House of Lords
Wednesday, 10th April 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.
Gulf War Veterans: Health Research
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to report to Parliament on the progress of work at Porton Down on vaccine interactions and the health effects of the multiple immunisation of troops deployed in the Gulf War.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence's vaccines interactions research programme is studying whether the combination of vaccines used to protect UK personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. As I made clear to my noble friend Lord Morris on 12th November last year, interim findings will be made public when known. The Ministry of Defence hopes that further results will be available later this year through publication in a scientific journal.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, can there be any surprise that Gulf veterans are so deeply concerned that it will be 2003—13 years on—before they are told whether it was safe in 1990 to be given up to 14 inoculations all at the same time? Is my noble friend aware of the depth of concern also that we lag behind the United States in recognising a higher prevalence of motor neurone disease among Gulf veterans and the rising death rate among those exposed to sarin and cyclosarin by US bombing of the Iraqi chemical weapons depot at Khamisyah? At this time of mounting speculation about a further deployment of British troops against Iraq, when can we expect the same recognition here?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I recognise the long interest of my noble friend in these matters. I am also aware that he speaks with particular authority as regards the United States due to his membership of the congressional inquiry which is looking into Gulf War related illnesses. As regards the specific point on the relationship between motor neurone disease and Gulf War service, I believe that my noble friend knows that our approach is always to try to find a scientific basis for any decisions that are made. We very much hope that the United States research to which he referred is published as rapidly as possible in the scientific literature. I assure my noble friend that our unit liaison officer for the Gulf veterans' unit, who is based in Washington, will maintain the closest contact with our American friends on this issue. As regards Khamisyah, my noble friend tabled a Question for Written Answer on 21st March. We are hopeful that the US reports on
Khamisyah will be made available to our Gulf veterans' illnesses liaison officer in Washington as soon as they are approved, which I understand will be at the end of May. As soon as we are able to respond, we shall, of course, write to my noble friend and put the information in the Library.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, what action is being taken to speed up the final production of this report? Why cannot a full, up-to-date interim report be issued now as opposed to in the autumn? Furthermore, will the Minister say what action has been taken to protect our troops from the dangers of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons with new vaccines which will not have any after-effects? Are they available for use now?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, as regards the length of time that these matters take, I believe the noble Lord will acknowledge that in order to obtain accurate information—I refer, for example, to experiments on animals—it is some considerable time before the effects of multiple vaccinations can be ascertained. It is also a question of the right dosage with regard to the vaccinations. It is our intention to publish the results as rapidly as possible. We have said that the completion date will be in 2003. The House will recognise that it is important that the findings are published in scientific journals and that they are robust. No one wants to operate on the basis of information and research which cannot be sustained. As regards future conflicts, we have learnt a number of lessons from our experience in the Gulf, not least that of ensuring that vaccinations are routinely given to avoid the mass vaccination that occurred at the time of the Gulf War and to maintain far better record-keeping so that our troops have the very best protection, which is no less than the House would expect.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, what specific notice is the MoD taking of the evidence being put before the US Congress and in particular the evidence that the French were issued with protective suits and were not given the cocktail of drugs that British and US servicemen were given? The incidence of illness among French servicemen is far lower than that among UK and US servicemen. Is that information being used in the litigation that the MoD faces?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the principles on which the Government operate are impeccable: first, to obtain the best possible scientific information, evidence and research, on which over £5 million—not a niggardly amount—has been spent already; secondly, to be as open as possible about the findings of any research; and, thirdly, to ensure that all Gulf veterans who have any anxiety about their health are able to apply to the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme in which all the indications show a high level of satisfaction. There is the widest possible dissemination of information; there is close co-operation with our allies; and every attempt is made to ensure that the Gulf veterans themselves know precisely where we are, not least through the Gulf update document.
However, I am advised that I am not allowed to discuss that. The Gulf update document is extremely informative. All the indications are that veterans appreciate that.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Vivian made the point about the importance of this matter in relation to operations in Afghanistan and possible future operations elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there is a clear understanding in the Ministry of Defence that a major issue of morale is also involved. This applies to the veterans themselves and to all soldiers who observe that, despite all the years that have passed and all the suicides that have taken place, we are still looking at the matter as an interesting scientific examination. I appreciate that the science has to be right but we need to see much more clear evidence that the troops feel that this time there will be proper records and that proper attention will be paid to the troubles of those who, for reasons still unknown, returned from the Gulf sick and dying men.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is absolutely right. It is vital that the morale of our forces is as high as possible and that the Ministry of Defence does everything possible to maintain and sustain that. The establishment last year of a Minister specifically responsible for veterans' affairs and the establishment in turn of the Veterans Forum in which all veterans' groups are able to bring matters of concern directly to Ministers are important steps forward. If anyone has medical concerns there is the assessment programme. More generalised concerns can be taken to the Minister through a veterans' association. Those are two substantial points in relation to morale.
Planning Permission
2.45 p.m.
Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce legislation giving third parties rights of appeal in planning cases in which those parties have interests defined by the legislation.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as we said in our planning Green Paper, published on 12th December last year, a third party right of appeal against the grant of planning permission could add to the costs, delays and uncertainties of planning. We believe that the right way forward is to make the planning system more accessible and transparent and to strengthen the opportunities for community involvement throughout that process. Proposals to achieve that were set out in the Green Paper.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, perhaps I may point out that if we treasure our environment, as we all do, what is set out
in the Green Paper does not do enough to protect it. Is it not right that if a parish council, for example, is deeply upset by the effect that the grant of planning permission could have, it is prevented from appealing? Is not the right of appeal by the parish council—and by other people who are affected—well worth paying for and waiting for?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord that it is important that third party rights, in any planning application that concerns them, are given the fullest possible consideration. However, the Government differ from him in believing that it would be much better for the concerns of third parties about what they believe would be the effect of a planning development to be thoroughly considered before a decision is taken. The Green Paper goes to considerable lengths in that regard. First, it insists that there is better consultation and involvement of the public, including parish councils, in plan-making processes. Secondly, it insists that developers are required and expected to consult the public even before a planning application is submitted, particularly in relation to major applications. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that the relatively small proportion of local authorities that currently do not allow the public to address a planning committee before it makes its decision change their practices so that before a committee makes a decision anyone who feels that he has a legitimate concern is given the fullest possible opportunity to express it. The Government are committed, subject to consultation on the Green Paper, to bringing in those changes. We believe that they will achieve the objective that the noble Lord seeks without the cost and delays that a formal right of appeal would give.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page