HC Deb 06 March 1990 vol 168 cc714-5
4. Mr. Buckley

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual budget of the chemical defence establishment.

Mr. Neubert

Some £20 million.

Mr. Buckley

As the disarmament talks in Geneva are leading to a treaty agreement, what significant plans does the Minister have for phasing down the Porton Down chemical establishment to save expenditure on the defence budget?

Mr. Neubert

I can understand that the hon. Gentleman may not be so well informed as he might be about the subject because he has been put up to ask the question. Perhaps I should first tell him that we are talking about the chemical defence establishment, the need for which is not removed by the developments in arms control negotiations which we fully support and in which we play a major part. The purpose of the establishment is to devise means of protecting our armed forces against chemical weapons. The recent use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq conflict in the Gulf demonstrates that that is not academic.

Mr. Key

Does my hon. Friend agree that the work of my constituents in the chemical defence establishment is of the highest importance, and that its development of the technology for detection of chemical warfare agents and its role in verification make the work of the establishment more important, not less?

Mr. Neubert

My hon. Friend keeps in close contact with Porton Down and is well placed to know the value and excellence of the work done there. He is right to say that any agreement on chemical weapons convention would entail a great need for verification techniques. A great deal of important work is being done by the CDE on those techniques.

Mr. Boyes

In view of the encouraging progress on chemical weapons disarmament at Geneva, the fact that the United States accepts that the strength of the Soviet chemical stocks is down to about 75,000 tonnes, and the likelihood of a war in Europe in which chemical weapons were used being nil, are not there much better ways of spending £20 million than on obscene, unacceptable weapons which the British public do not want?

Mr. Neubert

I am sorry that the ignorance is spreading to the Opposition Front Bench from the Back Benches. It was quite clear from my earlier answer that not only did the establishment have a modest budget, but its purpose was not in any way aggressive or hostile. The establishment is simply to protect our armed service men from attack against chemical weapons. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, there is a recent example of chemical weapons being used in the Gulf. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not intend that in any future conflict our service men should go into combat unprotected against such weapons.

Mr. Viggers

Is not it a fact that the Warsaw pact not only has chemical weapons but regularly practises their use? Should not we, therefore, all be urging Warsaw pact forces to reduce weapon stocks and allow inspection? It would then be possible for us to take steps to assist in those measures.

Mr. Neubert

My hon. Friend draws attention to the great stocks of chemical weapons still held by the Soviet Union. We can only welcome the recent developments between the Americans, in the persons of Mr. Baker and Mr. Bush, and the Russians, in the person of Mr. Shevardnadze, towards reducing those weapon stocks. Britain set the example about 30 years ago by renouncing chemical weapons. We have no stocks of such weapons, nor any plans to produce any.