HL Deb 10 December 1996 vol 576 cc953-68

3.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on Gulf War illness and I apologise for the length.

"As the House will remember with great pride, six years ago some 50,000 British troops deployed to the Gulf as part of the allied coalition to liberate Kuwait.

"The Government's and the Chief of Staff's prime concern and duty—now as then—was the safety and welfare of our service personnel, and the commanders on the ground took every possible step to minimise the risk faced by our troops.

"The House will recall that British troops were facing an aggressor who had formidably well-equipped armed forces, and whom we assessed correctly as possessing, and being capable of using, weapons of mass destruction.

"The Gulf campaign was, by any standards a brilliant feat of arms. The number of British servicemen killed or wounded in action was, mercifully, much smaller than had at one stage been feared.

"Illness among our troops in the desert was much lower than that experienced during earlier conflicts, a reflection of the steps taken to maintain very high standards in the face of unfamiliar, difficult and sometimes unhealthy conditions.

"Since the conflict, a small number of those who served have become ill. Some of these are ill with clearly recognisable symptoms for which they are receiving appropriate treatment; others are suffering from sickness which medical science has so far found it difficult readily to explain.

"There have been suggestions that some of those unwell are afflicted by a specific syndrome caused by service in the Gulf.

"Madam Speaker, I want to make it plain yet again that as much as we were anxious for the welfare of our troops during the conflict, so we remain no less concerned about the health of our Gulf veterans both serving and retired. In our search for answers we have throughout been guided by the best medical and scientific advice available in this country. In 1993 we established a medical assessment programme to try to diagnose the reasons why some Gulf War veterans were ill. In order to establish the professional independence and integrity of this work, the methodology of the programme was audited, at my request, by the Royal College of Physicians and was endorsed by it in July 1995.

"So far, some 921 veterans have been examined and have been referred for appropriate further treatment where necessary. While the results have not produced any evidence of a new pattern of illness, the Government retain an open mind on whether there is generally more illness among our veterans than should be expected, and whether there are Gulf-service related factors at work which remain to be discovered. It is now clear that the medical assessment programme alone cannot answer these questions.

"On the advice, therefore, of the Royal College of Physicians, we have asked the Medical Research Council to establish a major, independent, peer-reviewed, research programme.

"The MRC has considered in great detail a large number of research proposals. It advises that the only scientifically sound way to proceed is by conducting epidemiological studies to address two specific questions: are British Gulf veterans suffering more ill health than they would have done had they not served in the Gulf, and, if so, what is the nature and magnitude of the phenomenon?; and are British veterans finding disproportionate difficulties in having children or are their offspring suffering from an unusual number of birth defects? If so, what is the nature and magnitude of the risk?

"Its recommendation is to proceed with two studies, which I am pleased to be able to announce today. They will be led by Professor Nicola Cherry at Manchester University and by Dr. Patricia Doyle of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The costs, which will amount to some 1.3 million, will be met by the MoD. I should, at this stage, like to express my thanks to Professor Alan McGregor, of King's College Medical School for his work as chairman of the Medical Research Council committee examining these matters.

"The Medical Research Council advises that if the studies are to be rigorously and scientifically conducted they will take some three years to complete. The Medical Research Council tells us that the research programme should find the answers we seek. The projects will be carefully co-ordinated with a major US-funded epidemiological study which is being conducted in parallel at King's College, London by Dr. Simon Wessely.

"Madam Speaker, the Government have throughout worked very closely with the US authorities on Gulf War-related health research. From the start there has been extensive—indeed, almost daily—contact between the medical teams involved on both sides. We are most grateful for this assistance.

"I visited the United States recently to discuss these matters in detail. I want the House to know that we are as one with the Americans, and that they have agreed to allow us unfettered access to the results of the extensive research programme they have in hand. I attach the greatest importance to this extremely valuable co-operation.

"So as to consolidate these links further, I have appointed a British medical liaison officer to work within the United States Department of Defense research programme.

"I should add also that a British officer already sits on the US research working group, affording us a valuable insight into their ongoing work.

"Meanwhile, at the request of the American authorities, the Medical Research Council has agreed to review research which has been carried out there. This will enable us to establish the relevance of any of their studies to the health of our veterans and whether there are any obvious gaps.

"The Government are also taking further steps to remind veterans of the existence of the medical assessment programme. At the same time, we are writing to all the GPs of those who have been seen by the medical assessment programme so as to improve our knowledge of the medical progress of retired servicemen.

"There has been much speculation that explanations for illness among Gulf veterans can be found in the various hazards which faced our troops during the campaign. The Government wish to be entirely open about what happened during the Gulf conflict, and I wish to stress, Madame Speaker, that we have nothing to hide and indeed absolutely no reason to do so.

"In this connection, as I promised, I am now able to update the House on the use of pesticides in the protection of our forces during the campaign, an issue which has understandably given rise to genuine concern in recent weeks.

"The House will recall that I made public on 4th October that there had been wider use of organophosphate chemicals in the Gulf than had previously been thought, or we had previously been advised. I have already apologised to the House for this and expressed my profound regret and anger that this ran counter to earlier information given in utmost good faith by Ministers in answer to parliamentary Questions. I subsequently told the House that a comprehensive investigation had been commissioned to discover the facts and I promised to report the outcome as soon as it was known.

"My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal told another place on 4th December that we expected the results before Christmas. I received the report of this investigation, which covers two separate areas, on 6th December.

"On the first, which is what actually happened in the Gulf, the investigation team discovered that OP pesticides were indeed used by our troops in the Gulf to deal with the threat posed by fly-borne diseases on a much wider scale than previously reported; secondly that, with the exception of the possibly small scale use of pesticides obtained incorrectly, there is no evidence that they were improperly used. There is also the question of the dusting powder used to delouse Iraqi prisoners of war, where the inquiry has found that the number of Iraqi prisoners involved ran to hundreds rather than the 50 previously reported to the House. Again, I very much regret that Ministers, and therefore the House, should have been inadvertently misinformed.

"I am making arrangements for this section of the report to be published in full and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

"The House will understand that, given the extraordinary pressure of work generated by the vast and complex preparations for a sustained period of high intensity conflict, and at a distance of six years, we simply cannot be sure of all the details. There may be individual veterans who have further information to add to the story: if so we would welcome it. We are as anxious as anyone else to establish what happened. I want the House to be wholly confident that we are absolutely determined to establish what happened.

"The second part of the investigation deals with the question of how parliamentary Questions were answered. The key finings here are that the first parliamentary Question in July 1994 was answered incorrectly because Ministers were given flawed advice arising from a failure within one area of the department; and that the original flawed advice was repeatedly resubmitted in answer to further parliamentary Questions.

"On the question of how Ministers became aware of the mistake that had been made, detailed investigation has found that the possible local purchase of OP pesticides was mentioned in background material to a written parliamentary Question answered in October 1995. In June 1996, officials on one occasion suggested possible difficulties over the standard briefing line on pesticide use. In July a note included in briefing material mentioned OP pesticide purchase and use. But it was not until 25th September that Ministers were given clear, written advice on the wider use of OP pesticides during the Gulf War, and that previous Answers needed to be corrected.

"I must explain again, Madame Speaker, that Minsters at no stage knowingly misled the House on this matter, nor would they ever have done so and I again unreservedly apologise to the House that this should have come to pass.

"The evident failures in providing proper and timely advice to Ministers are a matter of serious concern. It is essential that the reasons are examined in detail. Accordingly, a separate investigation, overseen by the Permanent Under-Secretary, is being set in hand. Because of its potential implications for individuals, arising from the possibility of disciplinary or administrative action affecting careers, it would be against natural justice to publish the detailed information gathered so far on these matters. I can assure honourable Members that the further investigation will be completed as soon as possible and the findings made available to the House at the first opportunity.

"This is, Madam Speaker, a serious matter, and I felt it important to report the facts as soon as they became available.

"I now turn to the issue of the vaccination programme against possible biological weapons attacks in the Gulf. There has been concern that these vaccinations might have contributed to some of the sickness reported, although there is at present no evidence to support this.

"I am sure that the House will understand the need for the greatest care to be taken over the release of the details of our response to a biological or chemical threat. This could clearly be of value to potential future aggressors. However, following a detailed review, we now judge that, six years on and in the light of further developments since the Gulf conflict, knowledge of the steps we took then is now less sensitive. I am therefore today able to provide a full account of the vaccination programme which was carried out, and to this end I am placing a detailed memorandum in the Library of the House.

"It makes clear that the MoD acted swiftly to offer the best protection available to our forces—on a voluntary basis—in the face of a clearly-assessed potentially lethal threat: an assessment since wholly vindicated by the findings of the UN Special Commission.

"Saddam Hussein did not—thank God—in the event use his biological weapons. But no responsible government could have ignored the very real possibility that he might well have done so, and accordingly taken appropriate precautions.

"Finally, Madam Speaker, my department has been keeping a very careful watch on the many reported incidents of chemical and biological weapons use in the Gulf. We have so far traced around 100 such claims, all of which have proved unfounded. But it does seem likely that some chemical weapons material may have been released, after hostilities ceased, by the destruction of the Iraqi ammunition dump at Bunker 73 at Al-Khamisiyah. As the House has already been told, there were at the time no UK units in the footprint of potential danger since identified by the US authorities. I am today placing in the Library of the House a copy of a map showing the exact location of our units at the time the destruction took place.

"In conclusion, the Government spared no effort to protect our troops in the Gulf War. Their immunisation and environmental health programmes were solely directed to this end.

"We have of course every sympathy for those veterans who are ill, and we retain an open mind about the question of whether there is or is not a Gulf War Syndrome. Whatever the case, we are determined to get to the bottom of it, as I very much hope this Statement has demonstrated."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.8 p.m.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement made by the Minister of State in another place. My first question is very brief. Who is responsible for the Ministry of Defence? Is it not the Secretary of State? Why did not the Secretary of State himself make this very important and serious Statement? He may be away engaged on all kinds of other things, but I should like to know the answer to that question before I get on to the detail of the Statement.

Over the years Ministers have been pursued on the matter of the Gulf War illness not least—and I pay tribute to her—by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. It is possibly thanks to the noble Countess that this Statement has been made today. It is all very well for Ministers who give misleading answers in Parliament both in Written Questions and in Oral Questions to blame civil servants. But my understanding of our constitution is that Ministers are responsible for their departments. If my understanding is wrong, no doubt the noble Earl will correct me. I wonder whether, in the politest possible way, Ministers have actually considered their position in this matter. In this House it is not a convention to ask for resignations, and I understand that, but Ministers, notably the noble Earl and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Henley, might wish to reflect on the matter.

The Statement says,

Since the conflict, a small number of those who served have become ill". Is it the case that 10,000 medical records have been wiped off the MoD computer? If that is the case, how do we know that it is only a small number of people who have become ill? If, as the Statement says, we are so

anxious for the welfare of our troops during the conflict", why have not the parliamentary Questions put repeatedly by the noble Countess and supported by me, been taken more seriously? Why have we been brushed off with these replies?

The Statement says, In our search for answers we have throughout been guided by the best medical and scientific advice available in this country". Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Earl that the best medical and scientific advice was available in this House from the noble Countess, Lady Mar. She was the person who identified the problem which the Government now seem to be taking seriously. We welcome all these new inquiries by independent "peer-reviewed" bodies and the rest. But it seems very odd that there should be a team, as I understand it, in the Ministry of Defence at the moment which is investigating these matters and which, as we discussed at Question Time the other day, seems to be—I repeat, "seems to be"—trying to bully people into giving evidence. Will the noble Earl confirm that there is no such team, or if there is, that it is going to be disbanded forthwith?

The Statement goes on to say that the Government,

are writing to all GPs". I hope that it is perfectly clear that GPs can only submit evidence to the Government on the medical condition of their patients with their authority. Therefore, why do not the Government write to the patients rather than the GPs? Is there some hidden agenda here that there will be a court order put on GPs to abandon what is normally known as the Hippocratic Oath and to submit evidence that will contribute to the Government's study of the matter?

The Statement goes on to say,

The Government wish to be entirely open". If I may say so, the Government have not been entirely open over the past few years. The noble Earl says that they have, but they simply have not. They have tried to obscure the truth.

Earl Howe

My Lords, no, they have not. I hope that the noble Lord will think better of that comment. He said that the Government have tried to obscure the truth. I believe that that implies a conscious effort to withhold information from this House. That is emphatically not what has happened.

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, the Government are represented by Ministers in this House, not the MoD. The Ministers in this House have consistently obscured the truth of what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, and others of us knew to be the truth. If the noble Earl wishes to intervene, he can do so.

Earl Howe

My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that we have done that deliberately or inadvertently?

Lord Williams of Elvel

My Lords, I am saying quite clearly, as I shall say to the noble Earl when I come to the end of the matter, that it is ministerial responsibility to make sure that the truth is known to this House. As for advertently or inadvertently, either they do it advertently, in which case they are dishonest or they do it inadvertently because they are incompetent. That is the truth of the matter.

The Statement continues,

we had previously been advised who is "we"?—Ministers? The Statement goes on:

My noble friend … told another place the House of Lords—

that we expected the results before Christmas. A report of this investigation was made on 6th December, which was well before the Question Time which we had the other day as regards the Gulf War syndrome. The Statement goes on:

I very much regret that Ministers, and therefore the House, should have been inadvertently misinformed". Again, I put the question to the noble Earl. Who is responsible for the Ministry of Defence? Is it Ministers or is it civil servants acting somewhere or other? The Statement continues:

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". The original flawed advice was repeatedly—repeatedlyresubmitted in answer to further parliamentary Questions. Ministers in this House and in another place did not bother to go back and ask, "Is this really right because we have had a lot of flak in this House from a lot of people?". The Statement says that it has now been found out on detailed investigation,

that the possible local purchase of OP pesticides was mentioned in background material to a written parliamentary Question answered in October 1995". I again quote from the Statement,

In June 1996 officials on one occasion suggested possible difficulties over the standard briefing line on pesticide use". The Statement continues:

In July a note included in briefing material mentioned OP pesticide purchase and use. But it was not until 25th September"— I repeat, 25th September

that Ministers were given clear, written advice on the wider use of OP pesticides during the Gulf War and that previous Answers need to be corrected". I have no doubt that Ministers will set up a separate investigation overseen by the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Defence to find out what went wrong. But when we come to natural justice the real problem is what is the responsibility of Ministers in this matter? It is all very well for Ministers to say. "We were not told by our civil servants that something was wrong. They obscured things: there was a cover-up and we want to know where that was". But the fact of the matter is that this House and another place were seriously misled. It was only thanks to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, that this matter came to a head. I would like to know from the noble Earl, when he replies, what he believes to be ministerial responsibility for his department.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Williams, has asked the question whether Ministers misled the House inadvertently or knowingly. But there is a third possibility. It occurs sometimes when one is in a very difficult position and when one is briefed with an Answer that is particularly precise and reassuring. The question then comes: does one buy it or does one make inquiries? If I had to say, I would say that that is a more likely account and no less culpable on the part of Ministers.

I believe that the first time that the Government grossly misled Parliament was in their response to a Written Question by Mr. Tyler in the other place on 3rd November 1994. The reply of Mr. Soames was as follows:

I am aware of only 10 British service personnel who would have been involved with organophosphorus pesticides used by United Kingdom forces during the Gulf conflict. These 10 were members of a medical team involved in delousing some 50 Iraqi troops".— [Official Report, Commons, 3/11/94; col. 1235.] Here is a Minister on the spot being pressed on all sides; here one has a beautifully precise and reassuring reply. A good Minister will say that it is too precise and reassuring. He will make inquiries and see his civil servants. That is what the Government are to do at long last. At the end of his Statement the noble Earl said that the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry would ask precisely that question. He will see this Written Question and look at the minutes and the memorandum. He will be able to decide which of the three explanations is right: the two explanations suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that Ministers knowingly and avowedly misled Parliament, that they were themselves deceived and misled Parliament inadvertently, or that Ministers did not sufficiently examine the briefs that they were given by civil servants in a manner which an efficient and alert Minister should do.

When listening to the Statement of the noble Earl, for which I am grateful, I thought how much better all of those positive recommendations would have sounded had they been made five years ago. A great inquiry is to begin ab initio. The first of the two questions that it is to ask is whether British Gulf veterans are suffering greater ill-health than they would have done had they not served in the Gulf. If so, what is the nature and magnitude of the phenomenon? That is a good question. It is one that a commander should ask himself after every engagement. Indeed, every platoon commander should ask that question. The Government should have asked themselves that question at the end of the Gulf War. Here we are six years later asking the question and calmly announcing that the answer will arrive in about three years—nine years after the Gulf War. I do not find the Statement reassuring. Now all of the questions are to be asked and every conceivable inquiry is to be made in every direction, but it is too late. It takes place far later than it should take place. I am not clear about the nature of ministerial involvement.

The Government do not have a good record in handling the human problems of servicemen and women, and this will not add anything to their reputation.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I find myself in a little difficulty in answering the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I am sure that I shall appear to him to be giving him a lecture on the British constitution. That ill befits someone like me who is of leaner years than the noble Lord, Lord Williams.

My clear view of the way in which Parliament and government work is that civil servants are accountable to Ministers and Ministers are accountable to Parliament. To be accountable to Parliament means that Ministers owe a responsibility to give an account of their respective departments' activities and decisions to Parliament and to defend them where appropriate, and to be taken to task, if that is necessary, on such matters. That does not mean that Ministers are personally responsible for every single action of their departments. Ministers are personally responsible for those actions over which they have direct control or of which they have direct knowledge. Ministers are perfectly entitled to rely on the advice of civil servants on matters of fact where those matters of fact are outwith their personal experience.

In the case that is best known to me—namely, the questions which were referred to me for answer to your Lordships' House—I relied on factual advice about matters which had occurred some years ago and on which I believed there was a reservoir of knowledge among my officials. I believe that Ministers consider their positions when they have acted discreditably in some way. I do not believe that either I or my colleagues have been negligent in the way that we have approached our duties. If I did, I should be severely troubled.

There is no question of your Lordships' House or another place having been deliberately or wilfully misled by Ministers. It is a matter of profound regret to me and my ministerial colleagues that incorrect information should have been supplied to your Lordships and to Members of another place. I apologise without qualification for the mistakes that were made. But apologies are, however, only half the penance. Having discovered the mistakes, we have endeavoured as diligently as we can to discover the truth of the matter. Not all of the detail has yet come to light. We hope that it will. We also hope that those in possession of relevant information will furnish us with it. The report that we have published presents findings and provides pointers to follow-up action. I shall keep the House informed of any further findings of significance.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked why it had taken this long to commission research. We recognise that we could have acted sooner in commissioning research, but it was only during 1995 that sufficient numbers of veterans came forward for examination in the medical assessment programme in order to see whether there was a pattern of diagnoses similar to that found in the United States. If we compare ourselves with the United States, although much research has been carried out in that country, the Department of Defense research programme was launched only in July of this year. Veterans came forward only very slowly at the beginning of the programme. By the end of 1993 only two individuals had been examined. By the end of 1994 the figure had risen to just 65. By July 1995 the figure was 301. The figure was 337 by the end of December 1995. It rose rapidly until by the end of August of this year 710 had been examined.

When first alerted to allegations of ill-health among Gulf veterans, the MoD had no information on which to base an assessment of the perceived problem. It was vital to collect information about the illnesses being experienced. Once the number of patients examined reached a certain size—several hundred—it became apparent that no single factor or condition was dominant. We recognised the need for larger scale studies to ascertain whether there was an excess of ill-health among Gulf veterans overall. That crucial question—I trust the noble Countess in particular will welcome the fact that we have grasped this—will be addressed by the epidemiological studies that I have announced today. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked me a number of questions. However, I hope that I have addressed the nub of his concerns which relate to ministerial responsibility, and that he will agree with the broad definitions and statements that I have provided.

4.30 p.m.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, before addressing my questions to the noble Earl, I wish to ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether I am correct in my understanding that we have only 40 minutes for Statements. I notice that we have already used 37 minutes.

The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)

My Lords, if it be of assistance to the House I can confirm to the noble Countess that the Companion advises that we have 20 minutes for questions after both Front-Benchers have received replies from the Minister.

During that time other Members of your Lordships' House can ask questions and I assume that the clock will not be running during this exchange.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount. While I do not contend that organophosphates are the only cause of the so-called Gulf War illness, I believe that there are many parallels with the illness that has been suffered by sheep farmers. An increasing amount of evidence shows that approximately 9 per cent. of northern Europeans are particularly vulnerable to the effect of OPs. They affect the central nervous system, the peripheral nervous system, the autonomic nervous system, the immune system, the endocrine system, the reproductive system, the bones and the bone marrow. There is evidence of effects on foetuses of a cocktail of pesticides—and a cocktail of pesticides was certainly used in the Gulf War.

The Statement indicates that there is no evidence that OPs were improperly used. The operatives of the machinery, such as the bowsers, asked whether they could have protective clothing while they were working. They were told that there was none. They asked whether they could use their chemical and biological suits and were told no, they might damage them. The spraying of personnel in the NAAFI—men sitting on latrines because they had contracted diarrhoea—and, using Saudi labour, the spraying of tents, clothing and streets with pesticides, which at that time were not known, was not, according to the Government, the misuse or improper use of OP pesticides.

Spraying took place every two to three weeks. Organophosphates have been used in farming because of their long-term effectiveness. They are known to last in a sheep's fleece for 10 weeks. Therefore, spraying every two or three weeks was excessive. I know of one case in which operatives were mixing pesticides at the rate of 19 parts to one part of pesticide when it should have been 40 parts to one part of pesticide. The mistake was made because the pesticides had been purchased locally and the instructions were in Arabic. That was spraying over human beings. All the instructions on sheep dip containers state that the dips should not be sprayed while eating, drinking or smoking.

In 1991 a list of products was prepared for senior officers in the Gulf. It contained all the OPs that had been used there. In 1995 the MoD was advised by a solicitor that there was a list of OPs used in the Gulf with photographs of bowsers spraying the walkways. The individuals who have that information have been bullied, as the noble Earl knows from my Question yesterday. They are not prepared to part with the information unless they are promised that their military careers will not be affected.

Why have not the Government had a list of the OPs which were taken from Germany? They were shipped to the Gulf and should have appeared on the ship's manifest as dangerous chemicals. I understand that many of the OPs that were used in the initial stages were banned in this country due to the severity of their effectiveness.

I wish to ask the Minister three questions. First, may we have an absolute assurance that the men who were in the field using the pesticides will not be bullied, will not suffer a lack of promotion, and will not be denied the right treatment because they have information? They are prepared to come forward with the information but not under the present terms. Secondly, is the Minister aware that treatment, not research, is needed now? Some of the men are extremely ill. How does the wife of Ian Hill, who is 50 and who has been told that he may not see next Christmas, tell their six year-old daughter that her daddy will not see next Christmas'?

Finally, why has Group Captain Coker been transferred? He had the trust of all the men. I pay tribute to him. Bill Coker was respected by every one of the Gulf troops who had been to see him. He tried to help them as much as he possibly could within the constrictions of the Ministry of Defence. Who will replace him?

Earl Howe

My Lords, the noble Countess has been instrumental in prompting my department in many of the areas that we have been discussing. I have in the past expressed by gratitude to her and I do so again because I believe that she has done us all a service.

The report, which is now in the Library, reveals broadly the following about organophosphate insecticides. One organophosphate residual insecticide, a fenitrothion-based product, was in standard service stock at the time. It was taken to the Gulf and used routinely. There is no evidence of the improper use of that product. Two OP insecticide flybaits, azamethiphos-based, were obtained locally in Saudi Arabia and used extensively. Again, there is no evidence that those were used improperly. However, some other residual insecticide was obtained locally, probably on a small scale. It came without English instructions and may have been used improperly as a result.

I did not wish to imply to the noble Countess that the Government were denying that some chemicals had been used improperly. The evidence seems to suggest that some, albeit on a small scale, were not used as they should have been. Most residual insecticide use was carried out by servicemen from the environmental health cadre of the RAMC. They are specialists in collective hygiene matters including pest control. Some pesticides would have been used by regimental hygiene duties-trained servicemen in each unit. The new flybait was issued to individual unit hygiene staff with instructions for use.

Environmental health personnel and regimental hygiene duties-trained staff are trained to use personal protection equipment at all times when using pesticides. The investigation noted the allegation that no personal protective equipment was available, but it noted also that the allegation could not be substantiated. The investigation did not find any contemporary documents which substantiated that particular allegation. If there are documents that do so they may not be contemporary with the events.

The unidentified residual insecticides procured locally do not appear to have had instructions or safety data sheets in English, as I said. That is why it was incorrect either to obtain or to use them. Residual insecticide is not used on people, as I am sure the noble Countess is aware. It is applied to the outside of tents, but the procedures require the tents to be empty while that is being done. Some servicemen have indicated that they were personally sprayed. Veterans may be confusing spraying with a practice known as swing-fogging. Swing-fogging is the use of a fog smoke-containing pesticide to knock down flying insects. It uses pyrethroid-based insecticides which are not OP compounds. They are often used in domestic aerosols.

We have sought the foremost medical and scientific advice in this country in order to study further Gulf War health issues. The advice of the Medical Research Council has been that the most appropriate way to take forward the research is to carry out epidemiological studies. Those will look at a large sample of those deployed to the Gulf and compare them with an equivalent control sample who were not there in order to determine whether there is any pattern of illness among Gulf veterans which is not present in the general military population. So far, as I said, there is no evidence which can tell us whether a problem exists. That is why we are carrying out the studies I have outlined.

We do not dispute that some personnel who have returned from the Gulf subsequently became ill. But we cannot tell, without carrying out research, whether or not most of those cases arose because of service in the Gulf. Clearly, some cases of ill health are Gulf-related; for example, some cases of post traumatic stress disorder. Where those are clear cut and the illness has resulted in a level of disability, that individual is entitled to receive a war pension.

The noble Countess has asked several questions; the second concerned the need for treatment. I could not agree with her more wholeheartedly that those who feel that they are ill as a result of their service should be treated. They should have access to proper medical care and attention. Many of those who have come forward are receiving such care and attention. We should like to hear from anyone else who feels that he may be suffering as a result of his Gulf War service. So far, however, we have heard from a comparatively small number of people but the effort to alert others will continue.

The noble Countess asked me to confirm that the men who come forward to provide information will not suffer bullying or be denied the treatment which is due to them. I give her that categoric assurance. As I said to her yesterday, it is unacceptable for men to be coerced into providing information. The noble Countess alleged yesterday that the investigation team looking into the use of OP pesticides in the Gulf War had behaved improperly. This morning I personally interviewed the head of the team about those matters. As a result I can tell the House that I am entirely satisfied that the team arranged interviews in an appropriate and amicable manner without putting unreasonable demands on those they saw. Some of those interviews were rather long but, as noble Lords will see from the report, there was a great deal of ground to cover.

As regards the team seeking to obtain privileged documents, I am satisfied that they were properly seeking access to relevant material. As the report notes, such documents were not obtained. It might have assisted this investigation if they had been. Subsequent to her supplementary question, the noble Countess spoke to me privately about the case of one individual in particular and I shall write to her concerning that specific situation.

Lord Craig of Radley

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It covers a very serious matter and one which is perhaps too important to become lost in any constitutional niceties about the way that proceedings are carried out in this House. Many noble Lords and I have challenged and questioned the cuts in the defence medical services which have been instigated over the past few years. Do the Government not acknowledge now that without those cuts we should have been in a far better position to help all those veterans who have come forward with illness? We should have been able to deal with their worries in a much more expeditious and satisfactory fashion than has been achieved so far.

Earl Howe

My Lords, I know of the noble and gallant Lord's concern for the defence medical services. I do not believe that the assessment of those coming forward has been impeded by lack of medical personnel. Those who have put forward their names for diagnosis and assessment have been seen with reasonable speed. I do not believe that we should have necessarily drafted in more medical personnel. Had we wished to do so, we could have done so. However, as I understand it, the need was not a pressing one. Doubtless, much can be said about the reductions in the defence medical services which have taken place over recent years but that perhaps is for another day.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, many of us have listened to the noble Earl's very long Statement with a great deal of interest. We note that in connection with his latest replies, he is entirely satisfied about the nature and extent of the activities of the investigation team to which the noble Countess and I referred yesterday. Will he take note that in the light of his reply, we shall reserve our position in the light of correspondence which both the noble Earl and we have seen? We reserve our position to raise that matter again.

In the meantime, I have only one question to ask to which the noble Earl can give a simple answer. Is it true or not that 10,000 medical records have disappeared from the MoD computer? I use the figure of 10,000 loosely because it may be 9,999 or something of that order. But is it true that a substantial number, thought to be 10,000, medical records have disappeared from the MoD computer?

Earl Howe

My Lords, while transferring data at the Defence Analytical Services Agency from an old to a new computer system, it was found that 10,000 or so event records, not medical records, could not be attributed to particular individuals in the way which the new system required. Those records were not wiped off the computer and the data are still held. Very few—we estimate about 250—of the 10,000 events will have referred to veterans of the Gulf War. Therefore, the problem identified by the noble Countess was not quite as presented to your Lordships. Those were statistical records reflecting vaccinations and other such medical events to which service personnel may have been subject. That is a far cry from saying that somebody's entire medical record has been lost. As I understand it, that is not the case.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, the noble Earl is still not able to define the number of those records which are attributable to those who were in the Gulf War. He says that it is about 250. Surely, the computer system should be able to show with precision exactly which personnel were involved in the Gulf War.

Earl Howe

My Lords, as I understand it, those 250 represent about 2 per cent. of the veterans who were in the Gulf War.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, convention requires us to thank the Minister for repeating a Statement. It is very difficult to do that following today's Statement but I shall do so because it is the convention. The Minister suggests that the best scientific advice has been acted upon. I wonder whether we are going through a period of what may be described as scientific conservatism. I remind the Government that we had a period of scientific socialism which may not bear close scrutiny in comparison. The Minister asks us to accept that what the Government are now saying is the full truth and that everything that they know is, indeed, the truth. However, we still have the discrepancy between the description of events by the Minister and that from the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I for one—and I am sure that I speak for a great many in this House—know which of those two Members I would believe.

Noble Lords

Oh dear!

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I have one question for the Minister. On the last occasion when the Government came forward with such problems the only threat was to the liberty of citizens. However, on this occasion, we are talking about the future health and life of our citizens, members of our Armed Forces. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is an independent inquiry into all these matters?

Earl Howe

My Lords, I very much regret that the noble Lord chose to put the matter in that way. I am sure that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will acknowledge that there have been occasions in the past when I have been able to clarify or correct some misunderstanding which she has had. It is not simply a case of the noble Countess being right all the time and of my being wrong. I believe that there is a place for me in the process to find out the truth and to come to your Lordships' House, as I have done today, to clarify matters. Independent scientific advice is the only way forward. We are taking that route. I trust that the House will have confidence in the research programme that we have put in place.