| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. David Clark (South Shields): I thank the Minister for coming to the House today to make this important, long and complicated statement, which represents a victory for those of us who have been campaigning for more openness and urgency in the Government's response to illnesses suffered by people who served in the Gulf war.
Does the Minister understand the frustration and the anger felt by Gulf war veterans and by hon. Members on Opposition Benches that the Government have taken more than three years to arrive at this point? The statement today reveals a shift in the Government's approach, but why, oh why, have they taken so long to reach this position? Why has it taken three years for the Government to admit its central line of defence:
Why have the Government changed their mind about the other crucial question of conducting an epidemiological study of the problem, which I urged upon the Minister in the House more than three years ago? Does he recall writing to me about that subject in February 1995? He said:
The Secretary of State has spent much time trying to respond to questions about the organophosphates incident, but the questions remain. We understand that there will be two investigations, but I am concerned that neither will do anything to improve the health of those soldiers who may have been affected by organophosphates.
Will there be an inquiry into that aspect of the problem? Will that inquiry establish precisely why a post-operational Army report, dated March 1991, detailing inadequate protection for our troops from chemicals, was not acted upon? Why did it take four years for the Ministry of Defence to learn of that report?
10 Dec 1996 : Column 124
How does that report square with the Minister's comment today that there is no evidence that organophosphates were used improperly? The 1991 report gives repeated examples of inadequate equipment, no equipment and no protection for the troops. Will the Minister also confirm that, last week in the other place, it was alleged that the medical records of more than 10,000 veterans have been wiped from the computer? Is that correct? The question was not answered when it was raised in the other place.
We are pleased that the Government appear to have moved some way forward today, but we are rather tired of finding that the fine words being used by the Minister--quite rightly praising the excellence of our troops--are not matched by actions.
I hope that the Minister's statement is a statement that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that our veterans will have their true concerns addressed properly.
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured tenor of his response. I do indeed understand the frustration of those who feel that they are ill as a result of their Gulf service. We would be delighted to be able to magic an answer tomorrow morning to set their minds at rest, but that is simply not possible. The United States has spent millions of pounds on research programmes already, and so far it has made little progress, which is why it is matching our epidemiological programme, with Dr. Wessely in London.
The hon. Gentleman asked me how it had taken so long to reach this position. Again, that is an entirely legitimate question. We have throughout always been guided by the proper and best medical advice available. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), set up the medical assessment programme as soon as the first complaints about illness from the Gulf came through, in 1993. By the end of 1993, only three people had been through the medical assessment programme.
I referred that work to the Royal College of Physicians, in 1995, which, after reviewing it and endorsing it, suggested that I refer certain matters to the Medical Research Council, which I did in May of this year. In October, the MRC came forward with its proposals, and I am now in a position to announce the results today.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have never ignored any warnings about veterans' health. We are indeed wholly aware of the needs and requirements of some of those people who are clearly sick. Some of them, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already received appropriate treatment for clearly defined illnesses, but there are others for whom we do not yet have an answer as to why they are ill. The study was not appropriate earlier because the numbers in the medical assessment programme were simply not big enough to provide a reference point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned February 1995, when he discussed the matter with me. By then, only 301 people had been through the medical assessment programme. Today, more than 900 have been through as a result of further urging and publicity.
On the question of organophosphates, those who gave any evidence of OP-type symptoms when being assessed at the medical assessment programme have indeed been
10 Dec 1996 : Column 125
I know that the hon. Gentleman will read carefully the report of the organophosphate investigation team. He will read, in detail, about how OPs were used entirely properly, with the possibility of one small exception. I have every confidence that, given the circumstances, everything was done that could have been done to protect our troops.
I know nothing of the medical records of 10,000 personnel being wiped from a computer. Medical record keeping in the Gulf was not satisfactory. It was not good enough on behalf of our own troops. Nor was it good enough on behalf of the American troops. I asked the American Surgeon-General what he would do, most importantly, if America had to go to war again, and he said, "I would make absolutely sure that we had a far better system for keeping medical records." The same would apply to us.
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater):
I commend my hon. Friend on his statement today. I thank him also for the recognition that he showed in his statement of the responsibility that I and my colleagues took to try to ensure that our troops who went to the Gulf were as well protected as they could be, including vaccination, from the fearsome weaponry that we knew that Saddam Hussein had, and which subsequent investigation by the United Nations commission revealed that he did indeed have.
There is no question but that we had to face quite unprecedented problems in trying to protect the health of our troops in the unexpected and suddenly occurring event that was the Gulf war. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's actions throughout the difficult period of trying to assess the unexpected problems that have occurred since the end of the Gulf war have been guided at all times by the best medical advice? The reality is that the medical assessment programme has proved not to be the conclusive answer that many had hoped it would be.
I commend the Minister for his courage in coming forward and recognising the need for a change of approach, and for his determination to fulfil his final pledge--on which he carries the whole House with him--that we owe a duty of care to all our service men, ex-service men and veterans, not just at the time of conflict and when they are needed in times of war, but after the war is completed if they need our help and attention.
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I warmly endorse and applaud the bold and entirely necessary decisions that he and the chiefs had to take at that time to ensure that, in unfamiliar territory, a long way away and against the potential of the most grotesque weapons that exist, our troops were as well protected as they possibly could be against horrific potential hazards. I am grateful to him for his recognition that we have at all times been guided by the best possible medical advice. Indeed, it would be ridiculous for Ministers to do anything other than accept the medical advice, and we have accepted it to the letter--whenever it has been offered to us, we have taken it.
I am also extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who was a former Secretary of State for Defence, for confirming that the Government, the chiefs and all those
10 Dec 1996 : Column 126
Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East):
I accept without reservation the Minister's good faith on this matter. Will he confirm that the information that he has given today was available in his Department not later than 19 July in a memorandum entitled "Briefing Note for Researchers--No. 3", which contains a summary saying that
"It is now clear that the medical assessment programme alone cannot answer these questions"?
That was clear to us more than three years ago. Why did the Government ignore the warnings about veterans' health for so long? Does the Minister realise that the Government's failure to act has caused three years of unnecessary suffering and concern among our veterans?
"there were a number of reasons on both medical and statistical grounds, why such a study"--
an epidemiological study--
"was not appropriate".
Today he has finally accepted our argument that an epidemiological study is the way forward. What has changed his mind? If an epidemiological study was not appropriate in February 1995, why is it crucial now? I put it to the Minister that his statement today raises more questions than it answers.
"a wide range of organophosphate compounds were extensively used by British personnel during Operation GRANBY"?
Why was that information not provided to the House before it rose for the summer recess?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |