Chemical Weapons Convention (Hansard, 18 November 1992)

§ Mr. Macdonald
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the function of the Porton Down chemical defence establishment once the chemical weapons convention has been signed and ratified; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
After ratification of the chemical weapons convention the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down will still need to carry out research and development in order to provide effective protection measures for the United Kingdom armed forces against the threat of chemical or biological weapons. This defensive capability will complement the deterrent effect of the convention. In this field as well as in its continuing activities in support of chemical and biological arms control, the establishment will contribute to our security in a period when large quantities of chemical weapons will be awaiting destruction and some countries of concern may still be outside the regime.

§ Mr. Macdonald
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which facility will be chosen as the United Kingdom's single small-scale facility under the terms of the chemical weapons convention.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
We expect this to be a specialist laboratory and associated storage buildings at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down.

§ Mr. Macdonald
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which chemicals or chemical precursors that are subject to export controls exercised by the Australia Group are not covered by the present text of the chemical weapons convention.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
The text of the chemical weapons convention prohibits chemical weapons. This includes all toxic chemicals and their precursors unless intended, and in appropriate types and quantities, for permitted purposes. The convention therefore covers all the toxic248W chemical precursors subject to Australia group controls, although 18 of these chemicals are not subject to the declaration requirements and monitoring regime of the chemical weapons convention.

§ Mr. Macdonald
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the entire site of the United Kingdom's chosen single small-scale facility will be subject to safeguards under the terms of the chemical weapons convention.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
This is a matter delegated to the chemical and biological defence establishment under its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.
Letter from Dr. Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Calum Macdonald, dated 18 November 1992. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if the entire site of the United Kingdom's chosen single small-scale facility will be subject to safeguards under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (Question 20, Order Paper 10 November 1992) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The single small-scale facility to be declared under the Chemical Weapons Convention is likely to be a small area within the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in which small quantities of Schedule 1 chemicals are prepared and stored. These small amounts of Schedule 1 chemicals are required to enable the United Kingdom to carry out its programme to provide effective protective measure for members of the United Kingdom Armed Forces against the threat that they may be exposed to chemical or biological weapons. 3. The area within the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment declared as the United Kingdom's small-scale facility will be subject to inspection and monitoring in accordance with the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention concerning such small-scale facilities. 4. The remainder of the site of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, as for any other site within the United Kingdom, will be liable to inspection under other provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention.