§ 1 pm
§ Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East)I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Michael Paynter and his experiences as a volunteer national service man at the former chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in the 1950s, which he believes, have resulted in permanent ill health. Having pursued the matter in some detail on his behalf for nearly two years, I am now convinced of the credibility of my constituent's claims, upon which I have drawn some serious conclusions that 1 wish to share with the House.
On 11 November 1994, Mr. Paynter came to see me at my surgery to seek advice on how he should pursue justice in response to the outcome of his experiences 40 years ago. In May 1954 and again in March 1955, Mr. Paynter—as a conscripted national service man in the RAF—volunteered to be the subject of research into the common cold at Porton Down. On both occasions, he stresses, that involved going into a gas chamber without any special protective clothing apart from a gas mask.
Mr. Paynter further stresses that, had he known that he was to be the subject of studies into anything else—and certainly studies into what I have been informed was the supposed real subject of the experiments—he would not have volunteered. Only research into the common cold was mentioned and, as a naive 18-year-old, he had no reason to question or disbelieve that. It was, after all, a welcome break during his two years as a conscripted national service man, and it also provided him and nine other volunteers with extra pocket money.
The fact is that Mr. Paynter has not enjoyed his previously robust good health ever since. Within six months of his second visit to Porton Down, he developed two skin infections that lasted for two and a half years. One was psoriasis that covered most of his body, while the other was running eczema. The latter infection hospitalised him for 10 weeks and did not clear up for 10 months. In 1956, he started to suffer severe migraines, for which he still receives medical care. He developed some small growths on his body that have never been diagnosed. In 1959, a twisted spinal column developed, causing permanent and severe restrictions on his neck movements, as well as other problems for which he has found no effective treatment.
In other words, since his experiences at Porton Down, Mr. Paynter's quality of life has been devastated—"Altogether, a life of hell," as he described it to me. All Mr. Paynter's claims are supported fully by his GP, Dr. Nandra. Indeed, it was his GP's unsuccessful attempt to obtain medical records of his time at Porton Down that caused Mr. Paynter to speculate that Porton Down could have been responsible for his bad health. The ITV "Network First" programme on 11 October 1994, which detailed similar cases to his, prompted him to seek my advice and help.
I referred my constituent's case to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—the then Secretary of State for Defence—and I received a reply from the then chief executive of the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down, Dr. Graham Pearson. That confirmed that Mr. Paynter attended the CBDE as a volunteer on two occasions—3 to 7 May 1954 and 28 March to 1 April 1955.
786 I was told that, on the first occasion, Mr. Paynter took part in treadmill testing to assess the physiological load induced by wearing individual protective equipment. On the second occasion, Mr. Paynter again took part in treadmill testing, and trials involving sensitivity to rubber mixes. On both occasions, I was told, there were no grounds for believing that those experiments would result in any harm or long-term health effects for Mr. Paynter.
All that was news to my constituent, who assures me that at no time did he undertake treadmill tests. He also points out that there was no follow-up whatever from Porton Down to discover whether there had been any effect on his health following his visit. In his letter to me, Dr. Pearson said rather pointedly that any volunteer who believes that his health has suffered as a result of participating in studies at Porton Down may apply for compensation or the award of a war pension.
That statement, in the light of what we know now, implies an acceptance of guilt on the part of the authorities at Porton Down. Moreover, Dr. Pearson pointed out that the medical records of such service volunteers are provided on request to their GPs, as is information from Porton Down on the studies in which they participated. That statement flies in the face of the experience of Mr. Paynter's GP, who has to this day been unable to obtain any record at all of any experiment carried out on Mr. Paynter at Porton Down.
I pursued those matters with Dr. Pearson and, in response, I received a reply from Mr. John Chisholm, the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which now includes CBDE Porton Down as one of its divisions. In that letter, Mr. Chisholm re-emphasised that the past 40 years had shown no evidence of any harmful effect on the health of volunteers participating in studies at Porton Down. Moreover, the long-term purpose of those studies had been explained to the volunteers. Neither of those statements is true in Mr. Paynter's case.
Mr. Chisholm's letter confirmed that my constituent had taken part in a study to assess the effect on performance and personnel of wearing clothing designed to protect against chemical and biological agents, and to assess human sensitivity to rubber mixes used in making protective equipment. On neither occasion was Mr. Paynter exposed to biological or chemical warfare agents. Moreover, Mr. Chisholm pointed out that research into the common cold had never been undertaken at Porton Down.
Only when I pursued matters further with Mr. Chisholm did he reveal that my constituent had, in addition, participated in a study to investigate the effect of substances found in London smog. That involved exposure through a mask in a chamber for between 10 and 60 minutes, on one or two occasions, to an artificial fog containing sulphuric acid mist and various aldehydes produced by diesel engines. Those are the suspected toxic constituents of London smog—either alone or mixed with magnesium oxide or ammonia—and the experiment aimed to neutralise the irritant effects of the smog.
It is clear to me and to my constituent Mr. Paynter that that subsequent piece of information comes much closer to his recollection of his experience at Porton Down and the cause of his subsequent and permanent ill health. He recalls that the chamber remained completely clear throughout and that no visible smog appeared. As he rightly points out, if that was research into the effects of 787 London smog, why was he required to wear a gas mask? Needless to say, Mr. Paynter was appalled to learn for the first time that he was apparently the victim of research into London smog, and had been "duped"—his term—into volunteering for tests involving potentially dangerous gases.
If the experiments to which my constituent was exposed were related to London smog and were not defence related, why were they being undertaken at the defence establishment? If they were not defence related and were otherwise more innocently in the public interest, why were the participants not informed that antidotes to smog were being researched? Why were the participants required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911, binding them to confidentiality on every visit to Porton Down?
I sought answers from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to those questions together with related others in my letter of 31 July. I had originally sought to table the questions for written answer, but was told by the Table Office that that was prevented by the 30-year rule. I wanted my right hon. Friend's confirmation that research into London smog was undertaken at Porton Down, and on whether it involved volunteer national service men in the 1950s, if so, whether they were informed of that and whether such research was defence related. I wanted to know whether his Department had monitored the subsequent health of those national service men and how many applications for a war pension or compensation had been made by them. I wanted to know what legislation prevents them and their legal advisers from pursuing action and claims against his Department and why. And I wanted to learn more about the Nuremberg code and how it applied to the use of service men at Porton Down.
Unfortunately, the reply that I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that those matters are the responsibility of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and that its chief executive had been asked to reply to me directly. That reply from my right hon. Friend was dated 7 August, and until yesterday I had not received any such reply from the chief executive. Then, lo and behold, I received this reply from the Under-Secretary of State, Earl Howe. I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State why it has taken my successful application for this Adjournment debate to obtain a ministerial reply, which I was not originally going to receive.
I have not read my noble Friend's reply. Instead, I look forward to some clear answers to my questions from my hon. Friend the Minister of State today. In particular, I seek his response to my clear conclusion, in the light of my constituent's experiences at Porton Down, that national service men such as him were encouraged to be used as guinea pigs for research into the effects of certain gases, that, as my constituent adamantly maintains, they were told and accepted that it was research into the common cold, that that was never the case and that records were designed to show that it was research into the effects of London smog, but that the research in which they voluntarily and innocently participated was much more lethal and dangerous than that. It was indeed defence related, which necessitated and justified the application of the Official Secrets Act. In effect, it was exposure to G-agents—nerve gas known as sarin and mustard gas. 788 As a consequence, those people's lives have been irrevocably impaired because their health defences have been damaged and destroyed. That is a grave national scandal.
All that duplicity is enough evidence to enable me to put it to my hon. Friend that it is incumbent on the Government to establish an independent inquiry into the use and clear abuse at Porton Down of young conscripts such as my constituent. Should such an inquiry support my conclusions, it must be right to come forward with compensation that fairly, justly and adequately reflects the abuse of volunteers who were unwittingly poisoned in the pursuit of studies related to chemical and biological warfare, which are vital to the defence of the realm. I understand that the American service men used in identical tests at Edgewood have been awarded such compensation.
If the Government do not establish such an investigation willingly, they will have to respond grudgingly to a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which others are now appealing. That is not the right approach of a Conservative Government.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames)I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for this opportunity to discuss the important case of his constituent Mr. Michael Paynter, who attended as a volunteer at the chemical and biological defence research centre at Porton Down in the mid-1950s. I congratulate him on the robust presentation of his constituent's case.
Before I deal with the specific and detailed concerns that my hon. Friend raised—if there are any that I omit, we shall follow them up by letter immediately—I shall take a moment to explain the purpose of the Porton Down volunteer programme in which Mr. Paynter participated.
The role of the chemical and biological defence centre, which is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, is to carry out research to provide the United Kingdom's armed forces with safe and effective protection against the real threat posed by chemical and biological weapons. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about that from his experience.
A vital part of that work involves the use of human volunteers to evaluate the military implications of the protective measures developed through the research. That has its roots in the work carried out during the first world war at the Porton site, in which soldiers acted as observers during trials to follow the release of clouds of poison gas such as chlorine. To date, around 20,000 service personnel have contributed—through their participation in the programme—to providing the UK armed forces with some of the most effective protection in the world.
Volunteers for those studies are drawn chiefly from the three armed services. It is they, of course, who will ultimately benefit from the products of the research carried out at Porton Down. Volunteers are recruited through notices posted widely in the armed forces and apply to attend through their local military chain of command. When volunteers arrive at Porton Down, they are medically examined to confirm their fitness. The exact nature of the studies in which they will take part is explained to them. Only after they have formally 789 consented to take part in a study by signing a consent form can the study begin. Once the studies are completed, a further medical examination is conducted prior to the volunteer's return to his unit.
I can assure the House that the use of human subjects at Porton Down is carefully controlled. All work requiring the involvement of volunteers is carried out according to a detailed written experimental protocol prepared by the scientists who wish to carry out the work in consultation with medical and military staff at Porton Down. The protocol is considered by an internal review committee to ensure that the use of human subjects is essential, that it is statistically sound and that it will provide valuable information that cannot be obtained by any other experimental methods. It also has to demonstrate that the proposed work complies with all the ethical guidelines for the conduct of work involving human subjects.
Once agreed, the protocol is referred to an independent ethics committee. That committee is made up of members of the medical and legal professions and lay members of the public and it includes experts in psychology and toxicology. Among other things, it considers whether the proposed work will present a hazard to the health of the volunteer and will not permit the work to commence if it does.
The members of that committee are not employees of the Ministry of Defence, although they provide reports on their deliberations to my Department's chief scientific adviser. In the past 80 years, the nature of the tests and the ways in which they are conducted have developed in response to changing principles and practices, as my hon. Friend will well understand. There has also been a considerable advance in the understanding of the hazards to health of many of the chemicals to which individuals are exposed.
It is, therefore, possible that some activities carried out in the past will raise concern when viewed through the eyes of scientists at the end of the 20th century. However, staff at Porton Down have always sought to follow the best practice existing in regard to human participation in trials and have endeavoured to promote a responsible approach to the involvement of volunteers in studies.
Having briefly outlined the procedures that currently govern the use of service personnel in studies at Porton Down, I come to the case of Mr. Michael Paynter, which was so well raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Paynter's case has been the subject of correspondence between my Department and my hon. Friend during the past two years. The facts of the case are that, in response to a request for volunteers that appeared in military station orders, Mr. Paynter attended the then chemical defence experimental establishment twice in the 1950s while completing his national service.
On the first occasion, in May 1954, Mr. Paynter took part in studies that required him to wear chemical protective clothing including a respirator while working on a treadmill under various different climatic conditions in a climatic chamber. That did not involve exposure to chemical warfare agents.
On his second visit, in March 1955, Mr. Paynter took part in similar physiological studies. In addition, he was involved in work to evaluate various rubber compounds proposed for use in respirator face pieces. Neither of those studies involved his exposure to any chemical warfare agents. His participation in those physiological studies 790 and the evaluation of the rubber compounds was part of the on-going programme of research that has been conducted for the past 80 years to provide UK forces with clothing and respiratory protection to enable them to operate effectively in all military environments where the threat of attack from chemical and biological weapons exists.
During his second visit to Porton in March 1955, Mr. Paynter also participated in a study to evaluate the effects of some of the chemicals believed to be constituents of the London fogs. Those especially dense fogs, to which a large part of the population was exposed, had severely disrupted the life of the city at the time. My hon. Friend is too young to remember. The programme of work in which Mr. Paynter participated was part of the Government's research programme to investigate the causes and effects of the problem and possible solutions to it.
The research conducted at Porton Down contributed to the understanding of the hazards presented by the specific components of the fog and it would not have been unusual for research establishments across the Government to participate. That work, in conjunction with other related studies, eventually resulted in the clean air legislation of the 1960s, which considerably improved the atmosphere in our large cities and saw the disappearance of the London fogs of old.
My hon. Friend referred several times to Mr. Paynter's belief that he was participating in research into the common cold. I want to make it absolutely plain that at no time in its history has Porton Down ever conducted research into the common cold. All research relating to the common cold was conducted by the Medical Research Council on behalf of the Ministry of Health at the common cold unit based at Harnham down, Salisbury. That unit, which closed in 1989, had no connection with the Ministry of Defence.
My hon. Friend also asked about the Nuremberg code. The horrors exposed on the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps at the end of the second world war led to the development of the Nuremberg code of ethics in medical research. Since its inception, the principles laid out in the code have governed all the work relating to human subjects at Porton Down. The code emphasises the essential voluntary nature of the consent to participate and states that volunteers must be made aware of the nature of the study, its duration, its purpose, the method and means by which it is to be carried out, all inconvenience and hazards that can be reasonably expected and any likely effects on their health that are known to those proposing the study.
All the work in which Mr. Paynter participated would have required him to have that information provided to him so that he could make an informed decision to consent to participate in the studies. No work would have commenced involving Mr. Paynter unless he had given his informed consent freely and without duress. It is also made very clear to volunteers throughout their attendance at Porton Down that they are free to withdraw from studies at any time without prejudice or having to provide any reasons for their wish to do so.
My hon. Friend also asked about the legislation that prevents service personnel from pursuing claims and action against the Ministry of Defence. In 1987, the House passed the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act, 791 which gave current and former service personnel the right to seek compensation for personal injury or loss arising from the negligence of the Ministry of Defence as their employer.
The 1987 Act repealed the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, section 10 of which had prevented service personnel from taking action against their employer for negligence. In passing the 1987 Act, the House thought very carefully about whether the legislation should be retrospective, but concluded that it should not, so incidents and injury sustained before 1987 are not covered.
As I made clear, all work at Porton Down complies with the principles stated in the Nuremberg code, and with revisions to ethical guidelines produced in the intervening 50 years. Nevertheless, we must consider the remote possibility of a volunteer claiming that his health has suffered as a result of the activities that he undertook at Porton Down. In such a case, the individual can apply to the Department of Social Security for the award of a war pension. That is subject to an assessment of each individual's claimed disability and a consideration of the impact of the activities in which he participated. In dealing with such claims, staff at the War Pensions Agency are provided with all the information that remains in the experimental records at Porton Down.
To date, Porton Down has supplied the War Pensions Agency with details of the attendance of approximately 40 former volunteers. Staff at Porton Down also provide such information to the volunteers or to their medical representatives when they write to request those details. So far, fewer than 100 of approximately 20,000 volunteers have requested such details.
I and the Ministry of Defence owe my hon. Friend and his constituent an apology for the wholly unacceptable delay in replying to his last letter on this case. I am very sorry—and know that my noble Friend Lord Howe is, too—that it took so long for a reply to reach him. I have today instigated inquiries as to why that should have happened. However, I think that he goes a little far in implying that we may have been less than open in respect of the amount of information that has been made available to Mr. Paynter.
§ Mr. David AtkinsonGiven the wide discrepancy between my constituent's recollection of his experience at Porton Down and what my hon. Friend has told the House about his experience as recorded there, is there not a case for further investigation?
§ Mr. SoamesI shall come to that point later because I have a helpful suggestion for my hon. Friend.
792 The nature of the information recorded with regard to the volunteer programme has also developed over the years. Details held on those who participate in studies at present are kept in paper folders that include the volunteer's entry and exit medical reports, a copy of their consent to participate and many other detailed records. That level of information is felt to be comprehensive by modern standards. Sadly, such information is not available for many of our former volunteers, and many of the remaining records are incomplete. Unfortunately, in some cases it is impossible to provide any further elucidation beyond confirming the dates of attendance and the general type of activity.
In Mr. Paynter's case, we have now found a fair amount of information, although as we have admitted to my hon. Friend, we had some difficulties in identifying that Mr. Paynter participated in the London smog trials, principally because of the nature of the records now held. We have made all the relevant facts available and provided my hon. Friend and Mr. Paynter with considerable detail.
I understand that in addition to details of the studies in which he participated, staff at Porton Down have provided Mr. Paynter with copies of technical papers believed to relate to the studies in which he took part. They have also offered to meet him to talk through the results discussed in the papers. Such a meeting, which he has yet to arrange, would be very helpful in addressing any other major concerns regarding his experience and would be a fruitful route to pursue in respect of the further inquiries to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall be happy to follow up the result of that meeting.
I wish to close by thanking my hon. Friend for bringing Mr. Paynter's case to the attention of the House. My Department is grateful to Mr. Paynter and all the others for their participation in the work of Porton Down. Without the involvement of human subjects, it would be impossible to evaluate the effects of wearing the equipment developed at Porton Down on the ability of the armed forces to carry out normal military tasks in hazardous environments. That was well demonstrated by the equipment and kit used by British armed forces in the Gulf, where there was a real threat of the use of chemical or biological weapons. The Ministry of Defence is very grateful to all those who through their participation in studies at Porton Down have contributed to providing the UK with safe and effective protection.
I profoundly sympathise with Mr. Paynter's concerns about his ill health, and we have tried to deal with his questions openly and honestly and to the full extent of the information that is now available. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my reassurance and further urge his constituent to meet officials at Porton Down, if necessary with my hon. Friend's attendance, to discuss any further ideas that Mr. Paynter may have about how we can help him.