March 2006

Page 1

March Z006 wvuw.bntva.com 16 Pages of NEWS, OPINIONS & PICTURES

Campaign

’■/}]* j'fjfcwmi wjw 'fill we seek Is Justice'

British Nuclear Tests Veterans Association

IN REMEMBRANCE OF THOSE WHO DID NOT MAKE IT THIS FAR AND IN SUPPORT OF THOSE WHO HAVE

iSEW ■

BLACKPOOL REUNION 2006 Page 7

MARALINGA PLAY AT LEEDS

w

LITIGATION UPDATE Page 3

Page 16

BNTVA MEMORIAL AT ARBORETUM Page 9

F(BDDD°aosQD°y ldD(D(S was dEne day

fei©rai§ Ilsnsteff has ‘Open Mind’ BNTVA’s opportunity to discuss witfli Veterans Minister Touliig' at MoD BNTVA Chairman John Lowe and Chaplain The Very Reverend Nicholas Frayling and Tribunals Officer Derek Heaps met with Right Honourable D Touhig MP, Minister for Veterans Affairs at the Ministry of Defence building Whitehall on Friday 9Ih February 2006, together with four MoD officials. The BNTVA deputation was received courteously and the whole meeting was helpful from both sides. Chairman John Lowe made this opening Statement to the Minister. In agreeing to this meeting, you requested that we supply you with a list of the questions that we intend to ask. In listing these questions, it was intended that we attempt to convince you that previous answers supplied by the MoD had, in the main been, unsatisfactory. In some cases appearing to be so worded as to deliberately deceive. A typical example of this being the claim, that the total amount of radiation given off from all the tests was miniscule. Unfortunately, when members attend a pension tribunal, we find that the panel often accepts this claim by the MoD as gospel. You will understand that our main aim in seeking this interview was to persuade you that, in the main, Nuclear Test Veterans seeking a war pension are not afforded a fair hearing. This often appears to be as a result of the criteria in order which NORCROSS operates. When they consider that a claimant's case does not fit with that criteria, the claimant is referred to a tribunal. However, even when that tribunal f I n d s in favour of

the claimant and a pension is awarded they refuse to accept the tribunal’s findings and they never amend their criteria. How can this be right? In the last few years, the Associations advising solicitor has handled a number of cases where claimants have been referred to a tribunal. He has been successful in 80% of them. This in itself suggests that there is something wrong, and that claims are being turned down without proper consideration and that the pensions agency is not applying the correct tests and is simply not doing its job correctly. It is employing doctors to undertake work, which requires legal training. Doctors simply look for a medical diagnosis. They have no concept or understanding of the application of the term ‘Reasonable Doubt’.

All claimants are entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt. However the claimants themselves will tell you that this rule is not applied in the majority of cases. I have with me a copy of the Hansard report for the 28lh March 1990 RADIATION EXPOSED CROWN EMPLOYEES. Even at this time MP's were arguing that test veterans be given the benefit of doubt. Far too much faith is being placed in the NRPB reports. The methods used in the studies may have been sound, however, this does not alter the fact that they were purely statistical exercises, and like all such exercises the results are only as good as the information on which they are based. There have been many published criticisms of this report. When studying


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.