Official statements betray not a scintilla of doubt; if anything, the line has become tougher since the questions first began. Several plausible explanations can be advanced for this state of affairs. One is the traditional reluctance of any current administration to admit faults in its predecessors, even if the events concerned happened thirty years ago and no contemporary ministers are implicated. This convention has a logical, if self-interested origin: each government hopes that its restraint in relation to previous administrations will be emulated by its own successors. It is certainly the case that a degree of loyalty is involved; although the bomb was given the go-ahead by Labour politicians, it was tested in the atmosphere exclusively by Conservatives. The spectre of numerous compensation claims is another important factor. Although the government is protected by statute from claims for compensation by ex-servicemen for injuries sustained during their period of service, any admission that the tests had led to ill-health would inevitably spark off demands that an exception be made for the men who served at the bomb tests.
