A bomb in the Pacific, a lie in Whitehall

Seventy years of the same story, until this week - From the desk of Tom Watson, Baron Watson of Wyre Forest.

With thanks and deep respect to investigative journalist Susie Boniface.

On Tuesday a restricted document landed in my hands that helps explain one of the grimmest habits of the modern British state: its ability to turn human misery into a technical footnote and then sit on it for decades.

The report is called the Christmas Island Nuclear Tests Radiation Survey Report. It is dated 22 May 2014. On its face, that looks like a dull bureaucratic note. It is not. It is the hinge of the whole story.

Let me explain why.

Between 1957 and 1958 Britain carried out Operation Grapple, a series of hydrogen bomb tests. The main base was Christmas Island in the central pacific. The successful tests made Britain a thermonuclear power and changed the course of history. Thousands of British servicemen passed through the island, many of them doing national service, young men taking orders and hoping to get home. Some have described being told to turn their backs on the blast and cover their eyes with their hands. Others remember contaminated clothing, strange illnesses and the unsettling business of being told that something enormous and officially harmless had just happened nearby.

For close on seventy years the British state has stuck to a single line on what followed. No significant increased radiation where it mattered. No convincing evidence of harm. The veterans’ fears were understandable, but unsupported. In 1965, when Tom Driberg MP pressed ministers about leukaemia among men who had served on Christmas Island, the Commons was told there was “no evidence to connect the illness with the nuclear tests.” In 1983 the Lords were told that measured exposures “clearly indicate that no significant health risks were run.” In 1997 ministers said surveys had found “no radioactive contamination which would present a hazard to the inhabitants of Christmas Island.” Read those phrases slowly. They are the language of closure.

And the language of closure did not stop there. In May 2019, during a House of Commons debate on Christmas Island nuclear testing, Tobias Ellwood told the House that “none was exposed to direct radiation beyond the background radiation that was expected.” In November 2023 a written parliamentary answer from Dr Andrew Murrison stated that “there was never any significant fallout from the UK’s nuclear detonations on the island.” Both of those assurances were given years after an internal government review of the original monitoring records had been completed in 2014. Whatever was known inside the department by then, Parliament was still being told the old story.

I have been campaigning for these veterans, on and off, for more than a decade, alongside a small cross-party group of MPs and peers. In that time I have watched the same pattern repeat itself. A widow writes. A veteran dies waiting. A minister offers sympathy and a medal and a promise that someone is looking into it. The state does not always lie in one dramatic burst. More often it trims, narrows and postpones.

Then Tuesday’s report enters the picture.

That review, a restricted document produced by the Atomic Weapons Establishment in May 2014, examines the original environmental monitoring records from Christmas Island going back to 1957. Those records had never been fully scrutinised. Instead, for decades, the government had relied on a 1993 summary of that data, produced by the AWE and known as SDTN 16/93 or the Clare report. It was the Clare report that was cited in response to Freedom of Information requests, used to brief ministers, and placed before courts and tribunals as the authoritative account of what happened on the island. The 2014 review went back to the underlying archive, the raw data from which the Clare report had been compiled and found the original summary to have been “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate.” In other words, the document upon which the entire official case had rested for thirty years was, by the government’s own internal assessment, unreliable.

That alone should have stopped the presses. It did not.

What the review also finds is that elevated radiation readings at Port Camp, where Royal Navy personnel were based on the evening of the Grapple X detonation, had gone entirely unrecorded in any previously known document. These readings had “neither been discussed in SDTN 16/93, nor in any of the extant documents known to the holder of these records.” The magnitude of those readings relative to natural background was “large - a factor of approximately 3.” That is the state’s own language, in the state’s own document, describing readings that the state had never previously disclosed.

Consider the sequence. In 1965: no evidence. In 1983: no significant health risks. In 1997: no radioactive contamination which would present a hazard. In 2019: none exposed to radiation beyond expected background. In 2023: never any significant fallout. And behind all of those assurances, sitting in a restricted AWE document dated May 2014, radiation readings three times background in a populated area of the island on the evening of a nuclear test. The review’s own executive summary puts the matter with clinical precision: the instrument readings, it says, “could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by AWE, MoD and HMG regarding the occurrence of fallout on CI.”

And there is more. The document discloses that in 1997, AWE provided a briefing note to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for a hearing at the European Court of Human Rights. That note stated that during Operation Grapple X, “there was no fallout on Christmas Island.” The European Court found in favour of the Government. We now know that the Atomic Weapons Establishment had already, in its own internal records, identified elevated radiation readings in a populated part of that island on the night of the test.

The significance of the 2014 date goes beyond Parliament. The civil group litigation brought by nuclear test veterans culminated in the Supreme Court in Ministry of Defence v AB and others [2012] UKSC 9. The Court dismissed those claims largely on limitation grounds, not upon any definitive finding that the veterans’ underlying allegations were without merit. Its reasoning rested in part on an assessment of the evidential record as it then stood. The First Tier Tribunal then sat in 2012 and 2013, relying extensively on the Clare report as “one of the principle references in this case.” The 2014 review, produced while further proceedings were still live, found that same report incomplete and factually inaccurate, and concluded that the newly identified data constituted “reliable evidence” capable of raising “a reasonable doubt”, which was precisely the legal threshold the Tribunal required claimants to meet. Public authorities appearing before courts and tribunals are under a well-established obligation to ensure that relevant evidence is disclosed where it may materially affect the outcome of a case. The question of whether this review was disclosed, and to whom, is one the Government must now answer directly.

We have seen this method before. Hillsborough. Infected blood. The Post Office. The same patient official language, the same sense that grief is a nuisance to be managed until it grows too large to ignore. In each case the state’s defence was the same: nothing conclusive, nothing to see, nothing that quite adds up to the thing that plainly happened. The veterans were not laboratory mice or figures in an actuarial table. They were young men who stood under a hydrogen blast and were then required to spend the rest of their lives standing under the weight of official doubt. Their testimony was dismissed as anecdotal. Official language was used to bury official wrongdoing. That is the scandal, and it has been hiding in plain sight.

I have written to the Defence Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Attorney General because this can no longer be padded with sympathy and pushed back into the drawer. I want to know when the Ministry of Defence first became aware of the 2014 review’s conclusions, and whether ministers were ever briefed on its findings. I want to know whether the report and the underlying monitoring data were made available to government legal representatives in the nuclear veterans’ litigation. I want to know whether the ministerial statements made after 2014 remain sustainable in light of what the review contains. And I want the report placed in the Libraries of both Houses so that Parliament may consider the matter on a fully informed basis. Responsible government does not require omniscience. It does require candour once earlier certainties can no longer safely be maintained.

The reporter who stayed

For all these years our small campaigning group has been led, if that is the right word, by the investigative journalist Susie Boniface. She would bristle at the title of leader, particularly the idea of leading politicians, for whom she maintains a healthy and entirely justified scepticism. But led is what she has done. She has stayed with the story long after other journalists got bored, dug into the annexes and kept asking the difficult questions. With the revelation of this report it feels, for the first time, as though she may finally have cracked it. You never know with bureaucracies. But whatever comes next, the broader media seem negligent not to pick up her latest breakthrough. I hope that one day her peers give her the recognition she deserves for this campaign.

Nearly seventy years ago, British atomic bombs were exploded in the bright light of empire. The fallout has been managed in the shadows of Whitehall ever since.

I hope you are enjoying my writing. Please do share

with friends who you think may also take an interest.

Subscribe to Tom Watson, Baron Watson of Wyre Forest Substack