Porton Down (Hansard, 10 March 1994)

§ Mr. Hanley

These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment—CBDE—under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

Letters from Graham S. Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 10 March 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if, following the publication of the account of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down in its two latest annual reports, the annual budgets of this Establishment for each financial year since 1979 can now be published has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The budgetary figures for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 are not readily available. The cash outturn for these years from available records are as follows: 393W

Year	Outturn £ million
1979–80	1.51
1980–81	14.4
1981–82	14.6
1982–83	16.3
1983–84	16.7
1984–85	16.7

These figures are at 1992–93 price levels. 3. In the years 1985–86 to 1990–91 the annual gross cash budgets for CBDE were as follows:

Year	Gross cash budget £ million
1985–86	17.9
1986–87	21.1
1987–88	21.7
1988–89	22.0
1989–90	22.3
1990–91	25.4

The figures for 1990–91 include works and property management costs as MOD untied from PSA on 1 April 1990. These figures are also at 1992–93 price levels. 4. CBDE became a Defence Agency on 1 April 1991 under the Next Steps programme and our annual published accounts are in accruals format to a Treasury Accounts Direction. From 1 April 1991, some expenditure previously controlled centrally was disaggregated to CBDE. The figures provided above are not directly comparable with those in the published Annual Reports because of the changes in the accounting and financial procedures. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when the new Defence Microbiology laboratory at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down will be in use; what it will be used for; why it is necessary and how much its construction will cost has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The new Defence Microbiology laboratory is intended to be available for use in 1998. It will be used to handle dangerous pathogens under safe conditions in high containment facilities. The building will be used to carry out work into protective measures against biological warfare agents including detection and medical countermeasures. The new building is necessary to replace existing buildings which will have reached the end of their life within the next ten years. 3. Currently, the building is at the design stage. As the construction will be subject to competitive tender, it is not possible to provide details of the estimated cost at this time. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what is the purpose of the two new facilities under construction mentioned on page 25 of the 1992–93 annual report of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, why are they necessary, what is their cost and which buildings they are replacing has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. One facility will provide a laboratory in which equipment and volunteers can be exposed to steady low level concentrations of test materials; these may be simulants or actual agents. This laboratory which cost approximately £3M replaces four existing buildings which have reached the end of their life. 3. The second facility is a laboratory in which toxic materials can be prepared as required for the programme to access the potential hazard to the UK Armed Forces and to investigate improved protective measures. This facility will be the UK's 394W Single Small Scale Facility allowed under the Chemical Weapons Convention. It cost approximately £4.3M and replaces three existing buildings which have reached the end of their life. In both cases, a new facility is a more cost effective solution than refurbishment of the old buildings which are over 40 years old. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what is the subject matter of the substantial contract which is currently being carried out by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment for another Government Department mentioned in the published 1992–93 accounts, what is the value of this contract, what is its duration and when it started has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. This contract is being carried out on behalf of the Home Office and is concerned with the protection of the public against the possible effects of chemical and biological materials. It would not be in the interests of security to disclose further details of the work involved under this contract.