| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Russell: That is a slightly determinist view of the matter. We have more conversation to exchange, but I am not sure that we need to keep the Chamber listening to us while we do it. I would like to ask the Minister one more question before leaving the matter, if he will forgive me. If he is absolutely determined to keep the power to impose a small payments limit, would he consider fixing that limit in terms of the amount of benefit to be recouped rather than in terms of the amount of damages awarded because that would not have all the effects that we, on these Benches, are worried about in relation to a small payments limit. Is that a situation that the Minister might be prepared to discuss?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would have to think about that and take some advice. These matters are complex. One of the problems arising at £2,500 is that in fact it tempts people to fix the payment there, or near the limit, and pretend there is no benefit in it. One has to be a little cautious and protect the taxpayer. I shall consider what the noble Earl has said, and I have no doubt that we shall return to the matter at the next stage.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister. "I require notice of this question" is a good traditional ministerial reply. I give him notice of the question, thank him for considering it and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Chelmsford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
The noble Viscount said: I rise simply to say that to the best of my knowledge the insurance industry was delighted to consult constructively with the Government on the question of what is an appropriate limit, if there is a limit.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will remember with great pride, six years ago some 50,000 British troops deployed to the Gulf as part of the allied coalition to liberate Kuwait.
"The Government's and the Chief of Staff's prime concern and duty--now as then--was the safety and welfare of our service personnel, and the commanders on the ground took every possible step to minimise the risk faced by our troops.
"The House will recall that British troops were facing an aggressor who had formidably well-equipped armed forces, and whom we assessed correctly as possessing, and being capable of using, weapons of mass destruction.
"The Gulf campaign was, by any standards a brilliant feat of arms. The number of British servicemen killed or wounded in action was, mercifully, much smaller than had at one stage been feared.
"Illness among our troops in the desert was much lower than that experienced during earlier conflicts, a reflection of the steps taken to maintain very high standards in the face of unfamiliar, difficult and sometimes unhealthy conditions.
"Since the conflict, a small number of those who served have become ill. Some of these are ill with clearly recognisable symptoms for which they are receiving appropriate treatment; others are suffering from sickness which medical science has so far found it difficult readily to explain.
"There have been suggestions that some of those unwell are afflicted by a specific syndrome caused by service in the Gulf.
"Madam Speaker, I want to make it plain yet again that as much as we were anxious for the welfare of our troops during the conflict, so we remain no less concerned about the health of our Gulf veterans both serving and retired. In our search for answers we have throughout been guided by the best medical and scientific advice available in this country. In 1993 we established a medical assessment programme to try to diagnose the reasons why some Gulf War veterans were ill. In order to establish the professional independence and integrity of this work, the methodology of the programme was audited, at my request, by the Royal College of Physicians and was endorsed by it in July 1995.
"So far, some 921 veterans have been examined and have been referred for appropriate further treatment where necessary. While the results have not produced any evidence of a new pattern of illness, the
Page 17, line 33, leave out ("the prescribed sum") and insert ("£1,250").
3.54 p.m.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Gulf War illness and I apologise for the length.
10 Dec 1996 : Column 954
- Government retain an open mind on whether there is generally more illness among our veterans than should be expected, and whether there are Gulf-service related factors at work which remain to be discovered. It is now clear that the medical assessment programme alone cannot answer these questions.
"On the advice, therefore, of the Royal College of Physicians, we have asked the Medical Research Council to establish a major, independent, peer-reviewed, research programme.
"The MRC has considered in great detail a large number of research proposals. It advises that the only scientifically sound way to proceed is by conducting epidemiological studies to address two specific questions: are British Gulf veterans suffering more ill health than they would have done had they not served in the Gulf, and, if so, what is the nature and magnitude of the phenomenon?; and are British veterans finding disproportionate difficulties in having children or are their offspring suffering from an unusual number of birth defects? If so, what is the nature and magnitude of the risk?
"Its recommendation is to proceed with two studies, which I am pleased to be able to announce today. They will be led by Professor Nicola Cherry at Manchester University and by Dr. Patricia Doyle of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The costs, which will amount to some 1.3 million, will be met by the MoD. I should, at this stage, like to express my thanks to Professor Alan McGregor, of King's College Medical School for his work as chairman of the Medical Research Council committee examining these matters.
"The Medical Research Council advises that if the studies are to be rigorously and scientifically conducted they will take some three years to complete. The Medical Research Council tells us that the research programme should find the answers we seek. The projects will be carefully co-ordinated with a major US-funded epidemiological study which is being conducted in parallel at King's College, London by Dr. Simon Wessely.
"Madam Speaker, the Government have throughout worked very closely with the US authorities on Gulf War-related health research. From the start there has been extensive--indeed, almost daily--contact between the medical teams involved on both sides. We are most grateful for this assistance.
"I visited the United States recently to discuss these matters in detail. I want the House to know that we are as one with the Americans, and that they have agreed to allow us unfettered access to the results of the extensive research programme they have in hand. I attach the greatest importance to this extremely valuable co-operation.
"So as to consolidate these links further, I have appointed a British medical liaison officer to work within the United States Department of Defense research programme.
"I should add also that a British officer already sits on the US research working group, affording us a valuable insight into their ongoing work.
"Meanwhile, at the request of the American authorities, the Medical Research Council has agreed to review research which has been carried out there. This will enable us to establish the relevance of any of their studies to the health of our veterans and whether there are any obvious gaps.
"The Government are also taking further steps to remind veterans of the existence of the medical assessment programme. At the same time, we are writing to all the GPs of those who have been seen by the medical assessment programme so as to improve our knowledge of the medical progress of retired servicemen.
"There has been much speculation that explanations for illness among Gulf veterans can be found in the various hazards which faced our troops during the campaign. The Government wish to be entirely open about what happened during the Gulf conflict, and I wish to stress, Madame Speaker, that we have nothing to hide and indeed absolutely no reason to do so.
"In this connection, as I promised, I am now able to update the House on the use of pesticides in the protection of our forces during the campaign, an issue which has understandably given rise to genuine concern in recent weeks.
"The House will recall that I made public on 4th October that there had been wider use of organophosphate chemicals in the Gulf than had previously been thought, or we had previously been advised. I have already apologised to the House for this and expressed my profound regret and anger that this ran counter to earlier information given in utmost good faith by Ministers in answer to parliamentary Questions. I subsequently told the House that a comprehensive investigation had been commissioned to discover the facts and I promised to report the outcome as soon as it was known.
"My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal told another place on 4th December that we expected the results before Christmas. I received the report of this investigation, which covers two separate areas, on 6th December.
"On the first, which is what actually happened in the Gulf, the investigation team discovered that OP pesticides were indeed used by our troops in the Gulf to deal with the threat posed by fly-borne diseases on a much wider scale than previously reported; secondly that, with the exception of the possibly small scale use of pesticides obtained incorrectly, there is no evidence that they were improperly used. There is also the question of the dusting powder used to delouse Iraqi prisoners of war, where the inquiry has found that the number of Iraqi prisoners involved ran to hundreds rather than the 50 previously reported to the House. Again, I very much regret that Ministers, and therefore the House, should have been inadvertently misinformed.
"I am making arrangements for this section of the report to be published in full and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.
"The House will understand that, given the extraordinary pressure of work generated by the vast and complex preparations for a sustained period of high intensity conflict, and at a distance of six years, we simply cannot be sure of all the details. There may be individual veterans who have further information to add to the story: if so we would welcome it. We are as anxious as anyone else to establish what happened. I want the House to be wholly confident that we are absolutely determined to establish what happened.
"The second part of the investigation deals with the question of how parliamentary Questions were answered. The key finings here are that the first parliamentary Question in July 1994 was answered incorrectly because Ministers were given flawed advice arising from a failure within one area of the department; and that the original flawed advice was repeatedly resubmitted in answer to further parliamentary Questions.
"On the question of how Ministers became aware of the mistake that had been made, detailed investigation has found that the possible local purchase of OP pesticides was mentioned in background material to a written parliamentary Question answered in October 1995. In June 1996, officials on one occasion suggested possible difficulties over the standard briefing line on pesticide use. In July a note included in briefing material mentioned OP pesticide purchase and use. But it was not until 25th September that Ministers were given clear, written advice on the wider use of OP pesticides during the Gulf War, and that previous Answers needed to be corrected.
"I must explain again, Madame Speaker, that Minsters at no stage knowingly misled the House on this matter, nor would they ever have done so and I again unreservedly apologise to the House that this should have come to pass.
"The evident failures in providing proper and timely advice to Ministers are a matter of serious concern. It is essential that the reasons are examined in detail. Accordingly, a separate investigation, overseen by the Permanent Under-Secretary, is being set in hand. Because of its potential implications for individuals, arising from the possibility of disciplinary or administrative action affecting careers, it would be against natural justice to publish the detailed information gathered so far on these matters. I can assure honourable Members that the further investigation will be completed as soon as possible and the findings made available to the House at the first opportunity.
"This is, Madam Speaker, a serious matter, and I felt it important to report the facts as soon as they became available.
"I now turn to the issue of the vaccination programme against possible biological weapons attacks in the Gulf. There has been concern that these
- vaccinations might have contributed to some of the sickness reported, although there is at present no evidence to support this.
"I am sure that the House will understand the need for the greatest care to be taken over the release of the details of our response to a biological or chemical threat. This could clearly be of value to potential future aggressors. However, following a detailed review, we now judge that, six years on and in the light of further developments since the Gulf conflict, knowledge of the steps we took then is now less sensitive. I am therefore today able to provide a full account of the vaccination programme which was carried out, and to this end I am placing a detailed memorandum in the Library of the House.
"It makes clear that the MoD acted swiftly to offer the best protection available to our forces--on a voluntary basis--in the face of a clearly-assessed potentially lethal threat: an assessment since wholly vindicated by the findings of the UN Special Commission.
"Saddam Hussein did not--thank God--in the event use his biological weapons. But no responsible government could have ignored the very real possibility that he might well have done so, and accordingly taken appropriate precautions.
"Finally, Madam Speaker, my department has been keeping a very careful watch on the many reported incidents of chemical and biological weapons use in the Gulf. We have so far traced around 100 such claims, all of which have proved unfounded. But it does seem likely that some chemical weapons material may have been released, after hostilities ceased, by the destruction of the Iraqi ammunition dump at Bunker 73 at Al-Khamisiyah. As the House has already been told, there were at the time no UK units in the footprint of potential danger since identified by the US authorities. I am today placing in the Library of the House a copy of a map showing the exact location of our units at the time the destruction took place.
"In conclusion, the Government spared no effort to protect our troops in the Gulf War. Their immunisation and environmental health programmes were solely directed to this end.
"We have of course every sympathy for those veterans who are ill, and we retain an open mind about the question of whether there is or is not a Gulf War Syndrome. Whatever the case, we are determined to get to the bottom of it, as I very much hope this Statement has demonstrated."
4.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by the Minister of State in another place. My first question is very brief. Who is responsible for the Ministry of Defence? Is it not the Secretary of State? Why did not the Secretary of State himself make this very important and serious Statement? He may be away
engaged on all kinds of other things, but I should like to know the answer to that question before I get on to the detail of the Statement.Over the years Ministers have been pursued on the matter of the Gulf War illness not least--and I pay tribute to her--by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. It is possibly thanks to the noble Countess that this Statement has been made today. It is all very well for Ministers who give misleading answers in Parliament both in Written Questions and in Oral Questions to blame civil servants. But my understanding of our constitution is that Ministers are responsible for their departments. If my understanding is wrong, no doubt the noble Earl will correct me. I wonder whether, in the politest possible way, Ministers have actually considered their position in this matter. In this House it is not a convention to ask for resignations, and I understand that, but Ministers, notably the noble Earl and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Henley, might wish to reflect on the matter.
- "Since the conflict, a small number of those who served have become ill".
- "anxious for the welfare of our troops during the conflict",
- "In our search for answers we have throughout been guided by the best medical and scientific advice available in this country".
The Statement goes on to say that the Government,
- "are writing to all GPs".
- "The Government wish to be entirely open".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |