§ Mr. HoyleTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the recommendations in the report of the external audit of the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme have been implemented. [106501]
§ Mr. SpellarThe Ministry of Defence response to the recommendations in the report of the audit of the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP) has now been completed. A very small number of issues remain outstanding but the response explains why this is so and what action is being taken.
532WThe staff of the GVMAP have welcomed this opportunity to review their working practices and take action where necessary. The implementation of the audit recommendations will provide an improved service for Gulf veterans.
I am placing a copy of the response to the audit report in the Library of the House and it is also being published on the Ministry of Defence Gulf Veterans' Illnesses website.
§ Mrs. GilroyTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the implementation of the immunisation programme against biological warfare agents for United Kingdom forces during the Gulf conflict 1990–91. [106493]
§ Mr. SpellarThe Government's "New Beginning" policy statement set out the way forward for addressing the health concerns of Gulf veterans and included a commitment to establish a Fact Finding Team to look into the implementation of the anti-biological warfare immunisation programme during the Gulf conflict. Their work has now been completed and I am today publishing a paper entitled "Implementation of the immunisation programme against biological warfare agents for UK forces during the Gulf conflict 1990–91". Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.
The publication of this paper reaffirms the Government's commitment to ensuring that Gulf veterans should have access to whatever information the Ministry of Defence possesses which might be relevant to their illnesses.
The deficiencies in the implementation of the 1990–91 anti-biological warfare immunisation programme have been, and continue to be, addressed in improvements to our current arrangements. When we again deployed to the Gulf in 1998 our immunisation programme was unclassified, all troops were fully briefed using standard material, the nature of the threat and the vaccine were described in detail and all records were updated, showing that the lessons of 1990–91 have been learned.
The report found that the voluntary nature of the immunisation programme operated as intended in the majority of units and locations. It confirms that no unusual or previously undisclosed immunisations were given during the Gulf conflict and also explains the codewords which were sometimes used for the vaccines.
Uptake of the anti-biological warfare immunisations in the early stages of the programme was high. Over 75 per cent. of all personnel deployed to the Gulf region are likely to have had anthrax and pertussis immunisations, and in many units this approached 100 per cent. Uptake of the second anthrax and pertussis immunisations and the first plague was less and varied between and within formations. Uptake of the third anthrax and the second plague immunisation was rare.
§ Mr. John SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the suggested exposure of United Kingdom troops to chemical warfare agents in A1 Jubayl on 19 January 1991. [106495]
§ Mr. SpellarThe 1997 "A New Beginning" policy statement set out a number of commitments to help address the health concerns of Gulf Veterans. One of these commitments was to review specific incidents of 533W suggested biological or chemical warfare exposures. As part of this commitment I am today publishing a paper entitled "A Review of the Suggested Exposure of UK Forces to Chemical Warfare Agents in A1 Jubayl on 19 January 1991". A copy will be placed in the Library.
As a result of our review of the available information we assess that UK troops were not subject to attack or exposed to chemical warfare agents at A1 Jubayl on 19 January 1991. Although it is not possible to give a single comprehensive explanation for all the events that took place on the morning of 19 January we conclude from the available information that the indications of the presence of Chemical Warfare agents were false alarms.
§ Mr. John SmithTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relationship between organophosphate pesticides and the illnesses suffered by some veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict following recent reports from the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and the Institute of Occupational Medicine. [106496]
§ Mr. SpellarThe COT report, published in November, concluded that neuropsychological abnormalities can occur as a long term complication following acute organophosphate (OP) poisoning, particularly if the poisoning is severe. Persistent peripheral neuropathy (disorders of the peripheral nerves) may occur, but not generally at a level which would give rise to symptoms. The body of evidence gives little support to the hypothesis that low-level exposure to OPs can cause chronic disease of the nervous system. However, the report notes that there remains a question over whether a small proportion of subjects may be at increased risk of clinically significant disease following low level exposure and recommends further research in this area.
The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) report on the relationship between OP sheep dips and illness in exposed sheep farmers and dippers found the critical exposure factor to be contact with concentrate dip: much higher rates of symptoms, predominantly of a sensory nature, were reported among those who had been principal concentrate handlers. There is a very limited evidence that long term low-level exposure to organophosphates leads to long term neurotoxic effects.
The conclusions from these reports are in line with the findings of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council's (DSAC) Working Party report, the publication of which I announced on 20 October 1999 and which reviewed existing literature on the long term neurotoxicity of anticholinesterases. It concluded that high doses of organophosphates may have long term effects on the peripheral nervous system, but that there is limited evidence about long term toxic effects following low doses.
During the Gulf conflict very few UK service personnel would have handled concentrated OPs. Those that did would have been Environmental Health Officers or technicians, or individual regimental hygiene duties personnel who were appropriately trained in procedures and the use of equipment. There was no evidence of acute organophosphate poisoning or of subsequent unusual ill health arising in this small group.
534WNeither the IOM nor the COT report provides evidence which would cause us to reassess our view of the possible role of OPs in relation to Gulf Veterans' illnesses. The case for ill-health effects resulting from long term low level exposure to OPs remains unproven and there is currently no reason to believe that Gulf veterans who might have been in casual contact with dilute pesticide (e.g. from the treatment of tents and equipment) or with the malathion dust used to de-louse Iraqi prisoners of war, are at increased risk of long term ill-health.
Although it remains the case that there is limited evidence of a link between low level exposure to OPs and adverse health effects, MOD will continue to monitor the debate about the safety of OPs. We will continue to review scientific evidence in the light of potential exposures which may have occurred in the Gulf and follow future research, including that recommended by the COT report, very closely.