House of Lords
Tuesday, 27th November 2001.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
Armed Forces: Preventive Health Measures
Lord Bramall asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they have learned any lessons from the preventive health measures taken to protect troops deployed in the Gulf War which can now be applied to military personnel currently on standby for active service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, following the Gulf conflict, the Government have put into effect a range of improvements to preventive measures. Those include improvements in arrangements for the administration of service standard immunisations and immunisations against biological weapons, making information available to troops on health matters and improved maintenance of medical records to aid the management of any subsequent health problems.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer, which covered a wide range of issues. Can he confirm what he implies; namely, that if inoculations are being given somewhat differently from the way in which that was done at the time of the Gulf conflict, it is because the Ministry of Defence is now convinced that, despite its very tardy formal investigation—it was revealed during the debate involving the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, that that has still not been completed—the original cocktail of inoculations may have been harmful to the health of those who received it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble and gallant Lord that confirmation. No scientific medical evidence points convincingly to the causes of the ill health that was reported by Gulf veterans. In the vaccines interactions work that is going on at Porton Down, we are devoting considerable efforts to researching possible causes. Noble Lords would expect us to introduce improved practices and to do so in a way that reflects our experience and, where we can, people's concerns. The House would not expect the Government to wait until those concerns were conclusively resolved.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister say whether reservists are now inoculated and what action is being taken to prepare for the treatment of large-scale troop casualties, should they occur as a result of
any operational deployment? Can he also confirm that a sufficient number of beds is readily available in this country to deal with significant numbers of casualties?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can certainly confirm the latter part of the noble Lord's question. So far as reservists are concerned, a call-out order has, as he knows, been made under the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to allow reservists to be called up for service in support of current operations. The main requirement is currently for reservists to augment HQ organisations. Should it prove necessary to deploy reservists, we shall take into account the lessons that we learned from the Gulf conflict and ensure that they receive appropriate medical protection. I take particular note of the noble Lord's concerns. In so doing, we should take account of the possibility of adverse interactions.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, have any trials been conducted on the adverse effects of taking NAPS tablets as a prophylactic? That happened before the Gulf War. Will their use be considered again?
Lord Bach: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Lord, I welcome him to his new position on the Front Bench. I know that the House will be delighted with what may perhaps be a promotion.
The noble Lord may know that the nerve agent pre-treatment sets, known as NAPS, are being studied at Porton Down in the vaccines interactions research programme, to which I have already referred. We are looking at that extremely carefully. NAPS on their own or in combination with other medical counter-measures that were taken to protect troops in the Gulf have been suggested as a cause of ill health among some Gulf veterans. That is why the noble Lord asked his question. I am afraid that we shall have to wait for the research to be completed before we get a conclusive answer. As the research comes out bit by bit we are publishing it. Some of it has already been published this year, although I do not think that it was about NAPS.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the particular interest among Gulf veterans in Porton Down's study of whether combining NAPS tablets with up to 14 inoculations, including anthrax, had adverse effects? Since the study's outcome will not now be known until 2003—by when the jury will have been out for 13 years on this question—what further help is intended for Gulf veterans whose immune systems, in the view of distinguished medical consultants, were gravely damaged by that combination?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government remain committed to finding out why some veterans of the Gulf conflict are ill; they have not been forgotten. We have implemented many of the lessons that were learned from that conflict and from subsequent deployments, and we shall continue to do so. As my noble friend knows, the programme of work at Porton Down involves a very complex study, which aims to
assess the effects of combinations of vaccines and NAPS over a period of time. Only in that way can we assess the long-term effects on humans. Preparation for and conduct of the trial means that the programme will necessarily take several years. We do not want to prolong the programme more than is absolutely necessary but we must have confidence in the results, and an inescapable minimum period is necessary. As my noble friend Lord Grocott told the House 15 days ago—on 12th November—we shall publish interim results when they are available. He reminded the House that we have already published some findings relating to earlier phases of the programme in the Journal of Toxicology on 21st January this year. I shall of course make that available to noble Lords if they require it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether, if the reservists were to go to war again, they would receive the same injury and compensation treatment as regulars in the same situation? Can he also tell us whether the subsuming of the War Pensions Agency into the veterans unit, which I understand to have taken place, has produced any immediate and helpful results for those who are still waiting all these years on?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I understand that reservists will be treated in the same way as regulars. If I am wrong about that I shall write at once to the noble Baroness, so she need not have any concern on that front. I turn to the second part of her question. As regards the transfer of the War Pensions Agency to the concern of the Ministry of Defence, it is still early days. I do not want to give her a false answer. However, as I stated in an earlier reply, we are concerned to ensure that those who have served their country well in the Gulf War and other disputes do not have to wait longer than necessary.
Murder: Mandatory Life Sentence
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will reconsider the statutory requirement that a life sentence is mandatory for murder.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government have no plans to reconsider the mandatory life sentence for murder. The sentence provides important safeguards. The public must have confidence in the penalty to be imposed on those who take another person's life. The public rightly regard the offence of murder as a particularly abhorrent crime and believe that it should carry the most severe penalties. Murder is never a matter that can or should be taken lightly, whatever the circumstances.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is it not time for some fresh government thinking on this longstanding problem? Is it not wrong that a man who kills his beloved wife at her repeated request because she finds that she is so appallingly disabled that life is unbearable and agonising, or a woman so brutalised by a violent husband that she is driven beyond the pale and the point of endurance and kills him, should be given the same mandatory life sentence as a vicious mass murderer?
What is the justification for the bizarre arrangement whereby a politician, the Home Secretary, decides how long such people stay in prison rather than the judge who listens to all the evidence, sees all the witnesses and is able to assess the fine nuances, subtleties and Xvibes" of a trial? Surely, it is wrong for a politician to make such a decision.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is always an argument on what is the view of the public on this matter. When the death penalty was abolished in 1965 I understand that the acceptance among the public was that for those who had been found guilty of committing the crime of murder, whatever the circumstances, the penalty should be a mandatory life sentence. However, this House debated the matter as recently as late 1997 and most of those who spoke then were against the law. But I would say to my noble friend that the operation of the mandatory life sentence is flexible. It allows those responsible for the least serious cases of the offence—that is, the so-called mercy killers—to the most serious—the serial murderers or child killers—to be adequately punished. Where the circumstances warrant, a mandatory life sentence prisoner can be released on licence having served only a short period of time in prison. On the other hand, under the system, those responsible for the worst crimes can be detained for the rest of their lives. Therefore, while there is a mandatory life sentence for those found guilty of the offence, they are all treated, in so far as they can be, according to the circumstances of the crime. I believe that that is right.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page