§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
11.18 pm§ Mr. David Laws (Yeovil)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of Gulf war illness. I am grateful to the Minister of State for Defence for joining me at this late hour in place of his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who has ministerial responsibility for veterans' affairs; I understand that the Under-Secretary cannot be with us this evening. I am also grateful for the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has had a sustained expertise and involvement in these matters.
The Minister of State will doubtless know from the correspondence that I have recently had with the Minister for veterans' affairs why I am raising Gulf war illness today. He will be aware that Petty Officer Nigel Thompson, a constituent of mine, died from motor neurone disease in January this year after a long period in which he played a leading role in the campaign to draw attention to Gulf war illness. He conducted a lengthy campaign for a full independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of an issue that has affected many people who served in the Gulf and could well affect service men in future if we do not deal with some of the underlying problems. After Nigel Thompson sadly died in January, I spoke to his widow, Sam Thompson, who lives in my Yeovil constituency. She confirmed that, despite the tragedy of her husband's death, she is keen to pursue the campaign that he helped to lead for many years to obtain a clear outcome and a full public independent inquiry to establish the facts.
I appreciate very much the role that the Government have played since 1997 in seeking to identify the causes of Gulf war illness, a condition now recognised by the Ministry of Defence, even though its causes are still unclear. Nevertheless, 11 years after the end of the Gulf war, we have failed to find answers to many of the key questions. I therefore want to use today's debate not only to press for a full inquiry but to put further pressure on the Government to advance their agenda of medical and other work to make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened in the Gulf in 1990 and 1991, which affected many thousands of our service men as well as many thousands of service men from the United States of America.
There are four main reasons why it is vital to get to the bottom of the matter. First, it is in the medical interest of individuals who served in the Gulf and are still alive. Secondly, we all want to know what happened in the Gulf, particularly friends and relatives of individuals who died as a consequence of a Gulf war illness of one kind or another. Thirdly, and most importantly, we need to ensure the safety of our armed forces who, as we speak, are being deployed in places such as Afghanistan, where they may come face to face with some of the possible causes of Gulf war illness, on the medical evidence for which we do not have clear agreement. Finally, although this is not my constituent's priority, many individuals who have experienced Gulf war illness remain concerned about 307 appropriate compensation for their medical problems. All those issues depend on a clear outcome to the investigation that has been going on for many years.
§ Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that there should be no suspicion whatever that there has been a cover-up for the delay in finding out the cause of Gulf war illness?
§ Mr. LawsI agree entirely. Although I said earlier that the Government since 1997 appear to have pursued the problem energetically, there are certainly doubts not only about the length of time that they are taking to resolve it but about the performance of the Ministry of Defence, especially prior to 1997. Although I do not particularly want to rake over those matters, they are relevant to the continuing calls for a full independent public inquiry. I refer hon. Members to the report prepared by the Select Committee on Defence in April 2000, in which the Committee draws attention to its earlier report of 1995 into Gulf war syndrome. That previous report stated:
In responding to allegations of a Gulf War Syndrome MoD has been quick to deny but slow to investigate… MoD's response has been reactive rather than proactive and characterised throughout by scepticism, defensiveness and general torpor.That referred to the period prior to 1995.In the Defence Committee's 1997 report, concern about the way in which the MOD was pursuing the matter was reinforced when the Committee stated:
we do not feel that the Ministry of Defence has been dogged in pursuit of the facts.In April 1999, even after the present Government came to power and pursued a more determined approach to the issue, the Minister for the Armed Forces told the Select Committee in evidence:I think there is a worry among the Gulf veterans that not very much is happening.When we turn to the report that the Defence Committee prepared in April 2000 and read its recommendations and conclusions, we see on page 17 at paragraph 39 that the Committee concluded:Although the MoD may have acted correctly from the scientific viewpoint in this respect"—in relation particularly to the evidence about depleted uranium—the way that it has dealt with veterans' concerns has not been impressive. The MoD took action on DU testing only when it became unavoidable. It failed to explain to veterans precisely what the tests organised by the MAP"—that is, the medical assessment programme—involved and some veterans now believe that they have been misled.There has, then, been concern for some time about the way in which the MOD has taken forward these matters. Although the situation has improved considerably since 1997, that has not taken away the basic argument for an independent public inquiry. There are a number of reasons why there should be an independent public inquiry. The first is that that is the only way of ensuring that the scrutiny of the matter is truly independent.The second reason is so that we can be sure that there is the determination to see the matter through and to investigate every aspect of the work that has been done 308 and of the medical evidence, rather than relying on some of the medical evidence from a range of sources, including other countries. The independent public inquiry should be able to commission work of its own, pursue an agenda that should include a thorough examination of why Gulf war syndrome has occurred, and make recommendations to avoid such a problem in future, including dealing with some of the matters that the Select Committee discussed, such as improvements to medical records.
There are two reasons why confidence is crucial in this area and why the present approach must be questioned. First, there is the record in this regard, to which I have referred. I appreciate that much of that somewhat dubious record, including evidence given to the Select Committee prior to 1997 which proved not to be accurate, pre-dates the Government, but it has created in many people's minds, and in the minds of Gulf veterans, serious doubt whether the Ministry of Defence can be relied upon to take a sufficiently independent and proactive line in the case.
Eleven years have passed since the Gulf war and since people returned from it. Without being emotive, I remind all hon. Members that during that time many of those who were affected by Gulf war illness have died. That will inevitably lessen the momentum to resolve the matter, and we must not allow that to happen.
On the second issue, I speak with all due deference to the professionalism of staff who work at the Ministry of Defence, and I am fully aware that one issue that has given rise to concern about the cause of Gulf war illness is vaccination and inoculation against chemical weapons that might have been used by those whom we were fighting in the Gulf war. People will inevitably be sceptical of the MOD's ability to assess its own performance, in that the possible causes of Gulf war illness included not just the action that may have been taken by our enemies, but the actions that we may have taken through the use of munitions such as depleted uranium, our inoculation programme, particularly the multiple inoculations, and the use of organophosphates, about which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will comment if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When compensation would have to fall on a contingency reserve or directly on the MOD budget, there must be scepticism about whether that will influence the ability of the Department as a whole, even if not of Ministers, to see the matter through properly to an end. If the veterans have such a perception, that alone is a major reason to conduct a fully independent public inquiry now. The Government have yet to rule out such an inquiry. They say that they are waiting, but I do not believe that we can afford to wait much longer to resolve this matter.
I hope that the Minister will comment on the prospects for such an inquiry and respond to my points. I hope also that he can update us on the research that his Department is commissioning and backing on vaccines, organophosphates and depleted uranium. Perhaps he can tell us when we can expect those reports to be published and give us an interim update.
I am proud to have the opportunity to raise this important matter on behalf of a constituent who was himself particularly active in shedding light on it. I am determined, as many other hon. Members clearly are, to see it through to a conclusion in the interests not only of 309 those who served this country in the Gulf, but of all members of the armed forces who serve us now or will do so in future.
§ Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). I am grateful to him for allowing me briefly to contribute and to the Minister for consenting.
My interest is that I have been for many years a member of the Gulf war group organised by the Royal British Legion, which has taken the lead in trying to assist veterans in a very difficult situation. I do not wish to deal with the particular issues on which my hon. Friend concentrated, but I entirely endorse the general thrust of his remarks.
We sent service personnel to the Gulf in circumstances that turned out to be entirely unexpected from the point of view both of those individuals and of the Ministry of Defence. We do not know precisely why the illness that is the subject of the debate, which has been a matter of controversy over the years, has arisen. All we know is that it has done so, and that such work as has been undertaken in this country shows that it is not identical to the syndrome that has been found after previous hostilities. It is different in degree and character, and as chairman of the all-party group on organophosphates, I am especially concerned with the mysterious role of that type of pesticide and insecticide.
We are disappointed that the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, cannot be with us, as he has taken a personal interest in this matter over the years before and since he became Minister for veterans' affairs. I have had various exchanges with him in the House and by correspondence.
The answers that the Ministry of Defence has been able to provide on the role that organophosphates may have had in this mystery have been inadequate. That inadequacy stretches back to the previous Government's term in office, when a Minister was misled—it was not his fault—into giving me an answer saying that OPs had not been used extensively in the Gulf. Subsequently, he had to apologise to the House and showed that they had been used extensively in UK forces. Significantly, OPs were not used by our French allies, who did not seem to have anything like the same problems after hostilities ceased.
Let me turn to my particular concern and the reason why I wanted to contribute. The United States Government are undertaking a very extensive research programme and congressional hearings are taking place in Washington. In addition, no less a personality than Ross Perot is funding a research programme into some of the specific aspects that I mentioned. That is occurring because that country is so concerned to see that justice is done by the service personnel who served it and us well.
Although my hon. Friend is right that more attention and care has been given to the subject since 1997, my concern is that our Ministry of Defence and Government seem not to be taking full account of the international research programme, which should be relevant to our inquiries. Hence the need for an independent public inquiry.
310 I ask that the Minister express to the Under-Secretary my continuing concern, shared by the Royal British Legion, that we have yet to take full advantage of international studies—particularly on the role of organophosphates—in this deplorable episode.
§ The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) for initiating tonight's debate on Gulf veterans' illnesses, and to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for his contribution. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) also deserves my gratitude, although I must confess to hesitation in remembering his constituency. That shows how quickly one's past life as a Northern Ireland Minister can be forgotten.
I apologise for the absence, due to illness, of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has direct responsibility for this subject within the Department. I shall ensure that any points of detail that are not answered in the debate will be dealt with by him on his return.
As the hon. Member for Yeovil has pointed out, this topic is of considerable interest to a wide community—primarily, of course, to those veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict who are unfortunately ill. Let me make it clear from the outset that issues relating to Gulf veterans' illnesses remain a high priority for this Government. We have demonstrated our commitment to addressing Gulf veterans' concerns openly, honestly and seriously, and I can assure the House that we will continue to do so. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Yeovil and for North Cornwall for recognising that the matter is being dealt with in a substantially different way since this Government took office.
We accept that some of the 53,000-odd UK Gulf veterans have become ill, and that some have died. Many believe that such ill health and mortality is unusual, and is related to the Gulf conflict; indeed, that is the contention and core argument of the hon. Member for Yeovil. However, although there is evidence that Gulf veterans report more ill health than other comparable groups, no medical or scientific consensus exists as to why. Because of this unknown factor, important research continues. We are monitoring mortality and publishing the data every six months. Our most recent data—published on 31 December last year—showed that the total number of deaths among Gulf veterans was almost identical to that among a matched group of service personnel who were members of the armed forces on 1 January 1991 but who did not deploy to the Gulf.
It may be helpful if I set out how the Government are approaching this complex issue. We have adopted three principles to underpin our response to concerns about Gulf veterans' illnesses. First, all Gulf veterans will have prompt access to medical advice from the Ministry of Defence's Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme. Secondly, appropriate research will be undertaken into veterans' illnesses and factors that might have a bearing. Thirdly, the MOD will make available to the public any information that it possesses that is of potential relevance to this issue. I want to say a little more about those three topics before dealing with some of the specific points that were raised.
The Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme has been running since 1993. Since then, it has been subject to audit by the Royal College of Physicians and the King's 311 Fund health quality service. In addition, the Royal College of Pathologists has provided advice on the range of clinical investigations undertaken. Since 1993, more than 3,300 patients have been seen by physicians participating in the programme, and the annual underlying trend in referrals is declining. I am pleased to say that an analysis of satisfaction questionnaires showed that 96 per cent. of patients who responded were satisfied with their consultation. The physicians at the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme, who have complete clinical independence from the MOD, find that about 80 per cent. of those they see are well. Of the 20 per cent. who are unwell, about 85 per cent. are found to have psychiatric disorders. That shows the importance of the psychiatric referral network that has been established. I should like to take this opportunity to encourage all Gulf veterans who are worried about their health to seek a referral to the Gulf veterans' medical assessment programme through their doctors.
I know that the hon. Member for Yeovil and other hon. Members who have involved themselves in this subject accept that scientific and medical research is vital to the issue of Gulf veterans' illnesses, as that is the only way we will find out why some veterans are ill. So far, the Ministry of Defence has spent approximately £6.7 million on studies in this field, and another £1.8 million will be required to complete the current programme of work. That level of expenditure underlines our commitment to scientific research.
The results from one important research study commissioned by the Ministry of Defence through the Medical Research Council were published last year. The study was based on self-reporting, which can be unreliable, but the team from the university of Manchester found a link between skin and muscle problems and the number of vaccinations given to Gulf veterans. However, the study team found no reason to explain such a link between vaccinations and these problems. Further work is currently under way in this area. The MOD's vaccines interactions research programme is studying whether the combination of vaccines used to protect personnel during the Gulf conflict can give rise to adverse health effects. That important research will be completed by the end of 2003. However, we hope that further interim results will be made public later this year.
Another Government-funded study, at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, is examining the reproductive health of Gulf veterans and their partners and the health of their children. Results from the study are expected to be published this year.
§ Lady Hermon (North Down)I appreciate the Minister giving way, and the patience of other Members at this late hour. Given the uncertainty about the immunisation programme for the soldiers who fought in the Gulf campaign, what lessons have been learned and implemented for troops who have recently been sent to Afghanistan?
§ Mr. IngramI am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister for veterans affairs has a detailed knowledge of this issue, so I shall ensure that she is given a full response in writing to that 312 question. Lessons are always learned, but rather than me trying to explain the specific lessons, it would be better if she were given that information in more detail.
The provision of information and dialogue is the third principle of our approach. Last year, my Department sent an updated information pack about Gulf veterans' illnesses to all GPs in the United Kingdom as well as to other interested health professionals, including those in the defence medical services. More than 48,000 copies have now been despatched.
The MOD's internet website is frequently updated, and is an increasingly valuable way of making information public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, worldwide. Gulf Update, the newsletter produced by the MOD's Gulf veterans' illnesses unit, is published every six months and sent to several hundred veterans, to Members of both Houses and to other interested parties. The next issue will be published in the summer.
Veterans and others continue to contact the MOD via our freephone helplines and to receive appropriate assistance. In addition, my Department deals with a considerable amount of correspondence from veterans and their representatives.
As the hon. Member for Yeovil said, the whole issue is scrutinised by Parliament, both here and in the other place. Less than a year ago, my hon. Friend the Minister for veterans' affairs gave evidence on Gulf veterans' illnesses and on depleted uranium to the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted.
I should like to deal with some of the particular points raised during the debate. The Government's position on a public inquiry into Gulf veterans' illnesses issues is clear. A public inquiry could not help to answer the question why some Gulf veterans are ill; only continuing scientific and medical research can do that. Furthermore, the Government's record is already subject to close public scrutiny and we believe that our current policy, our track record on delivering what we have promised and our continued openness allow for a proper assessment of what is being done. I have set out at length the three principles underlying that.
§ Mr. LawsDoes the Minister understand that a public inquiry would fully restore veterans' confidence that the matter is being considered independently and speedily? The Gulf war took place 11 years ago. I recently received a letter dated 8 April from the Minister for veterans' affairs, which says:
the Prime Minister does not believe that an independent public inquiry is appropriate at this time.Is the Minister's reading of that comment that an independent public inquiry is still possible at some time?
§ Mr. IngramOn the hon. Gentleman's point about satisfying people's concerns, we have sought to address the issue in a range of ways, which should, I hope, convince reasonable-minded people that we are operating independently and that an assessment is taking place. All the medical research is independent of the MOD, although we may commission it. It is carried out rigorously and independently.
We do not interfere with the conclusions, and the research is all subject to peer review, which is why there is sometimes such a delay in publishing findings. Those 313 are correctly subject to peer review, because that provides rigorous examination. I hope that those who take a close interest in the matter take back the message that an extensive research programme has been undertaken. All of it is independent, but certainly funded by the MOD—that is, by the public purse.
On the letter that the hon. Gentleman received and the view of the Prime Minister and the Government, of course we would never write off that possible eventuality, but I have pointed out that the best way to deal with the matter is to get to the core problem.
§ Mr. IngramNo, no, hold on. The research gives us the base knowledge for that. It is finding the answer to the problems, because it is easy to set running the hare that there is some great conspiracy or some great secrecy here. I have set out the principles for our approach, which 314 is open, extensive and discursive. Our approach is to consider what more could be brought to the debate in terms of what we are doing.
§ Mr. LawsI am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I note that he does not rule out completely an independent public inquiry, but, given his background comments, in what circumstances would it be appropriate to hold such an inquiry into the matter?
§ Mr. IngramIf circumstances were to change, a public inquiry may become the appropriate mechanism. The hon. Gentleman asks me to look into the future and make a prediction, but he has not given any example to support his argument that a public inquiry is desirable because concerns exist—
§ The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
§ Adjourned at twelve minutes to Twelve midnight