HC Deb 03 February 1995 vol 253 cc882-7W
Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the provisions in health and safety laws and regulations from which the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is exempt, providing an explanation of why the exemption has been allowed in each case;

(2) what research has been carried out on the nerve agent GB at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down since the closure of the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke; what quantity of the nerve agent GB has been used in this research at Porton Down; with which country the results of the research have been exchanged; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged;

(3) how many service volunteers were involved in studies with the nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years these studies took place; what was the nature and purpose of these studies; what was the conclusion of the studies; what are the side-effects of NAPS; and under which defence agreement the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries;

(4) what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GE at the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall; what quantities of nerve agent GE were used in this research; with which other countries the results of this research were shared; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged;

(5) what is the purpose of the contract from the Directorate of Science (Ballistic Missile Defence) which is being carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; when this contract started; when it will end; and what is its value;

(6) how many service volunteers were involved in studies with the S 10 respirator at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years these studies took place; what was the nature and purpose of these studies; what was the conclusion of these studies; and under which defence agreement the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries.

Mr. Soames

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

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 February 1995: Question 11, Order Paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if he will list the provisions in health and safety laws and regulations from which the Chemical and Biological Defence Establish at Porton Down is exempt, providing an explanation of why the exemption has been allowed in each case has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.
  3. 3. The Ministry of Defence is bound by the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 except where the Secretary of State chooses to exercise his powers to exempt the MOD on grounds of National Security. To date the Secretary of State has not exercised this.
  4. 4. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is a Defence Executive Agency and as such is subject to regulation by the Health and Safety Executive on the same basis as any other MOD establishment. Safety is of paramount importance at CBDE and is a delegated line management responsibility as all members of staff are responsible for their own safety and that of others. Line management carry out six monthly safety inspections and are supported by an independent safety section. These regular inspections are complemented by periodic safety audits carried out by the Safety Services Organisation of the Ministry of Defence and by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 February 1995:

Question 14, Order Paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what research has been carried out on the nerve agent GB at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since the closure of the nerve agent plant at 884 Nancekuke; what quantity of the nerve agent GB has been used in this research at Porton Down; with which country the results of the research have been exchanged; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. 3. Since the closure of the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke in 1980 research on the nerve agent GB at CBDE Porton Down has covered all aspects concerned with the provision of effective protective measures against the threat that GB might be used by an aggressor against the UK Armed Forces. This has included hazard assessment, detection and identification, physical protection contamination monitoring and management and the use of prophylactic and therapeutic medical countermeasures. Our records that the quantity of GB used in research at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment from 1985 to the present date is about 16 kg.
  4. 4. The results of this work were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with our allies under the agreements covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment such as those listed by the Rt Hon Archie Hamilton in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Column 255–256.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 February 1995: Question 15, Order Paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many Service volunteers were involved in studies with the nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years these studies took place; what was the nature and purpose of these studies; what was the conclusion of the studies; what are the side-effects of NAPS; and under which defence agreement the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:
    1. a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,
    2. b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and
    3. c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally. No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. 3. A number of studies using Service volunteers were carried out primarily between 1970 and the early 1980s at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, RMCS Shrivenham, Dover, Bulford, Cambridge Military Hospital as well as some collaborative work with the Institution of Aviation Medicine and more recently in 1993 at the Cambridge Military Hospital. These studies were to evaluate the acceptability of using pyridostigmine bromide and whether such use had adverse side effects or was affected by the nature of the duties of the Service personnel. These studies which lasted for up to eight weeks included the assessment of the effects of NAPS on volunteers undergoing strenuous exercise and of a 885 thermally stressful environment. Our records indicate that a total of about 300 Service volunteers received NAPS during these studies.
  4. 4. The short term side effects attributable to the administration of NAPS include; increased frequency of bowel action but rarely overt diarrhoea, nausea and abdominal pain, increased frequency of urination and the worsening of established upper respiratory infection, runny nose and cough.
  5. 5. These studies concluded that pyridostigmine bromide in NAPS give considerable protection against all organophosphorus nerve agents with no adverse effects and did not interfere with military duties.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 February 1993: Question 22, Order Paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GE at the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall; what quantities of nerve agent GE were used in this research; with which other countries the results of this research were shared; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forced have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated.
  3. 3. My earlier answer to you of 11 January 1994, Official Report, 11 January 1994 (Column 163–4) indicated the approximate periods during which research into nerve agents was carried out at Nancekuke. The majority of the work relating to the nerve agent GE was carried out at the Chemical Defence Research Establishment at Sutton Oak during the late 1940s and early 1950s when GE was studied as part of a systematic approach to the process chemistry of all the nerve agents in the G series. The chemistry of GE is very similar to that of GB and both are dependent upon the intermediate phosphonous dichloride. Although GE is less toxic than GB, it was believed that it was easier to produce. Some studies were devoted to investigating this. Our records indicate that about 700 lbs of GE was produced at Sutton Oak in these studies. Although it was originally envisaged that GE would be produced at Nancekuke in the event interest in GE lapsed and little if any work on GE was carried out at Nancekuke.
  4. 4. The results of this work would have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States and Canada under the Tripartite Conferences on toxicological warfare.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 February 1995: Question 23, Order paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State asking what is the purpose of the contract from the Directorate of Science (Ballistic Missile Defence) which is being carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; when this contract started; when it will end; and what is its value has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is pursuing a technology research programme into the defeat of attacks by ballistic missiles with chemical or biological warheads as part of a wider lethality technology research programme which is being funded by the US Government under the terms and conditions of the 1985 US/UK Strategic Defence Initiative Memorandum of Understanding. CBDE's involvement started in May 1992 and is planned to complete later this year, unless a further option of one year, included in the original arrangements, is taken up. The total value of the work due to complete later this year is $9.2M.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 2 February 1995: Question 26, Order Paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many Service volunteers were involved in studies with the S10 respirator at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years these studies took place; what was the nature and purpose of these studies; what was the conclusion of these studies and under which defence agreement the results of these studies were exchanged with other countries has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:
    1. a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,
    2. b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and
    3. c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safety concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally,
    No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. 3. Studies took place between August 1984 and February 198.5 to gather information on facial and eye to eyepiece dimensions. These took place at various Service units and involved 1,511 Service volunteers. The conclusions led to recommendations for some minor modifications of design and similar small scale studies involving about 30 or 40 volunteers confirmed that the modified design met the requirements.
  4. 4. During the same period, laboratory faceseal leakage trials were carried out at CBDE using 249 Service volunteers to measure protection levels as laid down in the NATO Triptych. The test aerosol used in these faceseal leakage trials was sub-micron sodium chloride particles. The trials demonstrated that the respirator performance met the design specification.
  5. 5. The SIO respirator is now standard issue to all Service personnel. Consequently all studies at CBDE involving Service volunteers wearing Individual Protective Equipment (IPE) also involve the use of the S10 respirator. Our records are not maintained in a way to readily allow us to identify the number of Service personnel who have worn the SIO respirator and taken part in these studies. Volunteers wearing the S10 respirator have participated in studies to assess the protection given against chemical warfare agents using harmless stimulants such as nebulised corn oil. The S10 respirator has also been worn in studies of the effect of IPE in different climatic conditions to assess the effects on performance of standard military tasks and to assess the physiological load induced by breathing through the respirator under different exercise conditions in order to quantify the degradation in physical performance expected as a result of wearing the respirator.
  6. 6. The results of this work were part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would have formed part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with our allies under the agreements covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment such as those listed by the Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton in his reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Column 255–256.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years studies with service volunteers were undertaken at RMCS Shrivenham; what was the purpose and conclusions of these studies; how many studies were carried out there; and how many service volunteers were involved in these tests.

Mr. Soames

This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 3 February 1995: Question 17, Order Paper 26 January 1995

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State asking in which years studies with Service volunteers were undertaken at RMCS Shrivenham; what was the purpose and conclusions of these studies; how many studies were carried out there; and how many Service volunteers were involved in these tests has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:
    1. a. assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures,
    2. b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and
    3. c. evaluate the- effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.
    No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. 3. The Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set (NAPS) was developed in response to a requirement which called for a pretreatment effective against poisoning by all known nerve agents. A number of studies were conducted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to identify the effective oral dose regime which used in conjunction with therapy would provide protection against nerve agent poisoning whilst producing minimal or nil side effects.
  4. 4. One of these studies took place at RMCS Shrivenham in 1980. Twenty-eight military personnel on a training course volunteered to take part and the conclusions of the study confirmed earlier findings that the side effects from the taking of NAPS were minimal and did not interfere with military duties.