Dear Mr Pritchard,

Request for Information - Case No: 11-06-2009-152350-009

Thank you for your e-mail of 10 June in which you asked:

“Why did the M.O.D reject The Rt Hon Lord Lloyd Inquiry of 2004, which aim was to investigate the circumstances that have led to the ill health, and in some cases death, of over 6,000 British troops following deployment to the first Gulf War ?

And why were NONE of the noble lords recommendations made in his report implemented?”

This has been considered to be a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). MOD did not participate in Lord Lloyd's investigation because we believe it is only through independent scientific and medical research that we are ever likely to establish the causes of ill health in some 1990/1991 Gulf veterans. The Government does not consider that an inquiry (public or unofficial) would contribute to answering the basic question of why some veterans are ill.

MOD's view is that Lord Lloyd's report contains no new substantive or scientific evidence to support its conclusions and recommendations. It also failed to take into account the large amount of either substantive or scientific written material provided by the MOD to Lord Lloyd to help inform his investigation.

You should note that the MOD did not ignore the four recommendations made by Lord Lloyd but looked at them closely on publication. Indeed, on the issue of war pension claim rejections, the Veterans Agency (now the Service Personnel & Veterans Agency (SPVA)) undertook a review of cases. The then Minister for Veterans (Ivor Caplin) announced the review in response to a question from Ben Chapman MP in November 2004. I have reproduced Mr Caplin's answer for ease of reference:

“Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend will be aware of the research programme that is under way, which costs a total of about £8.5 million, on Gulf veterans' illnesses. I make two points about the Lloyd report. First, it is regrettable that Lord Lloyd has not been prepared to divulge details of its funding. The Government have been clear about openness and transparency in relation to Gulf veterans, and I think that Lord Lloyd should have done the same. Secondly, he made one point that I want to address this afternoon, about the 272 rejections of war pension cases. Of those, more than half relate to diagnosed disorders such as traumatic physical injuries, lower back pain or coronary diseases. The rejections will all have been subject to a right of appeal to the independent pensions appeal tribunals, as the conditions are not found to be attributable to service. I can tell the House that I have decided that we should investigate the remaining 100 or so cases that do or may relate to Gulf veterans' illnesses.”

The Veterans Agency investigated the 100 or so cases referred to by Mr Caplin and I can provide you with a copy of the report published on the issue if you would like one. Please send me details of your full postal address and I will send you a copy.

I can assure you that we do recognise the concern among many Gulf veterans that their illnesses arose from service in the Gulf (see Lord Lloyd's recommendation number one).  The scientific evidence, however, does not so far support the view that all these unexplained illnesses can be accounted for in terms of one single disease, commonly known as “Gulf War Syndrome”. We responded to these concerns by proposing in a Pensions Appeal Tribunal (PAT) case that the application of the umbrella term “Gulf War Syndrome” could be used to cover accepted conditions causally linked to the 1990/1991 Gulf conflict. We welcomed the PAT's decision to accept that proposal.  As a result, “Gulf War Syndrome” can be applied to War Pension awards wherever there are disablements arising from service in the Gulf in 1990 and 1991.

We were keen to ensure that the umbrella term was properly and effectively communicated to veterans in the context of PAT decisions. To this end the Veterans Agency wrote to around 1,375 claimants who had a War Pension or Gratuity and had previously sought to have Gulf War Syndrome, Gulf War illness, or a similar claim, recognised for War Pension purposes. The label is therefore applied subject to the wishes of the individual Gulf veteran who has the opportunity to raise any other questions with the Agency.

Lord Lloyd recommended that “ex-gratia” payments should be paid to Gulf veterans. We do not think that such a payment would be justified. Where there is significant disablement due to service, Gulf veterans already receive compensation under the War Pension and Armed Forces occupational schemes. The level of the payments is determined by the assessed level of disablement suffered and this entitlement is unaffected by any debate about how the underlying conditions might be labelled. I am sure you will appreciate that it would be inequitable to give Gulf veterans an additional payment but not others suffering in many cases identical conditions that are similarly due to service.

If you are unhappy with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance.  If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Director of Information Exploitation, 6^th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]).  Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within two calendar months of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end.

If you remain unhappy following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate the case until the internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website: http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

J Plato