DE&S SEC Policy Secretariat
Defence Equipment and Support
MOD Abbey Wood
Bristol
BS34 8JH
Email:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xx
Mr Rex Young
Our Reference:
FOI2016/10203
Via:
request-365191-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Date: 27 January
2017
Dear Mr Young,
Thank you for your further email of 10 December 2016, requesting a further response to
the following issues:
Thank you for your reply. Before I consider referring for Internal Review and
onwards to ICO please answer the following.
Bearing in mind my question related to British Nuclear Test Records-- your reply
centred on "Defence Applications of Nuclear Energy.
ICI 99, of which you provided scant details, is of interest in that it holds records of
The British nuclear Tests and for which you provided no release details.
Studying past and currently on-going Veterans vs MOD Tribunals etc It is clear that
MOD salaried legal staff and privately engaged barristers and their staff
representing MOD produce documents, presumably from AWE, that have never
been produced to the veterans or their legal counsel-- should they be fortunate
enough to have one.
If you unable or prevented from disclosing when ACNRA will be persuaded to
release these, now over 60 year old documents, then please refer for Internal
Review.
This followed our response of 5 December 2016 to your email of 30 October 2016
requesting the following information:
1. Please list all documents relating to British Nuclear Tests held under a Lord
Chancellor's Instrument.
2. Please advise the period each document is barred to the general public.
You will further recall that your initial query of 16 October 2016 asked for the following
information:
MOD relies on LCI held documents in MOD vs British Nuclear Test Veterans but
denies access to the Veterans.
Rebuttal--Evidence introduced to counter, disapprove, or contradict the opposition's
)(MOD's) evidence or a presumption, or responsive legal argument.
Why?
Turning to your present query, you state that my reply centred on “Defence Applications of
Nuclear Energy”, implying that I have responded to a question different to that asked. I
endeavoured to reply to your query, by obtaining details of documents which fall in scope
of your request. The Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), which holds the records,
provided these details in response to my request for information and I sought to assist you
in your searches at the National Archives (TNA) by indicating the relevance of Lord
Chancellor’s Instrument (LCI) 118.
You state that I provided very little detail in my response. This is unavoidable given that
the scope of your question was very broad and covered a very large number of files. In a
further attempt to be of assistance, you may be interested to note that very few of the
records covered by LCI 99 seem to relate to the British Nuclear Tests, although 6.5 linear
metres of canned film relating to the tests are covered. Many of the unclassified films have
been sent to the Imperial War Museum (IWM) and are stored at the IWM Duxford, where
they are open to the public.
LCI 99 was due for review in 2015, and may be replaced by a subsequent LCI. That said, I
would reiterate that LCI 99 related to a backlog of files which AWE are reviewing
progressively, and you are free to submit FOI requests in the normal way.
You have commented on the nuclear test veterans’ litigation against the MOD, and what
material is made available in the context of litigation. The question of what material should
be disclosed to other parties to litigation is governed by litigation disclosure obligations,
and the FOI Act does not affect the scope of the MOD’s obligations in this respect.
In conclusion, I am neither unable nor prevented from considering requests for information
relating to the British nuclear tests. As always however, I remain dependent on receiving
clear requests, which are targeted in scope such that the cost of compliance does not
exceed the £600 appropriate limit. I would reiterate that I will happily reconsider a refined
request, although we cannot guarantee that the MOD holds the specific information you
seek, or that it will be possible to comply within the appropriate limit.
I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you wish to request an internal review at
this stage. If I do not hear from you within 40 working days I will consider the matter to be
closed. Alternatively, you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the
Information Rights Compliance team, Ground Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A
2HB (e-mail
xxxxxxxxxx@xxx.xx). Please note that any request for an internal review
must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal
resolution has come to an end.
If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the
Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your
case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role
and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's
website
, http://www.ico.org.uk. Yours sincerely
Defence Equipment & Support Policy Secretariat