Mr. Gordon Bell

HC Deb 17 March 1998 vol 308 cc1190-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

10 pm

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South)

My constituent Mr. Gordon Bell is one of a number of people who, as young national service men, were induced to take part in what they were told at the time was research into the common cold at Porton Down chemical research establishment. Some, Mr. Bell included, say that they have since suffered debilitating illnesses, which they attribute to the experiments in which they took part.

It has since become obvious that, whatever the purpose of the research, it had nothing to do with the common cold. Subsequently, it has been suggested by Ministers that the experiments were part of research into the effects of London smog. While one cannot rule out the possibility that that was a spin-off, it clearly was not the prime purpose of the research. Not for the first time in matters of this nature, there is a feeling that the Ministry of Defence is being economical with the truth. Although there has been some progress during the past nine months, I hope that tonight's debate will shed a little more light on the matter.

I should say that this is not the first Adjournment debate on the subject; in October 1996, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) obtained a debate on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Michael Paynter. The hon. Gentleman is unfortunately unable to be here tonight, but he has kindly made available to me his papers on the subject, including letters from or written on behalf of eight other people who were induced to take part in similar experiments at Porton Down. Although those letters refer to experiments that took place over a period spanning nearly 20 years, they corroborate each other to a remarkable extent. I mention that to show that Mr. Bell is by no means alone in his recollection of what took place; nor is he alone in his scepticism of the various explanations so far offered as to the purpose of the experiments.

Gordon Bell served as a conscript between April 1959 and January 1961. From August 1959, he was based at RAF Aird Uig on the Isle of Lewis. During that time, he responded to a request for volunteers to participate in what was said to be a research project on the common cold taking place at Porton Down. Mr. Bell is clear in his recollection that the stated purpose of the project was research into the common cold; Mr. Paynter, whose case was raised 18 months ago by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, also recalls that research into the common cold was the stated purpose of the experiment.

That is of interest because Mr. Paynter was experimented on in 1954 and 1955—five years before my constituent. Sir David Ford, one of those who wrote to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and who took part in an experiment in 1954, has the same recollection. There is evidence that the common cold was still being used as a cover for the experiments as late as the early 1970s; a former service man based at RAF Wattisham from 1971 to 1976 recalls that the station's routine orders, which were required reading, contained several requests a year for volunteers to assist in common cold research at Porton Down.

It would appear that, over more than 20 years, those who were conducting the experiments at Porton Down were doing so on that bogus pretext. It is said that Porton Down cannot be held responsible for the pretext on which the volunteers were recruited; the truth must be that everyone responsible for organising and conducting the experiments over so many years must have known. Nor is it good enough for Ministers to tell us that no research into the common cold took place at Porton Down—we know that. What we are looking for tonight is a frank admission that volunteers were recruited on a fraudulent basis and an explanation why.

Once it becomes clear that volunteers were recruited in that way, any notion that they consented to whatever was done to them goes out of the window, as does any notion that the experiments were conducted in accordance with the terms of the Nuremberg code, which is based on the principle of informed consent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight whether Mr. Bell and his colleagues were asked to sign consent forms. If so, where are they? If not, when was the practice introduced?

Mr. Bell says that, he visited Porton Down three times. In one experiment, he was put inside a sort of gas chamber and ordered to stand in front of a stream of gas so acrid that he could bear it for less than a minute. Other gas tests, he says, left him nauseous, dizzy and weak at the knees. After each test, he would be required to pedal a static bicycle with gauges attached.

Mr. Bell says that, on another occasion, in the summer of 1960, he was given a series of injections, after which he was confined to a hospital bed and readings were taken of his pulse, temperature and blood pressure. He says that the long-term effects have left him with a skin condition which doctors and skin specialists have failed positively to diagnose.

Other people report long-term side effects. Sir David Ford wrote: For the last 20 years my doctors have been trying to find the cause of a recurring virus illness from which I have suffered, but have been quite unable to do so… My present doctor believes that it is entirely possible that my ability to resist infection could have been damaged by something which occurred at Porton Down. Michael Paynter developed serious skin infections within six months of his second visit to Porton Down. He also developed small growths on his body that have never been diagnosed. Other Porton Down volunteers complain of damage to their health.

In a letter to me dated 30 November 1997, the Minister wrote that there was no evidence that any former volunteers suffered any adverse effects on their health subsequent to their attendance at Porton Down. With the greatest of respect, those are weasel words. No one has ever checked to find out. Mr. Bell says that, from the moment he left Porton Down, there were absolutely no follow-up health checks on him, so how would anyone know whether his health had suffered? The House should note the use of the word "subsequent" in the Minister's letter. That makes it possible to avoid mention of the fact that at least one of the volunteers, Ronald Maddison, died while being experimented on in the Porton Down gas chamber. Presumably no one would argue that his health was not affected.

On 28 November 1996, as a result of the new policy of glasnost that followed the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, Mr. Bell received a letter from John Chisholm, chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, now responsible for Porton Down, stating that records had been located for one of his three visits—that of August 1960. They gave details of his participation in three studies.

The first study was to assess the effect on the skin of various rubber mixtures proposed for use in protective equipment, such as respirators and gloves. Small patches of rubber would have been placed on his skin for short periods to assess its reaction to the material. Mr. Chisholm added: The summary book shows you did not experience any adverse reactions to this study". Secondly, Mr. Chisholm revealed that Mr. Bell had participated in a study to determine the effect on breathing resistance of CS gas, the symptoms of which clear up within a few minutes of exposure, it is said.

Finally, records showed that Mr. Bell had participated in an assessment of a proposed incapacitating agent called pyrexal—a type of sugar derived from the salmonella bacterium, widely used as a therapeutic substance. It has been shown to produce shivering, headaches and general malaise. However, it was found to be ineffective as an incapacitating agent, and research into that area was abandoned. Mr. Chisholm went on to say that it had proved impossible to locate records of the other two visits that Mr. Bell says he made to Porton Down.

As I am sure you have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, none of this has much to do with the common cold, and it is only the tip of a huge iceberg. About 20,000 so-called volunteers passed through Porton Down. I very much doubt whether, before the procedures were tightened in the 1980s, many of them were given much idea of the experiments that were being conducted on them.

When the issue came before the House in October 1996, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)—then the hon. Member for Crawley—was at pains to assure the House that the exact nature of the studies in which service men had taken part was explained to all Porton Down volunteers and that such experiments were carefully regulated. That may be the case now, but it clearly was not so in the past. The then Minister said that it was 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."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 789.] Many of those experiments and the manner in which they were conducted would have raised concern even by the standards of the 1950s—more so, in fact, as the experiments carried out by the Nazis that prompted the Nuremberg code were fresh in the public mind in the 1950s. I put it to the Minister that those who were the subject of the experiments at Porton Down were not told the truth precisely because it would have been unacceptable even by the standards of the time.

I am aware that, in the short time that he has been in office, my hon. Friend the Minister has done his best to deal honestly with the problem. He has met representatives of the Porton Down volunteers; he has set up a dedicated helpline to deal with inquiries; and he has arranged for former volunteers—including Mr. Bell—to visit Porton Down and put their concerns directly to those in charge. I am grateful for that, but for several reasons, those actions do not address the whole problem.

First, detailed records no longer exist—at least not at Porton Down—of some of the experiments conducted there. Secondly, there has yet to be a frank admission—perhaps tonight will be the occasion—that for many years, volunteers were recruited on the basis of deception. What other explanation can there be for all those references to common cold research? An admission on that is long overdue.

Thirdly, many of those who were the subject of the experiments were unaware of the purpose and the substances to which they were exposed, which was a breach of the Nuremberg code. An admission on that is also overdue.

Fourthly—this is the cause of particular anger on the part of Mr. Bell and others—even if it were possible to demonstrate a link between their ill health and what happened to them at Porton Down, they would be barred from civil legal action by the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, which does not apply retrospectively.

Mr. Bell and others are seeking a public inquiry into the Porton Down volunteer programme. The inquiry should interview those who were induced to take part and those who recruited and experimented on them. It would then be in a position to arrive at some robust conclusions.

The inquiry might also seek to establish any connection between the unexplained health problems suffered by a number of former volunteers and the experiments to which they were subjected. If a link can be established, some mechanism will need to be devised for compensating the victims.

In his letter of 30 November, my hon. Friend the Minister said that a public inquiry would be neither feasible nor practical so long after the event. I suspect that that is code for saying that the possible conclusions of any such inquiry might be embarrassing, not so much for the Government as for the mighty vested interests at the heart of the defence establishment. I therefore beg to differ.

Recruits were still being solicited for common cold research at Porton Down as recently as the early 1970s. Many of those who drafted and circulated the misleading advertisements, as well as those who were recruited and those who conducted the experiments, are still around. By no means all are in their dotage—Mr. Bell is not. Who knows—one or two of those responsible may still be in the employ of the Ministry of Defence.

I know that my hon. Friend has to wrestle with a Department in which the culture of secrecy is deeply ingrained. One has only to recall the Ministry's handling—happily, under previous management—of the Colin Wallace affair or Gulf war syndrome to realise that this will be an uphill battle, even for a Minister with the most honourable intentions, as I know my hon. Friend has. I trust that he will rise to the occasion.

10.13 pm

The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland South (Mr. Mullin) on raising this issue tonight. The concerns of his constituent, Mr. Gordon Bell, and others like him who are worried about their experiences at Porton Down and the extent of the information available about them, are not new to me. Those concerns are relevant to us all in the pursuit of a solution to a persistent claim by Mr. Bell and a number—a fairly limited number—of others.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's tenacity over a number of years in pursuing what he considers to be injustices. Although I do not entirely share his view on this matter at this stage, he has an enviable record of being right on the issues that he has raised, so my approach to the subject that he raises is not dismissive.

I have taken a close interest in the matter. As my hon. Friend knows from correspondence that I have had with him, I have set in hand a number of practical measures to assist those who have concerns about it. He was good enough to mention some of those measures tonight. I have listened very carefully to what he has said, not only on this occasion, and I understand clearly the background to the concerns that Mr. Bell has raised with him.

Before I deal with the specifics of the case, perhaps it would be useful if I spent a few minutes describing briefly the background to the Porton Down volunteers programme in which Mr. Bell and many other service men have taken part.

For more than 80 years, the Ministry of Defence research laboratories at Porton Down in Wiltshire, now a part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, have been involved in the research and development that have underpinned the UK's chemical and biological defence capability, in terms of both detection and protective measures. That research, as recent events in the middle east have shown, is as relevant today as it was when the service volunteer programme began in 1916.

Throughout Porton Down's history, some 20,000 volunteers have participated in the trials, with many participating more than once. There have been tens of thousands of individual cases. I mention that for the historical record, and also because it sets in context some of the numbers cited by my hon. Friend. That is not prima facie to deny the possibility that he is right, but it puts into context the eight people whom he mentions, out of tens of thousands.

The past 30 years have seen more than 5,000 volunteers helping in the research, and currently between 50 and 100 volunteers a year are participating in the programme. They have been involved in tests aimed at ensuring that protective measures issued to our troops to counter the threat posed by chemical and biological weapons are safe and operationally acceptable before they are introduced into service.

Historically, some took part in experiments—

Mr. Mullin

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid

I will, but I have had experience of giving way continually and not being able to answer the initial question.

Mr. Mullin

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not suggesting that only eight people complained. I was referring to eight people who had written in as a result of the previous Adjournment debate.

Dr. Reid

Indeed, and to be fair to my hon. Friend, he was referring to eight people who had specifically raised the question of the common cold as well. As I said, I do not use that ab initio as grounds for dismissal, but I have tried to put the figure in context.

Some of the volunteers took part in experiments to evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of chemical weapons agents such as nerve gases and mustard on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally. That was not hidden—a point to which I shall return. Other volunteers were involved in studies to develop effective medical countermeasures to protect service personnel, or trials to assess the ability of personnel to function with new equipment.

Not only is that vital work: I know that the House will agree that it is crucial that such measures are evaluated in the safety of a controlled environment, with full medical and scientific back-up. I am in no doubt that our knowledge and our technology in the very complex field of chemical and biological defence could not have advanced without the contribution of volunteers participating in trials as part of the programme. I place on record my gratitude and, I am sure, the gratitude of the House to them.

I am pleased to say that the vast majority of the service volunteers who have visited Porton Down have come and gone, apparently quite unconcerned about their attendance. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that former volunteers have suffered any harm to their health, and the studies have always been—and continue to be—carried out with the utmost regard for the safety, health and well-being of volunteers.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point that there has been no systematic follow-up of the tens of thousands of volunteers over the years. However, I think that he will appreciate the difficulty and non-viability of doing that—indeed, it would be almost impossible. Given the level of publicity and media coverage regarding those tens of thousands of cases—including the hotline and the publicity that followed my introduction of it some weeks ago—we might have expected to be inundated with people with similar claims. As I shall point out later, the reality is that that has not occurred.

However, in the past few years, some people—like Mr. Bell—who attended Porton Down have inquired about their involvement in trials. Sometimes that has just been out of curiosity and as a result of publicity, but sometimes it is because they have health concerns. It was clear to me, on becoming Minister in May last year, that the existing mechanism for responding to those requests for information was not as effective as it should have been. I was convinced that the secrecy and mystery apparently surrounding Porton Down served only to encourage views that a conspiracy had been afoot. That was frustrating and disturbing for those with questions, and did not reflect well on the MOD, which was perceived as over-secretive and paranoid, and consequently as having something to hide.

Therefore, last September, I took the step of meeting volunteers to hear their concerns at first hand, and I hope that I was able to go some way towards reassuring them of our support. I also undertook to take positive action, where practical, to address the points that they brought to my attention. This—as my hon. Friend was kind enough to acknowledge—I have done. As recently as January, I wrote to my hon. Friend with details of the dedicated helpline that we have established to take their inquiries. That is a first step. We also published details of Porton Down and the helpline as widely as possible, and distributed leaflets.

In addition, if people were not satisfied after their initial inquiry, we arranged for them to visit Porton Down to see what records existed. We also allowed them to bring their political representative, legal representative, or family and friends to talk the matter through. I believe that those initiatives have been very successful—not least because we have been able to give details to those who have inquired about war pensions, which are open as a no-fault compensation to anyone who claims that he suffers from an illness arising from his service life.

I am pleased to tell the House that some 170 people have made use of that facility already. Of that number, two former volunteers have taken up the offer to visit Porton Down to see the surviving records and to talk to the medical and scientific staff about their experiences. Another two visits are being arranged at present. I also note with some small satisfaction that one recent visitor who attended Porton Down in the 1940s—half a century ago—wrote to thank the staff for being open and helpful and for the interest they showed in his case. I do not say that that is a first, but it is a tiny step in the right direction.

In that context, it is fitting to turn to the case that my hon. Friend has raised tonight. I understand that my hon. Friend is to visit Porton Down with Mr. Gordon Bell on 23 April. Mr. Bell's case has been the subject of correspondence with the Ministry of Defence for some two and a half years. Mr. Bell recalls that, while serving in the RAF, he attended Porton Down on three separate occasions to take part in what he believed was research into the common cold. However, once at Porton Down, he says that he was subjected to a series of tests with a different purpose. Mr. Bell believes not only that those tests have given rise to his present health complaints, but that ethical practices were breached by the manner in which he was recruited to take part. He also believes that information is being withheld from him.

I must tell my hon. Friend again that staff at Porton Down can find records of only one attendance by Mr. Bell, about 38 years ago, for one week in August 1960. If the conspiracy theory were right, it would seem to me, prima facie, silly to admit that Mr. Bell had been at Porton Down, but to deny that he had been there more than once.

Mr. Mullin

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid

I shall deal with the other points that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Mullin

I am not talking about any conspiracy.

Dr. Reid

All right. I was not accusing my hon. Friend of doing that. However, there are those who believe that there is a conspiracy and a cover-up. I think that the objective observer could have taken that as being implied in my hon. Friend's speech—that there had been some form of cover-up at some stage over the common cold. That is a point that I would like to reach.

Mr. Mullin

I believe in the cock-up theory.

Dr. Reid

Nevertheless, those concerned have been able to describe in some detail the series of tests in which Mr. Bell participated. During this visit, he took part in several studies, including physiological and psychological tests, for example, to help measure lung volume, calibration of equipment to measure breathing, routine blood tests and rubber mix patch tests to assess skin sensitivity.

Mr. Bell also participated in two trials which involved him being exposed to chemicals. He was exposed to the riot control agent CS gas, which is now used by United Kingdom police forces for self-defence purposes. Mr. Bell was also exposed to pyrexal, a prospective incapacitant agent, which the literature suggested may have been useful for similar purposes to CS. However, Mr. Bell suffered no symptoms following exposure to this agent. He will be able to see that when he visits Porton Down, with a copy of any records relating to that. The staff at Porton Down have been asked to try to piece together from any other evidence that is available anything that might be useful to Mr. Bell. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assist him in his inquiries, and in other inquiries.

When I wrote to my hon. Friend in November I said that in addition I would ask Porton Down to identify and declassify any relevant technical reports. I subsequently did that, and staff at Porton Down have identified one such report on pyrexal. My hon. Friend will remember that this is one of the agents that were involved in Mr. Bell's experiments. This report will be made available for my hon. Friend and his constituent when they visit Porton Down.

I turn to the way in which the trials were conducted, and especially the manner in which Mr. Bell says that he was recruited. Volunteers to Porton Down are drawn principally from the three services, and are recruited through notices posted widely at military establishments. In the 1950s and 1960s, it appears from surviving records that volunteer intakes were requested from individual arms of the services at specific times of the year. The precise mechanisms for recruiting volunteers were arranged by the services themselves, not by Porton Down.

My hon. Friend raised the question of informed consent. The policy at Porton Down has always been to obtain the informed consent of volunteers to take part in the research and to make it clear to them that they are free to withdraw at any time. That does not necessarily mean that informed consent was given at all times in writing. Indeed, it was only in the 1980s that it became common practice, and now obligatory practice, to introduce consent in writing. That is the informed consent.

I believe on the evidence that is available to me that the Porton Down staff have always adhered to the highest standards of ethical practice. I believe also that they have always sought to follow the best practices existing at the time with respect to trials involving human subjects. If either scientists, or advisers, believed that there was a risk to health, or that they were in any way in breach of the Nuremberg code, the experiments would not have taken place.

Mr. Bell will find no mention of common cold research, and the chemical and biological and defence organisation has never carried out work on the common cold. My hon. Friend has been saying that although such work was never carried out, work may have been classified as such for a cover story. It is impossible for me to deny the negative. There is no evidence, however, that Porton Down did what has been suggested. Tonight, my hon. Friend has used words such as, "There is a feeling that", "It is entirely possible that", and "This could have happened."

Given that Porton Down has already admitted, quite openly, that it was involved in a range of experiments, including CS gas, mustard gas, and pyrexal, which I mentioned earlier, it does not fit the pattern of evidence to suggest that it should have gone out of its way to classify some other research as work on the common cold.

Porton Down never engaged in research into the common cold. I repeat that the precise mechanisms for recruiting volunteers in the 1950s and 1960s were arranged by the services themselves. Tonight, for the first time, I think, my hon. Friend mentioned a particular station. I shall ask my officials to check the records of that station to ascertain whether there is any evidence whether any branches of the services were advertising volunteer places as places on experiments involving the common cold. I have to say that on the evidence so far I must come to the conclusion that Porton Down has acted to the highest ethical standards and has acted under the Nuremberg code. It has acted honestly and at all times with the volunteers.

If we can find any evidence to substantiate the claims, any Minister would examine them again, and I am sure—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.