SERIOUS questions need to be asked of the lawyers who acted for ex-servicemen who lost a bid for compensation for illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to radiation during nuclear weapons tests, it has been claimed.
Thomas Docherty, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife, is to ask Defence Secretary Philip Hammond if the Ministry of Defence is satisfied the legal advice given to the veterans was the best available at the time.
Almost 100 Scottish former nuclear test veterans were among 1000 UK-wide who claimed they fell ill after exposure to radiation during the tests in the 1950s and 1960s. However, the UK Supreme Court ruled it had been too long since the problems had emerged for the claims against the MoD to proceed.
The Herald was told that in 2009 the then Labour Government offered the veterans a £15million settlement, which would have meant each former serviceman receiving up to £10,000. But this was rejected.
Mr Docherty said: "Serious questions have to be raised about the role of the veterans' lawyers. Why, when there was a compensation deal on the table in 2009, did they reject it? Did they give the veterans the best advice? Were the veterans fully aware of what was on offer?"
The veterans took their fight to the Supreme Court in November after battles in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Some 10 "lead" claimants won the first round when a High Court judge said claims could go ahead. But the MoD appealed and, in 2010, a Court of Appeal ruling blocked nine of the 10 claims when judges said they were "statute-barred" because they had been made too late. A challenge against that decision was rejected this week by Supreme Court justices.
The veterans blame ill-health, including cancer, skin defects and fertility problems, on their involvement in British nuclear tests in Australia, on Christmas Island and in the Pacific Ocean between 1952 and 1958.
While this week's decision blocks most claims, some could still proceed because of an earlier legal ruling. Lawyers said the fight for justice would go on and urged the Government to start a compensation scheme.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article