§ 2.52 p.m.
§ Lord Morris of ManchesterMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest, not a financial one, as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, following the Church of England's decision to discharge the Rev David Peachell, a Gulf War veteran, on grounds of "Gulf War illness" and the release without question of his Army pension in consequence of that decision, what consideration they will be giving to the implications for other ex-servicemen and women.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)My Lords, it would be inappropriate to disclose details of particular cases, including the Reverend Peachell's, without permission of those concerned. With great respect, a decision of the Church of England cannot be a matter for the Ministry of Defence, nor would an Army pension, in these circumstances, be paid without question. The MoD shares the consensus of international scientific and medical opinion, which is that a unique medical 223 condition associated with the 1990–91 Gulf conflict has not been identified. Reverend Peachell's case has no implications for others.
§ Lord Morris of ManchesterMy Lords, why is it that, when highly reputable doctors—in this case, the Church of England's—readily use terms like "Gulf War illness" in diagnosing ill health among Gulf veterans, the MoD goes from pension tribunal defeat to defeat in contesting their use? Why are some illnesses treated as Gulf War-related in the United States but not here? Again, why, over 12 years on, when we could soon be involved in a second Gulf War, are we still unable to apply, since, without the Porton Down report, we shall not even have learned, all the lessons of the first? And is it not doubly distressing for Gulf veterans—more especially those who are terminally ill—to be made to seem impatient in asking for Porton Down to report before the end of next year?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, the fact is that, at present, there is no proper basis for recognising Gulf War syndrome as an appropriate diagnostic label. That does not prevent—I repeat, it does not prevent—a Gulf veteran getting a pension. A war pension can be paid for any disablement provided that a causal link to service is accepted. In terms of impact on moneys paid, war pension awards are for service-related disablement, not a list of specific diagnoses. To date, more than 4,800 Gulf veterans have received awards, around one-quarter of which are for disablement accepted as related to their service in the Gulf. Pieces of research must be published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature before they can be accepted. That is a generally true comment about medical research anyway.
§ The Lord Bishop of GuildfordMy Lords, is the Minister aware that, far from being discharged, Mr Peachell requested early retirement on grounds of ill health and that was fully accepted by the Church of England on the stated grounds of Gulf War illness? Given the measured and careful way in which the Church of England Pensions Board and its medical advisers approach these questions, what steps are the Government taking to ensure similar protection to other members of the military?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I am grateful for that comment. The fact remains that the Army pension payment to the Reverend Peachell was made on the basis that, unfortunately, he had many illnesses over a period. That is why he was discharged. The Church of England doctors called it "Gulf War illness". We do not believe that such a syndrome exists; we accept of course that over the years the Reverend Peachell has suffered a variety of illnesses. We will be as 224 sympathetic to others as we believe we have been to him. We have enhanced his Army pension so that it will be paid immediately.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords—
§ Lord RedesdaleMy Lords—
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, I am standing my ground.
§ Lord Williams of MostynMy Lords, I dare not, I dare not.
§ Baroness TrumpingtonMy Lords, am I right in thinking that Porton Down was selected to look into this matter because it has the greatest expertise in that field? Why should it have taken 12 years? If it goes on any longer, will not those examining the matter be dead themselves?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, it has not gone on for 12 years. On 11th May, 1997, we announced that the interactions work—that being done at Porton Down—would be carried out. In September 1998, work on guinea-pig studies began. In December 1999, other work began. By August next year, the last group of marmosets to be vaccinated will complete their 18-month monitoring period. The study will be completed in December 2003. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is frustrating that it has taken so long. But there has been no 12-year delay. It is important that we get this right.
§ Lord RedesdaleMy Lords, I am tempted to follow the comments about marmosets. If the Minister is dismissing the Church of England's pensions appeal, will he comment on the fact that a Mr Rusling, at a pensions appeal tribunal in Leeds, was given a decision in his favour? The tribunal found that the injury, wound or disease on which the claim was based, namely Gulf War syndrome—that is published in the court papers—was attributable to the service. Does that ruling not have an effect on outstanding cases? How many outstanding cases remain?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord the number of outstanding cases. However, the Ministry of Defence considers that the appeal tribunal's decision in the particular case to which he referred was erroneous in law. That is why we are appealing against it.
§ Lord Astor of HeverMy Lords, is the same combination of vaccines and NAPS tablets used in the Gulf War being used on present day servicemen and servicewomen?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, we now ensure that all troops are immunised routinely with the standard service immunisations. One improvement since the time of the Gulf War—and there are a number in this field—is that, since 1991, much more information has been 225 provided with anthrax immunisation to enable an informed decision on whether to have the immunisation. There have been improvements, and we have learned a lot of lessons since then.