HL Deb 12 December 1994 vol 559 cc1154-66

6.59 p.m.

The Countess of Mar rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the departments responsible for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have shown a proper degree of responsibility for the health and safety of volunteers engaged in medical research.

The noble Countess said: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the Chief Whip and to the usual channels for enabling me to change my Question at such short notice? I have given the noble Lord the Minister notice of the ground I intend to cover. He has kindly written to say that he will not respond to any questions which fall outside the scope of the Question I have tabled on the Order Paper. In return I would ask him to note that my Question relates to "the departments responsible" and that questions are addressed to Her Majesty's Government and not to a particular Minister. I will understand if he does not have all the answers to my questions tonight, and that he will write to me.

Noble Lords can hardly fail to be aware that for the past two and a half years I have been trying to persuade the Government to take measures to prevent any further damage to human health from exposure to organophosphates. It is my understanding that the only tests on the effects of this group of chemicals on humans have been carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Inquiries to manufacturers of organophosphate pesticides have revealed that, while they have made tests on animals, they regard tests on humans as too dangerous.

From a series of Questions for Written Answer, I have established that the tests done on human volunteers at Porton Down are categorised as biomedical research and that they are ethically conducted. The principles upon which those ethics are based are enumerated in the 10 principles of the Nuremberg code. After the discovery of the horrific experiments conducted by German physicians and professors during the Nazi regime and the doctors' trial at Nuremberg, the judges, concerned that never again should humans endure such suffering in the name of science, wrote the code into their final judgment. The Nuremberg code has become the cornerstone of the Declarations of Helsinki in 1964, 1975, 1983 and 1989. On 6th February 1990 the Committee of Ministers to Member States concerning Medical Research on Human Beings adopted Recommendation No. R(19)3. This incorporated the principles of the Declarations of Helsinki. I have established that Her Majesty's Government accept all the principles of the recommendation, that they apply equally to civilian and service volunteers and that the scientists at Porton Down are bound by their principles; or are they?

My information would indicate that at least four of the principles are not adhered to. It may be helpful if I detail those principles. Principle 2.1 states: In medical research the interests and well-being of the person undergoing medical research must always prevail over the interests of science and society".

Principle 3.1 begins: No medical research may be carried out without the informed, free, express and specific consent of the person undergoing it".

Principle 3.2 states: The person who is to undergo medical research should be given information on the purpose of the research and the methodology of the experimentation. He should also be informed of the foreseeable risks and inconveniences to him of the proposed research".

Principle 13.1 states: Potential subjects of medical research should not be offered any inducement which compromises free consent. Persons undergoing medical research should not gain any financial benefit. However, expenses and any financial loss may be refunded and in appropriate cases a modest allowance may be given for any inconvenience inherent in medical research".

And principle 14 states:

  1. "1. Persons undergoing medical research and/or their dependants should be compensated for injury or loss caused by medical research.
  2. 2. Where there is no existing system providing compensation for the persons concerned states should ensure that sufficient guarantees for such compensation are provided".

These principles leave no room for doubt or misinterpretation. Why then am I concerned? The organophosphates currently used in agriculture were developed from extremely toxic organophosphates developed first by the Germans prior to and during World War II and later by the British and other nations for chemical warfare purposes. These so-called nerve gases were tested on human volunteers at Porton Down. Some were exposed directly and others through protective clothing which was being tested. There is a group of 300 men, at least one of whom was not a volunteer, who underwent experiments with nerve gases between 1951 and 1977. Never were these men told what the chemical was or of its effects. Many were misled to the extent that they believed they were testing a cure for the common cold and that any effects would be minor and temporary. In retrospect, they all believed that these were the acute effects of exposure to organophosphate nerve gas, and in many cases they were severe and prolonged. Not one of these men has been followed up by Porton Down or the Ministry of Defence, and when they have asked for help the shutters have been pulled down. One remarked to me: It was as if we had never been near Porton Down". They were offered inducements in the form of extra pay, very tempting to the poorly paid National Service conscript, or extra leave. This practice continues today. I have an advertisement headed: 41/94 Volunteers for studies at Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment Porton Down (R)". It states: Volunteers could earn pay up to £250 (less tax) or in special cases more for a 3 week study and proportionately less for shorter studies". There is no mention of refund of expenses or an allowance for inconvenience.

There is no doubt that these men are chronically sick. As I have said, they believe their illnesses are due to exposure to nerve gas. They have no means of establishing the truth because neither Porton Down nor the Ministry of Defence will admit they exist. During the screening of a film entitled "The Secrets of Porton Down", broadcast on 11th October 1994 on Channel 4 Television, the Director General of CBDE Porton Down was asked about follow up tests on volunteers. He said: There is no evidence to suggest that there is a need to call back volunteers on a regular basis". When pressed, he said: It's a question of what is the best and most appropriate use of resources and one endeavours to use resources to best effect to ensure that our armed forces have effective protective measures. There are a lot of things that you could carry out research on but it would be wasting the Government's money to put effort into things that have little prospect of any benefit to those concerned". So much for principles 2 and 13!

May I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Government really believe that these men, who innocently volunteered to undertake tests which one was told, wouldn't harm a mouse", have been treated in accordance with the principles of the Declarations of Helsinki and Recommendation No. R(90)3? If not, would he please take urgent action to enable them to be recompensed?

There is another group, possibly a very large group, of servicemen and women and members of the ancillary services who are receiving short shrift from the Ministry of Defence. These are the men and women who served in the Gulf in 1990 and 1991. They may not be classed as volunteers in the strictest sense, but some of the medication administered to them at the time of Operation Granby was developed and tested at Porton Down and in two instances was unlicensed in the United Kingdom. These people received vaccines of two types of anthrax, botulinus toxin, bubonic plague (which was unlicensed), cholera, hepatitis B, polio, typhoid, whooping cough and yellow fever, all within about four days. They were also ordered to take 30 mgs of pyridostigmine bromide, also unlicensed, every eight hours for all the time they were in the Gulf. This drug is a carbanate, closely related to organophosphates. It has been used successfully to treat patients with myasthenia gravis, a neurological disease when given in much higher doses. It enhances the release of acetylcholine, one of the chemical messengers in the blood. I understand that this drug, known as nerve agent pre-treatment set or NAPS, was only tested on volunteers for two to three days and was designed for use in acute situations. A former senior scientific officer at Porton Down has described the prospect of prolonged use as "terrifying". It is known that when too much pyridostigmine bromide is given to a healthy person a cholinergic crisis is precipitated. This is the acute effect of poisoning. Nobody knows what happens when the drug is administered at a low level over a long period of time, but it is suspected that the neuromuscular junctions become modified and do not return to normal when the drug is no longer taken.

Most of the troops took NAPS on a regular basis for two months, but some members of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service who arrived in the Gulf in September 1990 took them for much longer. Their officers were in almost daily contact with the MoD asking whether it was all right to take NAPS for so long. They received no advice. There has been no research conducted on the effects on the human neurological or immune systems of a combination of vaccines with NAPS in the contaminated stressful situation which prevailed in the Gulf. Many of the members of the armed services who left for the Gulf in complete fitness have since their return fallen ill with a wide spectrum of symptoms, many familiar to sufferers from exposure to OP sheep dips. I understand that fully informed consent was not obtained from the troops prior to the administration of the medication and that they were given no opportunity to refuse. They were simply marched into a room and ordered to roll up their sleeves. They were aware that refusal would result in disciplinary action.

Why is it that the American Department of Defense has acknowledged that its troops, who saw action in the same theatre of war and received a similar spectrum of vaccines and NAPS, are suffering an unusual amount of illness after their Gulf service? They have given their sick veterans ex gratia payments and have set up a full epidemiological study to investigate cause and effect. Our Ministry of Defence says that very few Gulf servicemen and women have come forward for medical examination and the few who have, although they are ill, are not displaying any unusual signs or symptoms—certainly nothing which could be called a Gulf syndrome.

I know that many of the men and women affected have not presented for examination because they are career personnel and are afraid that their future prospects will be blighted. They are, nevertheless, extremely worried about their health and, following reports from America and Canada of babies conceived by the wives of Gulf servicemen after the conflict who are showing a higher than normal incidence of deformity and congenital illness, they are worried for their families. There has been no teratogenetic research done on the medication given to the troops.

The chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Jay Rockefeller, said last week: On far too many occasions the Pentagon has shown a reckless disregard for the health and wellbeing of service members. Soldiers who are exposed to dangerous substances without their knowledge or consent become veterans who do not receive the medical care and compensation to which they are entitled". I believe that that statement applies equally to our troops.

I know that the conflict in the Gulf presented dangers never before encountered by any troops. I know too that the action taken at the time to protect them was taken in the belief that it was in their best interests. What I find unacceptable is the flat refusal of the Ministry of Defence to admit that there may be something wrong and their failure to conduct a proper study of those who are ill.

I ask the noble Lord the Minister to ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence to arrange for the publication of Regimental Part I Orders ordering personnel to submit for medical examination without fear of prejudice. If that is done the extent of the problem will be known and measures taken to treat and compensate those affected.

I now come to the point which caused me to alter the subject of my Unstarred Question. In a Question for written Answer I asked whether the results of the research into the chronic effects of long term, low level exposure to organophosphate sheep dips conducted by the Department of Occupational Medicine at Birmingham University on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive would be published. The reply from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was: The findings of the project are being analysed and the results will be submitted early next year to a scientific journal for publication". It is my understanding that the research project was completed in June 1994.

Two hundred sheep farmers who had been exposed to organophosphate sheep dips were compared with a similar number of quarry workers matched for age, sex and region. The researchers looked at the neuro-psychological effects and the neurological effects, using standard tests. Three of the neuro-psychological tests have been analysed statistically. They show significant evidence of deterioration among the farmers. In one of the three tests there was a dose response relationship which is extremely significant because it eliminates other causes. Despite their lack of sophistication, the neurological tests demonstrate significant differences between the farmers and the controls.

It is inconceivable that such important evidence should be withheld pending publication in a scientific journal. Never before have the representatives of workers' organisations on the Chemicals in Agriculture Committee been denied access to this kind of information once it is held by the Health and Safety Executive. This research ties in with that done at Edinburgh University upon the effectiveness of the recommended protected clothing. Their conclusion was that the clothing was impractical, especially during the summer, and that dippers were exposed to significant amounts of chemicals.

This is an occasion when the scientists should put aside the privileges associated with publication in a scientific journal in the greater interest of humanity. The implications behind the results of these studies are enormous. There are over 430 organophosphate compounds in use in agriculture, horticulture, for pest control in commercial and domestic premises and in human and veterinary medicine. I have reports of illness from people concerned with all these. With a few notable exceptions, the medical profession has shown an abysmal lack of expertise, or even interest, in patients who have been exposed to organophosphates. In too many cases I have heard first-hand stories of doctors and consultants laughing at their patients if mention is made of OPs. They simply do not believe that such toxic chemicals would be let loose on the general population and prefer to send the patient to a psychiatrist or psychologist, often to the detriment of the patient's health.

I believe that the effects of chronic exposure to organophosphates have been suspected for a long time. The Department of Health adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—an expert on organophosphates and a former Porton Down scientist—said in front of a room filled with farmers that he knows that there is long term damage and that he does not need persuading. Why will he not say so publicly?

We have three groups of people who would appear at first sight to have nothing in common. I hope that I have demonstrated that there is a thread which draws them all together. Each group is suffering ill health which is chronic and untreatable by orthodox medicine. Each group believes that they know the cause of their illness but no one will listen to them or do anything about it. Why should these sick people have to take recourse to the courts, with all that that involves, in order to gain compensation which is rightly theirs in the case of the Porton Down volunteers and the Gulf servicemen and women and, in the case of the others, should be recognised by the governments which have licensed the pesticides responsible?

The noble Lord the Minister has listened to me very patiently. I am grateful. I ask him to take the action necessary to ensure that all these victims are recognised and compensated. I also ask him to ensure that her Majesty's Government review the whole procedure for licensing chemical pesticides and medicines and that they consider introducing experienced lay people to the licensing committees.,

I realise that I have asked questions which may be beyond the wording of my Question. I am convinced that the questions I have asked tonight are vitally important. I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will provide the answers. Finally, perhaps I may remind him of Toyber's dictum: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

7.17 p.m.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for introducing this important Question. Before starting I should declare my interest. As a serving officer in the TA, I use NBC protection equipment designed and tested at Porton Down. In war I may be expected to use the nerve agent pre-treatment sets (NAPS) to which the noble Countess referred. She is quite right to address these matters and to ask the most searching questions of the Minister.

My understanding is that NAPS have been used for short periods by Porton Down staff when handling nerve agents. This was to provide temporary increased protection when carrying out slightly hazardous procedures. The noble Countess is quite right to ask about the long-term use of NAPS. It is known that many soldiers in the Gulf conflict stopped using NAPS because of the side effects which were not very pleasant.

It is quite difficult to discover any information, even on the military net, about the problems which the noble Countess has raised. As I do not "need to know" there would be something wrong if I could find out. It is important that our hard won knowledge of NBC matters is kept to us and our allies only.

The MoD constantly trawls for volunteers at Porton Down. Frequently, approaches are made to candidates on NBC courses. The regular soldiers that I meet are rather reluctant to volunteer. Those that have volunteered may not be in a position to give the information for the reasons that I have already given.

I do not know much about Porton Down, but I would suggest that there are two broad areas of military interest. The first is the study of NBC agents and, in particular, methods of design, production, delivery and, most important, protection. It is important that we know how to produce NBC agents so that we can deter first use by an enemy and also detect a potential enemy's means of production.

The second broad area is that of NBC protective equipment. Our NBC protective equipment is some of the best available in the world. It is relatively easy to make individual protection equipment (IPE) that is impregnable or very lightweight and comfortable. The difficulty is to design IPE that provides full protection and is robust enough for the battlefield. Soldiers have to be able to continue to operate in a contaminated environment, so the equipment has to be breathable and not so heavy that the heat build-up is intolerable.

The equipment that is designed at Porton meets those requirements very well and the establishment continues to improve it, so much so that British IPE was very attractive to other allied soldiers in the gulf. Furthermore, I contend that Saddam Hussein was deterred from using chemicals to any great extent because his staff would have advised him that we had the means to protect ourselves and that we knew as much about chemical weapons as they did.

As I said, the noble Countess is right to ask such questions and the Minister should answer them as best he can. I should like to ask the Minister what extra pay and allowances (over and above normal rates of pay) ate available for servicemen who volunteer for the tests. If the Minister cannot answer that question now, perhaps he could write to me.

7.21 p.m.

Baroness Jay of Paddington

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess for tabling this extremely significant Unstarred Question. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee will forgive me if I do not follow him on the military details that he raised. My concern is with the broader health issues which the noble Countess mentioned. I am sorry to hear that her initial response from the Minister has been that some of the questions that she raised range so much more broadly than the terms of her original Question on the Order Paper that he may find it difficult to reply. I do not think that that should prevent us re-emphasising some of the issues to which the noble Countess has rightly drawn our attention with her usual comprehensive approach to these extraordinarily difficult subjects and the great authority that she has built up as a result of studying these matters over a long period.

The question which the noble Countess asked at the end of her remarks is perhaps the most important. I refer to the publication of the academic research that exists on organophosphates. Obviously, it is completely inappropriate, not to say scientifically unethical, for that material not to be publicly available if it has the impact on public policy which the noble Countess suggested. I feel strongly that the noble Countess is right in saying that in this instance the scientific concern about keeping something for the research journals should be overridden.

The noble Countess explained in some detail the ethics of human research guidelines which are familiar to all of us who have been involved in this area in one way or another. Of those ethical guidelines, four are probably of paramount importance in this connection. I refer first to the questions: Has the well-being of the person concerned in the research been considered paramount? Has consent really been freely given? Have there really been no inducements to take part in that research? Have those who have taken part in the research truly understood the purpose of that research? As the noble Countess explained, all of those aspects are enshrined in clear international guidelines, but common sense tells us that they must be susceptible to a little bending when one is dealing with research in a military situation.

The next question is whether those who have taken part in the various experiments that have been outlined are indeed chronically sick or have suffered only temporary side-effects. I am interested in the letter which the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, Dr. Pearson, wrote to my honourable friend Dr. David Clark when he asked a Question in another place on an issue which the noble Countess did not raise but which recently has gained a lot of publicity. I refer to the work and studies involving LSD at Porton Down. In his letter addressed to Dr. Clark on 21st November, just last month, the chief executive said, referring to the points which he was making about LSD: In addition, over the past 40 years there is no evidence that service volunteers have had any deterioration in their health as a result of their participating as a volunteer in a study at CBDE". The examples that were given by the noble Countess show that that cannot be the entire truth. When the Minister replies, I should be grateful if he could expand on the statement that was made by Dr. Pearson only last month in reply to my honourable friend.

The noble Countess also referred to the so-called "Gulf War syndrome". She explained in some detail—this was re-emphasised by the noble Earl—the particular problems which arose for troops in that conflict. Again, we have to ask questions about whether those people are chronically sick, whether that sickness can be attributed to what was happening in the Gulf and whether there is, in a sense, an abrogation of responsibility because it is difficult to carry out epidemiology on people who are now dispersed in many walks of life in different parts of the world.

Surely we need a thorough "look-back" exercise by the Ministry of Defence. I hope that such an exercise would be in collaboration with the Department of Health. We need to know precisely what is happening. It has been suggested that an independent scientist should be appointed to look into the situation of the troops and veterans who report suffering from Gulf War syndrome. We need to try to sort it out between those two departments.

It is interesting that the United States Department of Defence has recognised the problem. It has given compensation and has erred on the side of generosity. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the British Ministry of Defence has taken such a different point of view.

As the noble Countess said in conclusion, in the absence of absolute proof about something that has been going on for over 40 years—that is what the chief executive said—it is difficult to be precise about exactly what causal effects follow one another. The sadness for those of us who are very much newcomers to this subject is to feel that there is a sense in which everybody in the department of defence at Porton Down is being extremely reticent about something which may have been regarded originally as a question of military security, but which has now become a question that is much more related to health.

7.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Countess's anxieties following my letter to her today in response to her letter of last week that she was worried that I was trying to dodge the issues and was not going to respond to some of her points. I think that is the implication. I assure the noble Countess that I am in no way trying to dodge the issues, as I think she put it, on the basis that they went beyond my department. I appreciate the fact that I am responding on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; but I think that I also have a duty to respond to the question on the Order Paper. I know that the noble Countess sent me notice of questions that went way beyond that on the Order Paper; but it is my duty to respond to the Question that she has tabled. I might touch in passing on some of the other points that she raised, and no doubt other points that she made can be considered in due course. I want to make clear that I am certainly not trying in any way to dodge the issues.

It might help if I start by explaining a little about what the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment—the CBDE—is and does, and what its function is. As the noble Countess knows, it is an agency of my department, the Ministry of Defence. Its role is to ensure that our Armed Forces have effective protection against the threat which chemical or biological weapons may pose. That threat is very real, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made quite clear. Everyone should bear that in mind. It was very real in the Gulf and it is still a very real threat. It is therefore essential that we have effective protective measures against that threat. Without such protective measures, there is little point in going on. It is a threat of continuing anxiety. A significant number of states are thought to be seeking such weapons.

It is clear that the way ahead is for a web of deterrence which comprises effective protective measures, thereby reducing the utility of chemical or biological weapons, and broad arms and export controls, which Her Majesty's Government will continue to pursue.

Obviously, as part of this programme it is necessary to use service volunteers, first, to assess the ability of service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures; to develop medical countermeasures to protect service personnel; and to evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of chemical warfare agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

The studies involving service volunteers began in the 1920s and now involve between 100 and 200 volunteers each year. The purpose of the volunteer studies programme is to ensure that any protective measure is acceptable from a military point of view and—this is important—is safe before it is recommended for introduction into service. Such measures need to be evaluated first in the safety of a laboratory or hospital environment, with full medical and scientific back-up at hand.

The principles of how volunteer studies are to be conducted are enshrined, as the noble Countess made clear, by international agreement in the Helsinki Declaration. Further detailed guidance and rules are provided by the Royal College of Physicians in London. I reject the noble Countess's allegations that we do not respect the principles of that declaration, and I shall deal with that point in due course.

The programme is supervised by an independent panel of experts who form the CBDE ethics committee. The role of that committee is to ensure the safety of the subjects and to safeguard the scientific staff who carry out the human studies from criticism which may be informed or otherwise. They evaluate each protocol in advance and give their approval only where they are satisfied that there will be no harm to the health of the volunteers. All human studies at CBDE are conducted with volunteers drawn from the three armed services, who apply in response to requests officially promulgated months in advance. They are free to withdraw from a study at any time without having to give any reason. The procedures, the expected effects and all possible risks are discussed with them in lay terms by an officer in advance and at each stage of the tests. The noble Countess referred to that point, and if she has allegations that matters are otherwise, I should be more than happy to look at those allegations; I have none.

In studies involving the taking of a drug, half of the volunteers will take medication containing the active drug and the other half will take medication consisting of an inert substance. All medication will look alike, with its identity disguised from both subjects and the scientists until the study is finished. This is a placebo-controlled randomised double-blind study procedure which is widely accepted as best practice in this field.

Typically, volunteers come to CBDE for two week periods. That length of time may, for instance, be required for the intensive tests of sustained physical and mental work carried out in individual protective equipment under controlled climatic conditions representative of cold or hot areas of the world in which they may be sent to operate In the future. Effects caused by a drug under study are recorded carefully. Aspects of mental performance such as memory, the speed and accuracy of mental arithmetic, manual target tracking and dexterity, and the ability to remain alert and notice small change are measured repeatedly in performance tests. Where possible, the efficiency of the volunteer is also measured in carefully controlled military exercises. As the effectiveness of a drug to protect against agents of chemical warfare cannot be studied on man, the final choice between several possible drugs is made on the basis of their acceptability and freedom from side effects.

In response to a question from the noble Earl, I should say that volunteers are recompensed for the inconvenience at a rate of £1.66 per test, which amounts typically to a little over £200 for a two-week study. The payment is subject to tax. The noble Countess cannot allege that that is a denial of the principles of the Helsinki Declaration; and it is not an excessive inducement to take part in those tests.

On arrival at CBDE Porton Down, volunteers are given a full medical examination. They have the study explained to them in lay terms by an officer who is not involved in the study. They are advised that they may leave at any stage without any explanation, and at the end of the study they are given a further medical examination to ensure that they have suffered no harm. In addition, there is no history of service doctors in their units seeking advice from CBDE Porton Down on any subsequent illnesses that may have been reported by volunteers who have been exposed to any agent.

That is the principle of informed consent by which we abide and by which we shall continue to abide. We shall continue to say to veterans that if they wish to go to their GP, the CBDE and the Ministry will release their medical records to assist in the investigation of their cases, as appropriate. Information is provided to medical practitioners so that they can judge whether any of the experiences throughout the individual's service career has any relevance to their current medical conditions. That information will be released, if necessary.

Unless the noble Countess can provide me with individual cases, there is no evidence over the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who have participated in studies at the CBDE Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health, or that any of them were not volunteers, as the noble Countess alleged. If she can produce evidence to suggest that they were not volunteers, I shall be more than happy to look at it.

I should add that the MoD is grateful to all service personnel who have served as volunteers in studies at CBDE Porton Down, as their participation has been vital in ensuring that members of the Armed Forces are provided with the most effective protective measures possible against a threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. Such studies are vital to the defence of the realm, and we are grateful to those servicemen who have helped achieve the high standards of protection that are available for the members of the UK Armed Forces.

Perhaps I may say a word or two on the allegations about Gulf War illness. There is no medical or scientific evidence of any mystery illness linked to Gulf War service. All those who suffer have been found to suffer from recognised conditions. There is no known medical evidence of long-term reactions to vaccines when administered together or over a short period of time.

Further, we have received notification of 420 potential claims in respect of the alleged Gulf illness. They detail a wide variety of symptoms, the vast majority of which are common among the general population. What I can say—this has been repeated by me, and by my honourable and right honourable friends in the other place—is that all claimants have been encouraged through their solicitors to come for medical assessment by military medical specialists. Less than half have so far accepted that offer. I have to refute flatly the allegation made by the noble Countess that the MoD has refused to do anything.

I shall say a word or two about the report referred to by the noble Countess from the US Senate produced by Senator Rockefeller. It is a highly selective report in that it chooses to ignore the outcry—his was mentioned by the noble Earl—that would have resulted in the US and the UK if Iraq had used its nerve agent and our troops had not been given medical protection from NAPS. That drug—I am not sure that I can pronounce the name as well as the noble Countess—pyridostigmine bromide, was licensed to my department in August 1993 by the Medicines Control Agency under product licence No. 4537/003 for the use in the pre-treatment of service personnel at risk from poisoning from organophosphorus nerve agent. I believe that if we had not made use of that the problems might have been considerably more difficult.

As I said earlier, in the final analysis there has been no evidence during the past 40 years to suggest that service volunteers who participated in studies at Porton Down have suffered any harm to their health. If the noble Countess wishes to produce evidence, I shall be prepared to look at it. I believe that the safety of service volunteers is deemed to be of paramount importance and no study will take place without the express approval of the independent ethics committee. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Ministry of Defence and the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have shown a high and proper degree of responsibility for the health and safety of volunteers who have participated in studies at Porton Down.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.41 to 8 p.m.]