In a document dated 16th August 1983, the transfer of information between DHSS and MOD was discussed:
Involved in a meeting with the Officer of the Treasury Solicitor, 3 topics were of interest:
MOD's concerns that medical records supplied by them may be made available to the claimants;
the handling by DHSS of claims in respect of disablement alleged to be due to the effects of exposure to radiation;
the obtaining of particulars from service doctors in relation to claims alleging medical negligence.
It was explained to the MOD that where a claim is successful, there is no question of the medical records being disclosed to a claimant, but where a claim is rejected and the claimant appeals the Secretary of State is required by rule 5 of the PAT rules 1980 to prepare a Statement of Case containing - "The relevant facts ... including the relevant medical history of the appellant."
The DHSS always supplied full medical records, but the MOD only supply the relevant ones and it was pointed out by the Treasury Solicitors Office (Mr John Ward) that they only had to provide "relevant facts" and "relevant medical history".
The claimant can apply to the PAT President for full disclosure of any documents which he feels are relevant and which has not been included under Rule 6. But he also pointed out that Rule 6 had never been used!
The report continues:
If the MOD want to restrict the material, they will have to do the sifting so that DHSS is provided with only those records which the MOD considers relevant.
In the authors' opinion, the MOD will find the work disproportionately time-consuming and will either provide the full file or nothing at all. In the latter case, the claimant would be protected by Rule 6, but no one had used it.
The Treasury Solicitor (Mr John Ward) was concerned that where a claim was based on injury attributed to radiation that they were not being handled correctly. The implication was that he and MOD consider that DHSS is not pulling its weight in maintaining the "Government line" on radiation cases - i.e. that nobody got enough to do any harm.
He also pointed out that Government scientists have been advised by him to be as uncommunicative as they can when asked for information from sources such as the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment.
Further discussions relating to medical negligence were discussed and John Ward suggested that "it would be quite proper and indeed desirable for service doctors to supply the purely factual terms and did not invite the doctor to comment on liability or standards of care. John Ward clearly had little time for Peter Groat's 'Army Discipline' argument against supplying the information."
The author believes that some progress had been made, but the medical top brass in each of the services were not convinced that the medical information should be released, especially General Milne.
In a document dated 2nd September 1983, the transfer of information between the DHSS and MOD was again discussed further:
On Radiation cases, the report states:
'My view on this is not so much that the Atomic Weapons Research
Establishment (AWRE) are uncooperative as we have
the feeling at times that they are not giving us
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'
The report also discusses the possibility that the RBL would soon become aware that not all service documents were being included in Statements of Case:
'As discussed I think we need to impress upon MOD that the RBL would soon become aware of the possibility that not all the service documents were being included in Statements of Case; that thereafter the RBL would challenge the contents of Statements of Case in all appeals; and that they can expect their Minister to be challenged in the House of Commons as to why his Department is withholding service documents in appeal cases. As agreed, we should point out to MOD that at the hearing of the appeal the Departmental representative would have to admit that whilst we can say with all honesty that everything in the Secretary of State's possession has been included and disclosed, it was possible that not all the service documents had been forwarded by the Ministry of Defence.'
The MOD ignores cancer specialists where the veterans' cancer is attributed to service (Name removed for data protection purposes) :
On the 30th of September 1983, D C Vangen spoke to the MOD Claims Commission:
"I have since spoken to John Royle of the MOD Claims Commission
and confirmed that MOD have no intention of introducing a compensation scheme for members of the Armed Forces just for the effects of radiation;
for the record I did spell out to MOD in no uncertain terms what the consequences of such a move would be."
The MOD also wanted copies of all correspondence relating to claims for War Pensions received by the DHSS. The question is why?
For many years, the Nuclear Test Veterans were convinced that their medical records were 'flagged' in some way.
Extract from the September 1983 'Protocol for a Study of the Health of UK Participants on the UK Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests by J A Reisland. This document provides the evidence that they have been since 1983:
It states:
'A marker will be inserted in the register so that a copy of the death
notification will be automatically made available when death occurs.
Additionally, for each traced surviving individual, the Study team
will be notified of any cancer registration known to the NHSCR.'
Conclusion
The medical records of the Nuclear Test Veterans are flagged. Reasons for death and cancer diagnosis are recorded against every single person identified by the MOD.
As far back as 1983, the MOD was withholding information relating to the Nuclear Test Veterans from appeal cases. Why would they not provide full information, including details of their service to support a Statement of Case? Why withhold medical information that could help the claimant? Why would the claimant not be entitled to see his medical records?
Information relating to the tests was available, but it is very clear that MOD did not want to supply the information, they were deliberately withholding the information in particular cases and were pressurising the DHSS to 'Tow the Government Line' in relation to radiation exposure cases.
For many years, Nuclear Veterans have fought for truth and justice, they have submitted war pension claims, attended appeals, and lost many battles. Just how much information was withheld from these claimants regarding their exposure, their service and their health?
These documents prove that information was being withheld by the MOD, that the Treasury was involved in decision-making and that pressure was put on the DHSS and that the RBL was misled. Just how many appeals would have been successful, we will never know.
As we have always known, it comes down to money, why else would the Treasury Solicitor be involved?
How many times did the MOD's representatives lie in an appeal court? A Duty of Candour and Hillsborough Law is needed now. These men and their families deserve more than the cover-ups and lies from their own government.
Comments