Nerve Agents (Hansard, 24 February 1995)

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the assessment drawn from the research into the ease of acquisition of the precursors for GD mentioned in his answer of 24 June 1994,Official Report, column 378–79.

§ 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. Harry Cohen, dated 24 February 1995: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what was the assessment drawn from the research into the ease of acquisition of the precursors for GD mentioned in his Answer of 24 June 1994, Official Report, columns 378–9, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and 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. The work carried out into the ease of acquisition of the precursors for GD was to determine whether the precursors were or were not available and what the costs were likely to be, whether it would be cheaper or easier to synthesise them and to assess which particular process was cheapest, easiest and safest. This work showed that the precursor methyl phosphonic dichloride was of particular importance and could be prepared by several chemical processes.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton on 20 December,Official Report, column 1173, in which years since 1965 CR gas was synthesised and produced at (a) Porton Down and (b) Nancekuke.

§ 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. Harry Cohen, dated 24 February 1995: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the Honourable Member for Leyton on 20 December, Official Report, column 1173, in which years since 1965 CR gas was synthesised and produced at (a) Porton Down and (b) Nancekuke has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. 3. The synthesis of CR was first reported in the Journal of the Chemical Society in 1962 by two scientists, Higginbottom and Suschitzsky, working in academia. Our records indicate that it was synthesised at Porton Down in the early to mid 1960s and small quantities were synthesised between 1965 and 1975 for research studies. Work on producing CR also began at Nancekuke in the early 1960s and continued until 1977.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the conclusions of the studies on CR gas on service volunteers mentioned in his answer of 24 June,Official Report, column 383, in relation to the physiological tests to determine the effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems; with which other countries the results of these studies were shared; and 376W under which defence agreement the results were exchanged.

§ 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. Harry Cohen, dated 24 February 1995: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what were the conclusions of the studies on CR gas on Service volunteers mentioned in his Answer of 24 June, Official Report, column 383, in relation to the physiological tests to determine the effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems; with which other countries the results of these studies were shared; and under which defence agreement the results were exchanged, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use Service volunteers to:

a. Assess the ability of Service personnel to function with new equipment and procedures.

b. Develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel, and

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. The conclusions of the studies into CR carried out at CBDE Porton Down have been largely reported in the article entitled "Riot control agents: biomedical and health aspects of the use of chemicals in civil disturbances" by Bryan Ballantyne and published in the Medical Annual 1977; John Wright, Bristol. As CR solution has a negligible vapour pressure, few effects on the respiratory tract would be expected after the use of liquid formulations. Studies into the pulmonary function of volunteers exposed to vaporised CR showed no significant change in the respiratory capability. Cardiovascular studies using vaporised CR showed no significant effect. 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 the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Cooperation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

§ Mr. Cohen
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GF at the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall; what quantities of nerve agent GF were used in this research; whether the results of this research were shared with any other countries; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged.

§ 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. Harry Cohen, dated 24 February 1995: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GF at the Nerve agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall; what quantities of nerve agent GF were used in this research; whether the results of this research were shared with any other countries; and under which defence agreements these results were exchanged has been passed 377W to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and 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. The programme of research on GF was part of the research into the processes which would be involved in the production of any of the G series of agents. The chemistry of GF is similar to that of GB and production would be dependant upon the same intermediate. Since GF was slightly more toxic than GB by the percutaneous route, and also more persistent with a volatility intermediate in the G series, there were good reasons for continuing the evaluation started by Germany. GF has been made on the laboratory scale at Nancekuke. Work continued at Nancekuke until 1976. The quantities of GF used in this work are not readily available; they are likely to have been pounds. 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 the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Cooperation Programme and its predecessors and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.