APPENDIX 2
Letter to the Clerk from Ashworth Tetlow
& Co, Solicitors, 10 December 1999
I act on behalf of Shaun Rusling and the National
Gulf Veterans and Families Association. I understand that Mr Rusling
is shortly to address the Committee and he has asked that I set
out concerns regarding War Pensions for Gulf Veterans.
I attach relevant copy documents to which reference
is made herein.
The War Pensions Agency has received a substantial
number of claims from individuals who served in the Gulf. Please
see the letter of 8 February 1995 from the WPA Chief Executive
to Edwina Currie MP (Annex 1).[2]
This make clear that, even in early 1995, about one sixth of such
pension claims were based on a "diagnosis" of Gulf War
Syndrome/Desert Storm Syndrome. Most of the claims were still
pending as of the date of that letter. Six had been rejected,
however, of which one third were based on the Gulf War Syndrome
"diagnosis".
My clients are aware that the War Pensions Agency
has not acknowledged that "Syndrome" exists as an identifiable
medical condition. This view is not however, shared by other health
professionals and a number of claimants do have such a diagnosis.
RAF Hospital Wroughton diagnosed Flight Lieutenant Bratley as
suffering from Desert Storm Syndrome in November 1995. A number
of other individuals have received similar diagnoses from their
own medical professionals, including Mr Rusling.
I attach copy letter from the War Pensions Agency
to Consultant Neurologist Dr Ming (Annex 2)[3]
Stating:
"We note that in your letter dated 3 December
1997 you have diagnosed Mr Rusling as suffering from "Gulf
War Syndrome."
We note in passing that RAF Hospital Wroughton
used to house the MoD Medical Assessment Programme and Fl Lt Bratley's
Consultant, as shown on the form, was Head Physician and Commanding
Officer.
In July of last year Mr Ken Livingstone MP asked
the following Parliamentary Question:
"How many Veterans diagnosed with Gulf War
Syndrome have been refused War Pensions?"
We attach a copy of the Answer (Annex 3).[4]
We remain firmly of the view that Parliament has been misled concerning
this important issue.
It is beyond dispute that a number of pension
claimants have in fact been diagnosed as suffering from Gulf War
Syndrome. The Parliamentary Question was not limited in either
of the ways that the Chief Executive seems to believe. It was
not limited to those situations where the diagnosis was accepted
by the War Pensions Agency. Nor did it enquire as to the reason
for rejection. It was a simply factual question which has met
with obfuscation.
Indeed, the letter to Edwina Currie has only
recently come to light, showing in paragraph (d) that the Parliamentary
Answer was quite wrong.
The situation has been aggravated by a further
Parliamentary Question posed by Baroness Park. The Acting Chief
Executive of the War Pensions Agency responded on 13 May 1998
as enclosed (Annex 4).[5]
Although the thrust of this Parliamentary Question
was slightly different, you will note in paragraph six:
"I can assure you that neither Group Captain
Coker nor Colonel Bhatt has ever made a diagnosis `Gulf War Syndrome'
in a War Pension case."
How is this position to be reconciled with the
enclosed Batley records?
On 4 August 1998 the War Pensions Agency wrote
to my client advising on the number of claims and rejections (Annex
5).[6]
This continued to avoid the question. 537 claims had been received
referring to "Gulf War related illness". Of these, 44
were rejected. It does not state how many of these included any
diagnosis of Gulf War Syndrome. That, however, is the precise
information sought by my clients and Mr Livingstone for the last
18 months.
We do not seek an explanation for the rejection
but rather a simple factual statement as to the number of claims
rejected in which there was any historical diagnosis of Gulf War
Syndrome. I refer you again to the original Parliamentary Question:
"How many Veterans diagnosed with Gulf War
Syndrome have been refused War Pensions?"
After 18 months a direct factual reply still
has not been forthcoming. We have to say that the War Pensions
Agency letter to Mrs Currie strongly supports our conclusion that
Parliament has indeed been misled.
I trust the Committee will closely and seriously
examine this matter, effecting as it does the daily lives of many
Veterans and their families. Please circulate this letter to Members
in advance of the meeting and advise them that they should feel
free to contact me with any questions.
2 p 93. Back
3
p 94. Back
4
p 94. Back
5
p 94. Back
6
p 95. Back
| 
