---

Gulf War Illnesses

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on bringing this debate forward, and recognise the considerable campaign that he has carried out over many years. Since 1997, when I think he asked his first parliamentary Question on this matter in another place, he has been consistent in his endeavours to obtain justice for those who suffer from Gulf War illness. The US report, which was published last November, concluded that Gulf War illness is a serious condition. It affects one-quarter of US veterans who served in the 1990-91 war. That is a very high proportion. It is described as a, "““complex of multiple concurrent symptoms [that] typically includes persistent memory and concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain, gastrointestinal problems and other chronic abnormalities not explained by well-established diagnoses””." It also says that no effective treatments have been identified for Gulf War illness, and studies indicate that few veterans have recovered over time. It is an extremely serious condition that all these servicemen have suffered from over the years. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has pointed out, the US report is not simply a one-off report by one scientist, but a combination of conclusions from extensive research carried out by many people, both in this country and the United States. I hope that its conclusions put an end to the suggestion that Gulf War illness is nothing more than a psychiatric condition. At one time, during discussions about Gulf War syndrome, one particular medical professional voiced the opinion that 90 per cent of those who said that they were suffering from it were malingerers. This report has finally and conclusively put an end to that. I share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, over the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on 9 December, when he said: "““There is no justification for treating Gulf veterans differently from others from other operations who have the same conditions””.—[Official Report, 9/12/08; col. 258.]" I have considered that as a serious question. Many veterans have been injured and suffered illness and the consequences of being involved in military operations. Why should the Gulf War veterans be singled out for ex gratia payments or something above the war pensions or lump-sum payments that are customarily awarded? There are a number of important distinctions. First, as has been said, this is a unique condition that has arisen from this conflict. Secondly, it is a condition that does not come from any enemy action. The US report now shows conclusively that it is derived from treatments and applications that were imposed on our soldiers in the course of their service. The PB tablets, which were anti-nerve gas agents, were given to them because there was a risk of injury in chemical warfare. The organophosphates were employed to fumigate the tents to prevent illnesses derived from pests. That is rather different from the kind of illnesses and injuries that soldiers might expect in conflict with the other side. The Government have failed to recognise this as something for which special treatment should be given. It reminds me that the same approach is used in relation to those servicemen who were exposed to nuclear testing in Australia in the 1950s. I know that a case is going on at the present time and that I should not say too much about it, but it was interesting to see the Government’s response to the bringing of those proceedings. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "““The UK government recognises the vital contribution service personnel played in the UK's nuclear tests during the 1950s and understands its obligation to veterans. When compensation claims are received they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry of Defence has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid””." That is the attitude of the Ministry of Defence towards servicemen who were injured in the 1950s and have suffered ever since as a result of being exposed to radiation. When Gulf War syndrome was put forward as a basis for compensation, the Government again said, ““Well, you can’t prove it. We need causation to be established before we are prepared to pay anything other than the ordinary war pensions or lump-sum payments””. If these conclusions are accepted, it gives rise to the possibility of the resurrection of those actions which were stayed in 2003. The Government have sought in the case of the atomic tests to say that the actions are out of time and cannot be brought now, but it is possible that those limitations can under the Limitation Act be overcome by the provision of new scientific evidence. The Government should be aware that if they are not generous in their approach and do not accept the conclusions that the report puts forward, they may face the kind of claims that are being made by those who are claiming for exposure to radiation through atomic tests. My noble friend Lord Tyler asked Her Majesty's Government in November what their reaction was to the report. The answer given by the Minister was that it was being carefully assessed. She noted that the US Department of Veterans Affairs had sent the report to the Institute of Medicine for review and said that she would await the outcome of that process before making any comments on it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has said, peer review is quite inappropriate to a report of this kind. It is comprehensive. It has brought in all the experts in this field, and their wisdom has been fully investigated and used for the purposes of coming to its conclusions. So what are we waiting for? What can the Institute of Medicine in the United States add to all the expertise that has already been brought forward? I urge the Minister today to accept the conclusions, to accept that the causes found in the report are established and to accept that special circumstances take the case of the Gulf War veterans outside the normal—and, in those circumstances, to bring forward proposals for properly compensating by way of ex gratia payments, or whatever, as the inquiry from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, suggested in 2004, those who have had a sense of grievance over the past 18 years, ensuring that they can feel that their problems have been properly addressed and that they have received that which they are due.