Gulf War Illness

HC Deb 10 December 1996 vol 287 cc119-38 3.30 pm

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)

With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Gulf war illness.

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 prime concern and duty of the Government and the chiefs of staff—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 correctly assessed 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 service men killed or wounded in action was, mercifully, much smaller than had at one stage been feared. Illness amongst 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 those 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.

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 the land. 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 that body in July 1995.

So far, some 921 veterans have been examined, and have been referred for appropriate further treatment where necessary. Although the results have not produced any evidence of a new pattern of illness, the Government retain an entirely open mind on whether there is generally more illness amongst 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 those 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, and if so, what is the nature and magnitude of the risk?

The MRC's 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 about £1.3 million, will be met by the Ministry of Defence. I should 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 us that, if the studies are to be rigorously and scientifically conducted, they will take about 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 United States-funded epidemiological study, which is being conducted in parallel at King's college, London by Dr. Simon Wessely.

The Government have throughout worked very closely indeed with the US authorities on Gulf war-related health research. From the start, there has been the most extensive—indeed, almost daily—contact between the medical teams involved on both sides of the Atlantic. We are most truly grateful for that assistance.

I visited the United States recently to discuss those 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 that they have in hand. I attach the greatest importance to that extremely valuable co-operation.

So as to consolidate those links further, I have appointed a British medical liaison officer to work in the United States Department of Defense research programme. A British officer already sits on the US research working group, affording us a valuable insight into its on-going work.

Meanwhile, at the request of the American authorities, the Medical Research Council has agreed to review the research that has been carried out in America. That 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 general practitioners of all those who have been seen in the medical assessment programme so as to improve our knowledge of the medical progress of retired service men.

There has been much speculation that explanations for illness among Gulf veterans can be found in the various hazards that faced our troops during the campaign. The Government wish to be entirely open about what happened during the Gulf conflict, and I wish to emphasise 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. Understandably, that issue has given rise to genuine concern in recent weeks.

The House will recall that I made it public on 4 October that there had been wider use of organophosphate chemicals in the Gulf than had previously been thought, or than we had previously been advised. I have already apologised to the House for that, and expressed my profound regret and anger that that ran counter to earlier information given in utmost good faith by Ministers in answer to parliamentary questions. I unreservedly do so again. 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 4 December that we expected the results before Christmas. I received the report of that investigation, which covers two separate areas, on 6 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 serious threat posed by fly-borne disease on a much wider scale than previously reported. Secondly, the investigation team discovered that, with the exception of the possible 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 the fact 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 of Commons.

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 indeed be individual veterans who have further information to add to the story: if so, we would welcome it. We are as anxious as anyone to establish what happened. They should get in touch with me at the Ministry of Defence. 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 findings 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 25 September that Ministers were given clear, written advice on the wider use of pesticides during the Gulf war, and that previous answers needed to be corrected.

I must emphasise again that Ministers 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, however, assure the House 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 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 those vaccinations might have contributed to some of the sickness reported, although there is at present no evidence to support that.

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 weapons threat. That 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 that we took then is now less militarily sensitive. I can therefore today provide a full account of the vaccination programme that was carried out, and to this end I am placing a detailed memorandum today in the Library of the House of Commons.

The memorandum makes it 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 United Nations special commission. In the event, Saddam Hussein did not—thank God—use his biological weapons, but no responsible Government could have ignored the very real possibility that he might have done so, and accordingly appropriate precautions were taken.

Finally, 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. However, 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, at the time there were no United Kingdom units in the footprint of potential danger since identified by the United States 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, and our immunisation and environmental health programmes were solely directed to that end. We have of course every sympathy for those veterans who are ill, and we retain an open mind about 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 hope very much that this statement has demonstrated.

Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I thank the Minister for coming to the House today to make this important, long and complicated statement, which represents a victory for those of us who have been campaigning for more openness and urgency in the Government's response to illnesses suffered by people who served in the Gulf war.

Does the Minister understand the frustration and the anger felt by Gulf war veterans and by hon. Members on Opposition Benches that the Government have taken more than three years to arrive at this point? The statement today reveals a shift in the Government's approach, but why, oh why, have they taken so long to reach this position? Why has it taken three years for the Government to admit its central line of defence: It is now clear that the medical assessment programme alone cannot answer these questions"? That was clear to us more than three years ago. Why did the Government ignore the warnings about veterans' health for so long? Does the Minister realise that the Government's failure to act has caused three years of unnecessary suffering and concern among our veterans?

Why have the Government changed their mind about the other crucial question of conducting an epidemiological study of the problem, which I urged upon the Minister in the House more than three years ago? Does he recall writing to me about that subject in February 1995? He said: there were a number of reasons on both medical and statistical grounds, why such a study"— an epidemiological study— was not appropriate". Today he has finally accepted our argument that an epidemiological study is the way forward. What has changed his mind? If an epidemiological study was not appropriate in February 1995, why is it crucial now? I put it to the Minister that his statement today raises more questions than it answers.

The Secretary of State has spent much time trying to respond to questions about the organophosphates incident, but the questions remain. We understand that there will be two investigations, but I am concerned that neither will do anything to improve the health of those soldiers who may have been affected by organophosphates.

Will there be an inquiry into that aspect of the problem? Will that inquiry establish precisely why a post-operational Army report, dated March 1991, detailing inadequate protection for our troops from chemicals, was not acted upon? Why did it take four years for the Ministry of Defence to learn of that report?

How does that report square with the Minister's comment today that there is no evidence that organophosphates were used improperly? The 1991 report gives repeated examples of inadequate equipment, no equipment and no protection for the troops. Will the Minister also confirm that, last week in the other place, it was alleged that the medical records of more than 10,000 veterans have been wiped from the computer? Is that correct? The question was not answered when it was raised in the other place.

We are pleased that the Government appear to have moved some way forward today, but we are rather tired of finding that the fine words being used by the Minister—quite rightly praising the excellence of our troops—are not matched by actions.

I hope that the Minister's statement is a statement that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that our veterans will have their true concerns addressed properly.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured tenor of his response. I do indeed understand the frustration of those who feel that they are ill as a result of their Gulf service. We would be delighted to be able to magic an answer tomorrow morning to set their minds at rest, but that is simply not possible. The United States has spent millions of pounds on research programmes already, and so far it has made little progress, which is why it is matching our epidemiological programme, with Dr. Wessely in London.

The hon. Gentleman asked me how it had taken so long to reach this position. Again, that is an entirely legitimate question. We have throughout always been guided by the proper and best medical advice available. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), set up the medical assessment programme as soon as the first complaints about illness from the Gulf came through, in 1993. By the end of 1993, only three people had been through the medical assessment programme.

I referred that work to the Royal College of Physicians, in 1995, which, after reviewing it and endorsing it, suggested that I refer certain matters to the Medical Research Council, which I did in May of this year. In October, the MRC came forward with its proposals, and I am now in a position to announce the results today.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have never ignored any warnings about veterans' health. We are indeed wholly aware of the needs and requirements of some of those people who are clearly sick. Some of them, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already received appropriate treatment for clearly defined illnesses, but there are others for whom we do not yet have an answer as to why they are ill. The study was not appropriate earlier because the numbers in the medical assessment programme were simply not big enough to provide a reference point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned February 1995, when he discussed the matter with me. By then, only 301 people had been through the medical assessment programme. Today, more than 900 have been through as a result of further urging and publicity.

On the question of organophosphates, those who gave any evidence of OP-type symptoms when being assessed at the medical assessment programme have indeed been recalled and are being reassessed, and those whose treatment warrants it are being sent for further detailed neurological care and examination.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will read carefully the report of the organophosphate investigation team. He will read, in detail, about how OPs were used entirely properly, with the possibility of one small exception. I have every confidence that, given the circumstances, everything was done that could have been done to protect our troops.

I know nothing of the medical records of 10,000 personnel being wiped from a computer. Medical record keeping in the Gulf was not satisfactory. It was not good enough on behalf of our own troops. Nor was it good enough on behalf of the American troops. I asked the American Surgeon-General what he would do, most importantly, if America had to go to war again, and he said, "I would make absolutely sure that we had a far better system for keeping medical records." The same would apply to us.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

I commend my hon. Friend on his statement today. I thank him also for the recognition that he showed in his statement of the responsibility that I and my colleagues took to try to ensure that our troops who went to the Gulf were as well protected as they could be, including vaccination, from the fearsome weaponry that we knew that Saddam Hussein had, and which subsequent investigation by the United Nations commission revealed that he did indeed have.

There is no question but that we had to face quite unprecedented problems in trying to protect the health of our troops in the unexpected and suddenly occurring event that was the Gulf war. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's actions throughout the difficult period of trying to assess the unexpected problems that have occurred since the end of the Gulf war have been guided at all times by the best medical advice? The reality is that the medical assessment programme has proved not to be the conclusive answer that many had hoped it would be.

I commend the Minister for his courage in coming forward and recognising the need for a change of approach, and for his determination to fulfil his final pledge—on which he carries the whole House with him—that we owe a duty of care to all our service men, ex-service men and veterans, not just at the time of conflict and when they are needed in times of war, but after the war is completed if they need our help and attention.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I warmly endorse and applaud the bold and entirely necessary decisions that he and the chiefs had to take at that time to ensure that, in unfamiliar territory, a long way away and against the potential of the most grotesque weapons that exist, our troops were as well protected as they possibly could be against horrific potential hazards. I am grateful to him for his recognition that we have at all times been guided by the best possible medical advice. Indeed, it would be ridiculous for Ministers to do anything other than accept the medical advice, and we have accepted it to the letter—whenever it has been offered to us, we have taken it.

I am also extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who was a former Secretary of State for Defence, for confirming that the Government, the chiefs and all those responsible for the well-being of our men and women soldiers, sailors and airmen have an absolute duty of care. That is our cardinal responsibility, whether in peace or at war.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

I accept without reservation the Minister's good faith on this matter. Will he confirm that the information that he has given today was available in his Department not later than 19 July in a memorandum entitled "Briefing Note for Researchers—No. 3", which contains a summary saying that a wide range of organophosphate compounds were extensively used by British personnel during Operation GRANBY"? Why was that information not provided to the House before it rose for the summer recess?

Does the Minister agree that the circumstances which prompted today's statement constitute a substantial humiliation for his Department, and have been the source of wholly unnecessary anger, frustration and distress to Gulf war veterans and their families?

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words—more grateful than he will understand. What was in the memorandum, why that information did not come through properly and clearly to Ministers and why the House was not informed earlier are issues that will be covered in the investigation under the direction of the permanent under-secretary. The findings will be made available to the House, so the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to see them. A grave error was made, and we must get to the bottom of it so as to ensure that it does not happen again.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether this was a humiliation. I have been through so many humiliations as a very junior Minister and as a slightly less junior Minister, that I regard coming to the House and making a statement on a matter such as this not as a humiliation, but as an evolving pattern of knowledge.

I must emphasise to the hon. and learned Gentleman that America has spent millions of dollars on research, which, although valuable, has provided no real answers. The American Government may have approached these matters differently from us, but it has always been with a view to finding the right and proper answers.

Both Governments have come to the inevitable conclusion, on the best scientific and medical advice available, that the only way to proceed is to undertake these two detailed epidemiological studies. I accept that that will cause frustration, and will not please the veterans who feel ill. It is a serious matter of great concern when a doctor is unable to tell people who feel very ill what is wrong with them.

Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale)

May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that his statement is an enormous step forward for all those who have been concerned about Gulf veterans? On the Granada Television programme "The Line", did he say that no veteran or his or her family should be suffering hardship? May I also draw to his attention the plight of the Hill family—who live in my constituency—about whom I have already written to him? They are suffering great hardship. Would it be possible to pay them some interim compensation benefit?

Mr. Soames

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case with me; I shall investigate it thoroughly. As he may know, the Ministry of Defence is in exactly the same position on the matter of compensation as any other employer in the land. Were a claim for compensation to be made against the Ministry of Defence and were it to be upheld by a court, we would, of course, have to pay compensation.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe)

Madam Speaker, I intervene briefly as the honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Is the Minister aware that the use of organophosphates much more widely than was previously reported is seen as an extremely important issue by many veterans of the Gulf war? What estimate has he now made of the number of service men and women who were exposed to the effects of organophosphates during their service in the Gulf? Again, is he claiming that we have nothing at all to learn from the United States—even from the President's commission of inquiry into the very sensitive set of issues involved?

Finally, what action is the Minister taking, in consultation with the Royal British Legion, to make it easier for people who are invited to attend medical examinations to do so? Is he aware that many of them have had great difficulties—I am talking in many cases about people who are seriously ill—in getting to and from these examinations?

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those issues, I shall deal first with his last point.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman is an honorary adviser to the Royal British Legion, and that it is extremely grateful to him for that assistance. The other day, I met the Director-General of the Royal British Legion and asked him to provide me with a note of what we could reasonably do to help in the matter. I received the note two days ago, and I have asked for it to be carefully examined. I hope that I shall receive proposals on how I can help people overcome that difficulty.

On the right hon. Gentleman question on the United States and what lessons we have learnt, I have discussed the issue at great length with all the relevant people who are my opposite numbers in America. In their view, organophosphates do not appear to play a major role. We have liaised with them very carefully on the matter. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that all the research by the Americans has merely confirmed to them that they must now embark on a much more detailed epidemiological study, which is what is occurring at King's college, London.

On the right hon. Gentleman's other points, on the nature and extent of use of OPs, I can only assure him that Group Captain Coker and his staff have been through all the records of every person who has been through the programme. From those records, they have found 54 people who need to be re-examined because of evidence of OP-type symptoms. That work is continuing, and they will be afforded the best care that we are able to give them.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

The House will welcome the readiness with which the Ministry of Defence now discloses any new evidence or information available on the very complex subject of so-called "Gulf war syndrome". The Minister's statement today is timely, because tomorrow the Defence Select Committee will again take evidence on the subject. Like the Ministry of Defence, the Committee preserves an open mind on whether Gulf war syndrome exists. The issue will clearly stay on our agenda for at least the three years that it will take to conduct the welcome epidemiological surveys.

Now that my hon. Friend has disclosed the extent to which the United States is co-operating with us on the research, will he tell us how much the Americans will contribute to the cost of the research here, and how much money we shall contribute to research over there? Will he explain why, in per capita terms, 100 times more Gulf veterans in the American armed forces than in our own are reporting symptoms of Gulf war syndrome?

My hon. Friend has told us how many veterans have reported for medical assessment. How many still await medical assessment? In addition, how many of those who have been recalled as a result of the recent disclosure of the use of organophosphate pesticides have been back for a medical assessment, and how many await assessment?

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose work and report we greatly value. I understand and accept that the Committee will want to follow the matter closely over the next few years. Officials from my Department are looking forward to seeing his Committee tomorrow to consider the matters in greater detail.

I understand that the cost of the programme of epidemiological research at King's college amounts to $865,000. I am not sure how much we are spending on research in America. As I have said, we have unfettered access to all American Government research programmes through the generosity of the United States Administration.

As my hon. Friend knows, there is, at present, no evidence of any specific syndrome associated with service in the Gulf war. Approximately 20,000 United States veterans have been through the assessment programme. We should bear it in mind that the United States sent 500,000-plus troops to the Gulf—

Mr. Alfred Morris

Seven hundred thousand.

Mr. Soames

The United States sent 700,000 troops to the Gulf, and we sent 50,000. The United States has no national health service, but it has an excellent Veterans Administration. I cannot account for the disparity in the numbers. Some 921 veterans have been through our medical assessment programme. Following a trawl of the records, 54 have been recalled in connection with the use of organophosphates. Some 200 remain to be seen, and 97 have failed for the third time to show up.

Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside)

In welcoming the statement and the decent way in which it was made, may I remind the Minister of the cases of two of my constituents—Mr. Doyle of Buckley and Mr. Turnbull of Garden City—that are now before him? They suffered distressing illnesses as a consequence of their experiences in the Gulf.

Will the Minister meet those two constituents and me, so that we can hear first hand how soon they might have compensation and whether it will be before their illnesses become worse? They suffer from bleeding gums, breathing difficulties, loss of concentration and bronchitic problems. One of them has also suffered the failure of his business. Our fine Gulf soldiers now suffer injustice. We look to the Minister for speedy action.

Mr. Soames

I am certainly prepared to see the hon. Gentleman to discuss those matters. If he would be good enough to let me have again the details of his constituents, I shall have their cases looked into. However, the hon. Gentleman should direct his inquiries to the war pensions people. Subject to all other things being equal, they appear to be entitled to war pensions. I have already made our position on compensation plain, but I should be happy to see the hon. Gentleman to go through those cases.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon)

May I commend my hon. Friend on the consistent good sense that he has applied to this sensitive matter? I particularly applaud the openness with which he made his statement and his willingness to admit that there are new factors that may or may not be relevant to the medical studies to be carried out. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the Friends of Medical Research in the House. I am particularly glad that the Medical Research Council is now involved, as well as the Royal College of Physicians.

Having said that, I am pleased that my hon. Friend is liaising closely with the United States authorities and their health investigation programme. Now that, in a spirit of openness, he has placed in the Library more details about the inoculation programmes, will he give the House an assurance that he will correlate the differences between the regimes of the United States and the United Kingdom?

May I also introduce a new factor that I do not expect my hon. Friend to answer this afternoon, and ask him to look at the French inoculation regime? It should be possible to acquire meaningful scientific information by taking cohorts from those three nationalities that served so ably in the Gulf.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least as he took part in the conflict, and is aware of the difficulties that ensued. I am grateful to him for what he said about the Medical Research Council, which has given us valuable and essential advice. On liaison with the United States, I can confirm that work is under way to compare the vaccination regimes of the United States and the United Kingdom. They were slightly different, because the intelligence assessments made by each side differed slightly.

As for working with the French, the Surgeon-General has been in contact with his French opposite number. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to liaise with the French to ascertain whether they have anything helpful to bring to our important investigations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

Although I personally accept the good faith of the Minister, I hope that the under-secretary's report will reveal what happened to the cascade of precise parliamentary questions that flowed from the House on the subject. Were they casually dismissed? I have an unpalatable but constructive suggestion. If the Minister wants to get to the truth, he really should ask Patricia Doyle or Nicola Cherry to go to Iraq, where they will be well received by Dr. Mubarak, the Iraqi Minister of Health, who, incidentally, is a Kurd. He is a distinguished doctor, with whom I discussed the matter at considerable length three years ago in Baghdad. The Iraqis suffered too, and they may have a good deal of crucial information about organophosphates.

Mr. Soames

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, it has been an unacceptable failure on a serious matter. The permanent under-secretary will conduct a detailed examination, the findings of which will be made available to the House at the first opportunity. Of course I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's proposal to Dr. Doyle and Professor Cherry.

Mrs. Edwina Currie (South Derbyshire)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most distressing aspects of the matter for those of us involved is to watch the deterioration of ex-service men and women who served in the Gulf? Three or four years ago, they were capable of holding down jobs, but now they require extensive hospital treatment. Much of their concern is that they do not know the reason for their suffering. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend, who, by his statement, has shown himself to be an honourable and decent man, really means them to drag him through the courts in order to get some compensation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 400 people have already been awarded war pensions, and several hundred more applications are in the pipeline? The War Pensions Agency is well ahead of the Ministry of Defence in accepting that the illness has some connection with Gulf war service, and his statement today establishes that. Will he please reconsider his answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and consider some interim compensation payment to those who were hurt?

Mr. Soames

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her doughty support for the veterans, and thank her for the detailed and courteous manner in which she has corresponded with me. However, there really is no evidence of negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence. One reason why this extremely important survey needs to be carried out is to find out why those people are ill. I truly accept the frustration and personal anguish of those who cannot find the reason for their illness. The only way in which we can get to the bottom of the matter is by genuine, rigorous scientific work that will reach a proper conclusion, and by using all the abilities and facilities that we have to liaise with all other people who are doing the work. That we will do; we will get to the bottom of the matter. Meanwhile, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her final point.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

Is the Minister aware that, less than a month ago, one of my constituents received a letter from his Department that said: Whatever information there is concerning your injections is on that document"— that is, the personal medical folder? It went on: I have to remind you that certain injections and medication were administered during the Gulf War Campaign which were classified secret. Any such substances would not he listed on your medical documents and in view of the classification I do not have access to them". Are we to assume that, as a result of today's statement, all people like my constituent will be informed of what was contained in any injections that they received, that that information will be given to their doctors and legal advisers, and that apologies will be sent to Gulf veterans for the undue pain and distress they suffered as a result of being refused the knowledge of what was pumped into their bodies?

Mr. Soames

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me have his constituent's details, I will certainly look into them. Exactly the point that I hope I made clear in my statement is that I am releasing today all the information relating to the vaccination of our troops during the Gulf war, which was previously withheld for very good, sound operational reasons. Such considerations have now passed, for a variety of reasons. The hon. Gentleman's constituent is perfectly entitled to know with what he was injected, although he would have been injected only on the basis of informed consent.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

May I thank my hon. Friend for the humanity and sensitivity of his statement and the answers that he has given, to which I have listened very closely? I invite him to look forward, to ensure not only that medical record keeping is improved but that we press on with new methods of chemical and biological defence, continue work at the prevention and life sciences division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down, do not lose work on replacing piridostigmine with physostigmine, and increase training at the nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner, for the benefit of our troops and in order to maintain Britain's position as the world leader in nuclear, chemical and biological defence.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a tremendous champion not only of the armed forces but of some of their less popular institutions, of which from time to time Porton Down has been one. It is a world centre of excellence, and will be grateful for his support. I can confirm that the remarkable work done at Porton Down will be continued, and that all of us who are graduates of Porton Down in one way or another want that training to continue at a very high level.

One of the cardinal lessons of the Gulf conflict concerns record keeping. A great deal of the trouble, difficulty and uncertainty would have been allayed if medical records had been better kept. The scenario was extremely fast-moving and very difficult. People were moving at a great pace from location to location. The speed at which the armoured brigades moved across country was devastating to behold—the conflict represented old-fashioned warfare on a huge scale.

We have to find a better way to keep records. The American Surgeon-General has shown me a dog tag that is being developed, on which there are a number of microchips. In future, if the programme works—I cannot envisage us not wanting to subscribe to it—it is hoped that a soldier receiving any form of treatment, immunisation or whatever on the battlefield would merely enter his dog tag into a machine that would mark it, so that all the material and information was immediately retrievable. Record keeping is of the first importance, and we are doing a very great deal to ensure that, if we had to do it again, we would be well prepared.

Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)

Is the Minister aware that I entirely accept that he and his fellow Ministers were unaware of the organophosphate situation at the time they made their statements both to the Defence Select Committee and to the House? However, the fact remains that the House and the Defence Select Committee, at the time it was compiling its interim report, were seriously misled about the facts.

Does the Minister understand the dangerous nature of all organophosphate compounds, and the fact that a difference in degree is all that distinguishes them from nerve agents? Will he give the House an assurance that not only the vaccination records, but details of all the medication any troops in the Gulf received, will be made available to their general practitioners? I hope the Minister will accept my view that misleading the House is one thing, but misleading sick former soldiers' medical consultants is entirely another, and should never happen again.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said—I really am—and I will pass on what he said to my noble Friend, who will share my gratitude. I understand the seriousness of what happened. It is, as I said—and we all feel this—a grave failing that must be rectified.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I understood about organophosphates. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is a champion of those who were affected in the sheep dip scenario, and who came to see me in a previous incarnation at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, knows well that I am extraordinarily aware of the question of OPs and that, for that reason, environmental health personnel in the military are well and effectively trained, know how those items are to be dealt with, and know the respect and care that they need in handling. I wish to reassure the House that all those involved in environmental health in the British Army are thoroughly trained in that regard.

On the question of GPs, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), and he has my absolute assurance that GPs will have—and, I hope, have previously had—whatever information they need.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden)

Like right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I deeply appreciate the statement that my hon. Friend has made today, his obvious sincerity and concern and the experience that he has in such matters. I do not mean to embarrass him by returning to the question of compensation, but there is a peculiar symmetry about the illnesses. One sees one person after another with something in common that is due to a common source or sources. Those people have one thing in common, as my hon. Friend is aware, because they served in the same theatre of warfare.

That being so, will my hon. Friend consider that there are perhaps ways and means to get over his difficulty? For example, is he aware of the difficulties facing those who suffered from a blood infection with the HIV virus who were also suffering from haemophilia? The haemophiliacs had to take a case to the Department of Health. Is he aware that the problem was solved by the setting up of a special fund, and that that absolved the Department of Health—rightly—of any responsibility?

Will my hon. Friend please consider ways to deal with this problem, because it will be some years—as he has said—before the mission of further research is completed? In that time, those who are ill will deteriorate, as has been pointed out by many right hon. and hon. Members. Surely there must be some measure of natural justice that will help to solve that problem.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He raises an extraordinarily important point, but no compensation claims have yet been pursued by lawyers for claimants and no writs have been served, although a list of 1,195 names of potential claimants has been lodged with the MOD. That list provides the symptoms or disease claimed to have been experienced by each person since the Gulf war, without specific allegations of negligence or even causation. The symptoms range from depression, nausea, headaches, fatigue, lapse of concentration, coughs and chest pains to cancer.

If and when any or all of those potential claims were to be pursued with specific allegations of causation and negligence, the Department would pay compensation to whomever it was legally due. I will pay careful attention to the points addressed by my right hon. Friend, and, if I may, I will write to him in greater detail.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

Will the Minister review the question of compensation, because he will recall that, in a civil case not too long ago, he was the Minister I approached, together with people in my constituency, to deal with people whose land had been poisoned by Coalite with dioxins? It was a two-year-long campaign. At the time, it was said that they would have to go through the courts to get compensation. Following that deputation, which the Minister will recall, he promised to help to get the compensation sorted out in one way or another. The net result was that an ex gratia payment was made to the farmers in my constituency, so they did not have to go to court.

The Minister cannot avoid responsibility for different cases when it suits him. The truth is that compensation can be sorted out. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) cited an example in which the Government played a leading role. If it is okay for farmers and for others, it should be okay to pay early compensation to the veterans.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I well remember the time he brought a delegation to see me—

Mr. Skinner

There were 40 of them.

Mr. Soames

Yes, 40 of them, in a room for about 10.

I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that any Gulf veteran who can be shown to be suffering from illness caused by the Department's negligence will be entitled to compensation in line with common law principles.

Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside)

My hon. Friend will be aware of how the military looks after its ex-service men; its record is impeccable. It is impeccable because scientific and medical evidence is always necessary before action is taken. We need think only of the problems that followed the Japanese prisoners and others to realise the record that exists. However, it is right that action should be taken only on the basis of facts that can be proven, as otherwise we would open up the most appalling can of worms, going back to the second world war.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. I concur with what he said, and qualify it only by saying that I think it extremely important that the veterans understand that we understand, truly, the anguish they feel in the position they are in, and therefore our absolute determination to try to get to the bottom of matters—but, as my hon. Friend said, only by proper, rigorous and scientific assessment of the facts and then coming to as proper, decent and early a conclusion as we can.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

Is not a two-way process involved? First, there is the readiness of the armed forces always to go into action, as was the case six and a half years ago, in a justified action against criminal oppression. Secondly, there is the readiness of the Government, at all times, to help those veterans who have been seriously harmed as a result of military action. Is there not bound to have been much concern, frustration and, indeed, anger among the veterans simply to get the MOD to get anywhere near the situation that has been explained to the House today?

On compensation, if the Minister really believes that those veterans should be expected to go through long court actions, thereby adding further difficulty and delay, he has misread the feeling on both sides of the House. There is undoubtedly a strong wish, which has been expressed today by Conservative and, now, Labour Members, that justice should be done for those war veterans who carried out their duties so honourably.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman was on to a good point at the beginning of his remarks. Clearly, the health, wealth and security of our troops and veterans are of prime concern to the Government, the chiefs and all those involved. As the hon. Gentleman rightly implied, it is essential that the fighting troops of the British armed forces have confidence that they will be properly looked after in the event of injury or illness.

I also accept that it is important that we try to come to as speedy a conclusion as we can; but we cannot do so without having the proper, rigorous, scientific facts upon which to base our case. That does not alter the fact that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on both sides of the House, there runs a golden chain of genuine sympathy and concern for those people who find themselves in a bad state.

Several hon. Members

rose—

Madam Speaker

Order. I noticed that the last two Members I called, although they raised implied questions, asked no direct questions. The interventions are becoming statements. I must have brisk questions. The statement has been running for an hour.

Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

My hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, for this reason among others: it has drawn attention to shortcomings in the way in which his Department has answered questions from Members of Parliament, and, indeed, from the Select Committee.

In that light, would my hon. Friend consider looking at the procedure adopted for answering questions in a wider field, to prevent the same thing from happening elsewhere? The fact remains that one of the problems that have resulted from this difficulty is that many people who feel that their disease may have been a consequence of what happened in the Gulf have lost confidence—perhaps unjustifiably—in the Ministry of Defence's ability to discover the true reasons for what is wrong with them.

Mr. Soames

My hon. Friend makes an important point. There have clearly been unacceptable failings and shortcomings, which will be dealt with by the permanent under-secretary's inquiry. The results will be made available to the House as soon as that can decently be done, and we shall certainly be looking at the way in which information comes in for parliamentary questions.

I emphasise that, in my judgment and my experience of the Ministry of Defence, this particular failure was indeed an aberration. The advice that we are given is nearly always impeccable and of the highest standard. On this occasion, however, there has been a grievous shortcoming, which must be dealt with. I very much take my hon. Friend's point, especially what he said about confidence.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West)

Does the Minister not accept that, while the first questions about organophosphates may well have been asked in 1994, questions about the unique health hazards involved in the Gulf war were asked as early as 1991—in January, I believe? It was made clear then that depleted-uranium-tipped shells were being used in huge quantities, and that that could lead to radioactive dust across the battlefield. Immediately after the war, the possibility was raised that a cocktail of carcinogenic chemicals was coming from the oil wells, and later the possibility of damage caused by injections was raised.

Is it not true that the many Members of Parliament who raised those issues in 1991, 1992 and 1993 were treated to complacent and indifferent answers by the Minister's Department? This study should have begun in 1991: it is now five years late, and veterans who, in many cases, lost their health as a result of that war will receive their compensation 10 years after they should have received it. Is that not a disgrace? Should not the Minister re-examine his statement, and apologise for ignoring questions about those three other health hazards that were tabled as early as January 1991?

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman spoiled an initially good case with a piece of histrionic rant. He spoke of depleted uranium and the carcinogenic effects of burning oil wells; it is interesting to note that there is no sign of any illness among the indigenous populations of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who would have been expected to be the first to suffer. As for the hon. Gentleman's mention of complacency, I hope that he does not think that I am complacent. I am not, and nor is my Department.

We are determined to get to the bottom of this, but it is, of necessity, a long-term programme. The minute that serious concerns were raised about the health of Gulf veterans, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, established the medical assessment programme. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will agree that that programme was set up at almost the same time as the Americans established their medical assessment programme. We have almost run in tandem.

I am not saying that what we have done is perfect. I have no doubt that, with hindsight, we will be shown that—as with all things—we could have done it better; but we have had to do it guided by the light of the best advice, the best science and the best possible interests of all those young men and women who went to the Gulf and will soldier in the future.

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

I believe that it is correct that the force gathered in the Gulf in 1991 was the largest allied force to be gathered since the second world war. Have any comparable studies been made of health and sickness rates, both in theatre and when those concerned have returned to the United Kingdom, in the case of comparable campaigns?

Will my hon. Friend reassure me that it remains a duty and a priority of all commanders, up to and including the Ministry of Defence, to look after the health and welfare of their service personnel, for both humanitarian and compassionate reasons?

Finally, may I tell my hon. Friend that, although I welcome these further steps, among the many people I have known who served in the Gulf, I have yet to meet one who either believes that he has Gulf war syndrome or knows of anyone who believes himself to be suffering from it?

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His experience in the Gulf war has always been of importance in the questioning of Government policy in the Gulf. As a former serving officer, he knows—and I can confirm—that the health and welfare of those under one's command are a prime charge: there is no more important obligation for an officer or non-commissioned officer.

On my hon. Friend's first question, no comparable survey has been undertaken in this country. The United States of America undertook a similar epidemiological study, although not with the same parameters or scientific rigour, and found no increase in mortality, hospitalisation or illness among those who went to the Gulf as compared with those who did not. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support in our deliberations on this extremely difficult matter.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)

I accept the reasons given by the Minister for the House having been misled, but will he discuss with the Prime Minister the fact that, if I were to have an Adjournment debate tonight on pesticides, outside the stewardship of the Ministry of Defence, the relevant Minister would stand up and say that there was no problem? There should be regard across the Government to the fact that Ministers and civil servants in other Departments are pooh-poohing the problem posed by the pesticides, named in the Surgeon-General's report, that are being used recklessly in industry and in domestic situations.

It is time that Government Departments other than the Ministry of Defence—the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Department for Education and Employment—recognised that there is genuine concern about the pesticides being used in the domestic as well as the military sphere.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he is a genuine champion of the veterans and the armed forces. On OPs, however, I find myself in respectful disagreement with him.

As the hon. Member for North Cornwall knows—he knows more about the subject than anyone else in the House—all the Government Departments are extremely well informed on those matters. When I was in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it was extremely well informed. The Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence and all the other Departments liaise regularly to ensure that exactly such problems as the hon. Gentleman outlined cannot arise. I take his point, however, and will ensure that it is passed on.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough)

In our understandable sympathy for those who served in the Gulf and have an illness, is there not a danger of confusing a correlation between service in the Gulf and an illness, with a causal link? We should not be deflected from a proper study of the medical and scientific evidence and reach a verdict prematurely.

Mr. Soames

I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who has effectively hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the point about the scientific research. The Americans, having chased valuable but often will-o'-the-wisp research projects, have come back to the conclusion that not causal research but the careful and detailed, albeit lengthy and frustrating, work of epidemiology surveys is required to get to the bottom of the problem. Those surveys will come up with the answer, from which it may be possible to do the causal research that may well be necessary later.

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke)

If the Gulf war was repeated, would the delivery of OPs be effected as it was in 1990 and 1991, or, bearing in mind what we have learnt since 1991, especially in relation to sheep dip, would different means of delivering OPs be employed—or would they not be used at all? I seek an assurance because the Minister told us that, except on one occasion, the rules for the delivery of OPs were followed.

Mr. Soames

I assure the hon. Gentleman that substantial lessons have been learnt from the campaign. They will be applied not only in respect of the holding and delivery of stock and the functioning of the supply chain but in respect of the training of environmental health personnel and doctors and of the preparation of people for what is required.

However, British forces in the desert faced a real and substantial health hazard, especially from fly-borne diseases, about which the hon. Gentleman knows. In the last war, the 8th Army suffered seriously from such diseases. It is important that we should keep matters in proportion. I agree with what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question, and I assure him that all the lessons that needed to be learnt have been learnt.

Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important aspects of his statement was his explanation of the degree of co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States? Will he give further detail on the extent to which research runs in parallel and the extent to which it is different, notwithstanding that we use different drugs? How much of the research is common, and how much cross-checking is possible?

Mr. Soames

My hon. Friend is right to say that the degree of co-operation is important. Contact about the work and cross-checking is almost daily. The research programmes are going to be carefully co-ordinated in respect of the epidemiological surveys. However, to date most of the American research has been causal, and, as we now know, that is not as valuable as we might have hoped.

I assure my hon. Friend that co-operation is extremely close, to the extent that a British officer has recently commenced sitting on the American research board that supervises the matter. The Americans have been good enough to accept a Royal Army Medical Corps lieutenant-colonel into the Department of Defense Gulf health research team, where he will be able to gain and pass to us most valuable oversight, of which we shall make the best use.

Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness)

On the use of organophosphate pesticides, can the Minister confirm that none of the British service men involved in delousing Iraqi prisoners of war was issued with protective clothing? One of those service men is my constituent Mervyn Gray, who has been unable to work since his return from the Gulf. In those circumstances, how was it possible for the Minister's inquiry to conclude that there was no inappropriate use of organophosphate chemicals?

Mr. Soames

I know that the hon. Gentleman has followed the matter closely: he and I debated it at the time of the statement on the defence estimates. Environmental health personnel and trained regimental hygiene duty staff are trained to use personal protection equipment at all times when using pesticides. The investigation noted the allegation that the hon. Gentleman and others have made that no PP equipment was available, but could not substantiate it. If he has detailed evidence, I should be very grateful if he would let me have it forthwith.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

The Minister has been kind enough to mention the all-party group that deals with organophosphate pesticides that I convene. In answer to his unsolicited testimonial, I absolve him personally of misleading the House in his answers to our questions.

Will the Minister review his answer to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), which disclaimed any negligence by his Department? He knows that, as long as ago as 1987, an explicit statement was sent out warning of the dangers of using OPs in certain circumstances. If his Department had, at every level, including commanders in the field, followed the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive, there would now be no question of anyone being even suspected of having been affected by exposure to OPs.

Mr. Soames

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I cannot resile from the answer that I gave my hon. Friend. I repeat that any Gulf veteran who can be shown to be suffering from illness caused by the Department's negligence will be entitled to compensation in line with common law principles.