Gulf War Illness Research Unit: Study (Hansard, 28 January 1999)

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)
My Lords, we welcome the results from the King's Gulf War Illness Research unit study. It was the first large-scale study on this subject carried out in this country, and these results, therefore, represent an important milestone in our understanding of UK Gulf veterans' illnesses. Among other actions, the MoD is asking the Medical Research Council for its advice on our future strategy in the light of the two papers' findings.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that the Medical Research Council stated some three years ago, I believe, that there was no need for causal research, and the fact that Professor Wessely, at the press conference at which he launched his paper, said that there was an urgent need for causal research, will the Minister ensure that the Medical Research Council understands that? Can he also do something about the atmosphere of denial which pervades the Ministry of Defence and the medical assessment programme (MAP) and possibly put it out to a totally independent group of physicians and consultants who understand what these men are suffering from and will provide both treatment and diagnosis?

§ Lord Gilbert
My Lords, I am sure that the Medical Research Council needs no instruction from me. It will, of course, have read the reports of the two studies in the Lancet. As far as concerns the Ministry of Defence, we totally accept that as a result of the conclusions of the studies, we need to do a lot more work. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who may not have seen the recent articles in the Lancet, I shall read very briefly one of the interpretations: Although results from complex modelling procedures need to be interpreted with caution, our findings do not support a unique Gulf War Syndrome. The mechanisms behind increased self-reporting of symptoms need further investigation". As far as the MAP is concerned, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the waiting list for that programme, which was around 450 in the spring of 1997, is now down to 40.

§ Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, having mentioned the further research to be carried out, can the Minister say whether independent scientists and doctors (in whom there is more confidence because of that independence), will be asked to undertake such research? That has consistently caused concern. Will the Ministry of Defence consider that?

§ Lord Gilbert
My Lords, I think that perhaps the noble Lord is not fully informed in these matters. The Ministry of Defence is already funding five studies outside the MoD; namely, at Manchester University, Professor Cherry's study into epidemiological matters; a study by Dr. Doyle at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; a study by Drs. Sharief and Rose at King's College Medical School into neuromuscular matters. We are also funding a literature review at the University of Wales by 1134 Professor Lewis and there is work being done at Potion Down. I really do not believe that the Ministry of Defence can be accused of not consulting the most eminent people in these matters.

§ The Countess of Mar
My Lords, the Minister quoted from Professor Wessely's results. However, he did not say that Professor Wessely found that Gulf veterans were between two and three times more likely to be suffering from illness than veterans of Bosnia or Northern Ireland. He also stated that there was a possible connection between the administration of nerve agent pretreatment tablets and the anthrax vaccine. I have always maintained that there is no such thing as "Gulf War syndrome"; but there are Gulf War illnesses because of the variations in the mens' illnesses. That is precisely why we need causal research. If we do not know what is happening, we will not find the answers.

§ Lord Gilbert
My Lords, I would not disagree with a word that the noble Countess has said. I shall refer to the actual words in the author's interpretation of the other Lancet articles, and I shall abbreviate so as not to impose on your Lordships' time: associations of ill health with adverse effects and exposures were found in all cohorts, however, they may not be unique and causally implicated in Gulf-War-related illness".

§ Lord Burnham
My Lords, when the research is undertaken, will it include an examination of the geographical location of the people suffering from these illnesses? It looks strongly as if a very high proportion come from the north-east of the country.

§ Lord Gilbert
My Lords, we have been looking more at the geographical distribution of people in the Gulf rather than where they come from in this country. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's suggestion. I have no idea whether it has any medical validity, but I shall put it to our people.

The Earl of Effingham
My Lords, Professor Wessely's report certainly confirmed the view of the Royal British Legion that those who were deployed in the Gulf are more unwell than their colleagues who were not so deployed. Is it not a fact that 400 people have died since the Gulf War, and that one has already committed suicide? Can the Minister give us his view as to what happened at a recent inquiry into the verdict regarding a craftsman, John Callaghan, who committed suicide? At that inquiry there was a representative from the Ministry of Defence who actually did not answer the questions posed. Can the noble Lord say why an open verdict was given and why the evidence of that witness was not reviewed?

§ Lord Gilbert
My Lords, it is not in my hands to say why a particular verdict is given in any court proceedings in this country. I imagine that the noble Earl is referring to remarks made by Colonel Bosanquet, who was not then a representative of the Ministry of Defence; he was giving his own personal views.