| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister said that the sample of about 2,000 people was small and self-selected. I do not think that it was self-selected. Those people are members of the veterans association, and many of them have since died. If the Minister views that as a small sample, surely the Department should fund research on a bigger sample. If the Government were willing to do that, I am sure that medical researchers would take part. That issue was raised in one of my questions.
Mr. Spellar: I fail to understand my hon. Friend's point. There have been two full studies of the full sample of test veterans by the National Radiological Protection Board. Both studies have been peer-reviewed and published, and have not been scientifically invalidated. My hon. Friend should bear that in mind.
I shall now turn to the two nuclear test veteran cases that were heard by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. One case concerned two former service men--Mr. McGinley and Mr. Egan, who were present at the atmospheric test. The other case concerned the daughter of a test veteran, who was diagnosed as suffering from leukaemia when she was four years old. The cases were referred to the court by the European Commission of Human Rights, which had concluded, as my hon. Friend rightly said, that there had been a violation of articles 6.1 and 8 in the McGinley and Egan case.
The finding of a violation of both articles related to the same issue. It was a narrow, technical point about access to records, which, it was claimed, were needed for the
veterans to get a fair hearing in an appeal for war pensions. The commission inferred from the evidence that was placed before it by the applicants' representative that there were yield and radiation level records from the atmospheric tests that had not been released publicly. It considered those records to be relevant to the veterans' case, because, without them, they could not usefully challenge the NRPB report on the veterans' health or an Atomic Weapons Establishment report on radiation levels.
From that, the commission concluded that there had been a violation of article 6.1 because the lack of those records placed
The Department's position is clear. We have consistently advised veterans of their individual radiation doses, based on the yields of the test devices and the distance of the individual from the device at the time of detonation. I will have to write to my hon. Friend on some of his detailed points, particularly as I took interventions during the debate.
New Ministers came to the Ministry of Defence determined to resolve matters on the basis of fact, not prejudgment. Whether dealing with industrial relations in the civil service, equipment purchases or the welfare of our troops, our guiding principles have been to be open to argument and to seek the truth and the facts. That is why the Minister for the Armed Forces has instigated a full investigation into Gulf war syndrome, and why I have taken measures with regard to those military personnel civilians who were--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. We now come to the next Adjournment debate.
Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset):
I am delighted to see so many Members on the Treasury Benches, which somewhat belies the spin--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. I must have silence in the Chamber, with the exception of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
Mr. Letwin:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The presence of so many Labour Members somewhat belies the spin that has been placed on the matter by Labour spin doctors that the issue is of no concern.
The background to the debate is the long tradition of the British public service, whereby the consistent practice has been that individuals should be appointed to their post--as the civil service management code makes clear--if they are most fitted to that office and that, if an official who is involved in an appointment is shown to have a close relationship of any sort with a potential appointee, that is declared and the official in question then resiles from the appointment.
We have on record in Hansard--there is no question of misinterpretation--a series of answers to questions that were posed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Those answers make perfectly clear a certain pattern of events.
To remind the House, on 21 May, the Foreign Secretary told the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he intended to dismiss Ms Bullen and to appoint Ms Regan as his diary secretary. Nine days later on 30 May, he informed officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that he wished to change that pattern of events and to have an internal appointment instead.
At some point in those nine days, an official--
Mr. Tony McNulty (Harrow, East):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Letwin:
I am afraid that I shall not give way as I have only six minutes. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The House must come to order.
Mr. Letwin:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Letwin:
At some point in that period, an official told Ms Bullen that she was to be dismissed and to be replaced by Ms Regan.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does not the failure of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) to give way show that he has a very weak case?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair. This is an Adjournment debate and
Mr. Letwin:
When Labour Members have heard the whole story, they can decide for themselves whether the case is indeed so weak.
On another day in that nine-day period, an official telephoned Ms Regan to discuss her appointment. We are also told on the record by the Foreign Secretary that, during those nine days, he never informed officials about his relationship with Ms Regan; indeed, they were not so informed until August. We are also told on the record that Ms Bullen was induced by officials to agree that
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) must be silent and behave properly.
Mr. Letwin:
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that defence.
Ms Bullen was forced to agree that
The pattern that that reveals is clear. We have a Foreign Secretary, the holder of one of the great offices of state, who, for a period of at least--
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
How did Ms Bullen get the job?
Mr. Letwin:
This is not about that.
The Foreign Secretary, for at least nine days, intended to appoint a person closely related to himself, while deceiving officials about that through failing to declare that connection.
The position is worse than that. Some months later, when it came to light that these events had transpired, the Foreign Secretary found himself in the presence of a Foreign Minister and high officials from a foreign Government in a foreign land. He did not take the opportunity to defend himself, as was his right. He took the opportunity, like some Labour Members from a sedentary position, to abuse the diary secretary whom he had displaced. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Hon. Members may not like the subject of the debate, but it is a Back Bencher's right to speak during an Adjournment debate, and he must be given that opportunity.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should not the hon. Member for
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Member for West Dorset has been in good order. Other hon. Members have been in bad order. I shall soon tell the hon. Gentleman if he is out of order.
"a disproportionate limitation on their right of access to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal."
Therefore, let us be clear: the issue before the court relates to process, not to the substance of the claim that the veterans' experience at the tests led to cancer.
1 pm
"the terms of her departure"--
[Interruption.]
"the terms of her departure and the circumstances giving rise to it should not be disclosed to third parties."--[Official Report, 29 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 387.]
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |