I can tell the House today that this significant undertaking is now nearing completion, and I hope to share the findings in the very near future.

I will now turn to some of the specific issues raised about the recent release by the Atomic Weapons Establishment of a draft document in response to an information request concerning historical nuclear testing at Christmas Island. The release of that document aligns with the Government’s commitment to that transparency, which is very important to me and why I decided that the document had to be released. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, along with others, including LABRATS, have raised some very important questions about the document. They are incredibly important questions that must have answers. I can give a commitment to her and to them that I am determined to fully understand the implications of what is in the document and the handling of the document, and to take action if necessary.

I will be frank with the House that I do not have all the answers to those questions right now, and I do not wish to suggest anything that may then subsequently need updating should new information emerge—excuse me.