HC Deb 16 January 1995 vol 252 cc371-2W
Dr. David Clark

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, columns 312–13, in what years the Moneybags experiments were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

Mr. Soames

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

Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 January 1995: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December, Official Report, Columns 312–3, asking in what years the Moneybags experiments were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Potion Down, 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 (CBDE) is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent. 3. Moneybags was carried out in 1964 and was one in a series of studies carried out in the 1960s to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD.

Dr. David Clark

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of LSD experiments called Recount carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years the Recount experiments were conducted; how many service volunteers were tested under the Recount experiments; what were the lowest and highest doses administered to service volunteers during the Recount experiments; what those volunteers were required to do under the Recount experiments and what types of animals were used; what was the conclusion of the Recount experiments; with which countries the results of those experiments were shared; and under which defence agreement the results were shared with those countries.

Mr. Soames

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

Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 January 1995: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about work carried out with LSD at Porton Down known as Recount has been passed to me to reply 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 or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent. 3. Recount which took place in 1966 was one in a series of studies carried out to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD. The aim of Recount was to assess the incapacitant effects of small amounts of LSD on a unit of soldiers. Eighty men volunteered and were examined by a clinician, underwent a battery of psychometric tests and were interviewed by a psychiatrist to determine their suitability for exposure to LSD. In the event it was not found possible to include 27 men in the experiment, because their occupations (e.g., driver, cooks) were unsuitable and a further 34 were eliminated for either clinical or psychiatric reasons or a combination of both, and three were not available on the trial days. Some 28 Service volunteers participated of which 16 received LSD with the lowest and highest doses being 63 and 97 µg respectively and the other 12 were controls. This was given orally in water. No animals were involved. 4. Recount was designed to reproduce a normal military task which in this case was the deployment of an air defence regiment in the field and such an activity involved considerable use of integrative and planning skills. 5. Recount showed that the soldiers suffered a minor decrease in performance and the overall effects of this small dose of LSD were minimal. All the affected soldiers were examined and judged to have returned to normal within 24 hours. 6. It was concluded that even when a military unit is mildly affected by LSD the compensation resulting from good discipline and mutual support, between drugged and undrugged soldiers, can leave the unit relatively unaffected, in trial conditions at least, for a short task. 7. The results from Recount formed part of the technology database held by the Establishment in the area of evaluation of the potential hazard to Service personnel from possible chemical warfare agents. This information was drawn upon during the 1960s and 1970s in the agreements with our NATO allies to exchange information and so promote collaboration and cooperation in areas such as research and development in chemical and biological defence. The agreements with the United States at that time included:

  1. a. The Technical Cooperation Programme involving UK, US, Canada and Australia which had subsumed the earlier trilateral UK/US/Canada meetings.
  2. b. American, British, Canadian and Australian Armies (ABCA) agreement Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) on NBC defence.
  3. c. The NATO Panel VII on chemical and biological defence.