HC Deb 24 June 1994 vol 245 cc366-83W
Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies have been carried out by the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down using potassium; when these experiments were carried out; and what were the results and conclusions of these tests and studies.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Dr. Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what tests and studies have been carried out by the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down using potassium, when these experiments were carried out, and what were the results and conclusions of these tests and studies 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 ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. Tests and studies on potassium, which is a highly reactive metal, have not been carried out at CBDE. Although potassium as a laboratory chemical has been used and continues to be used on an infrequent basis in various aspects of general organic chemical synthesis at CBDE Porton Down.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 JanuaryOfficial Report, columns 304–5, (1) how many service volunteers on average return voluntarily to Porton Down to take part in subsequent unrelated studies; whether they receive the same pro rata payment as volunteers who go only once; and how many times a service volunteer may go to Porton Down to participate in studies;

(2) what details from the study are recorded on the medical records of individual service volunteers who have participated in studies at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; what is his Department's policy on releasing the medical records of service volunteers to the individual concerned or to the individual's doctors if so requested; and how many medical records have been released in this way;

(3) how many service volunteers on average each year withdraw from studies at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down after the nature of the intended study is explained to them; and whether they still receive payment;

(4) how many service volunteers are on average each year recalled to have their medical health checked; how such volunteers are chosen to be recalled; how many years after the study they are usually recalled; and whether they are recalled more than once;

(5) how many service volunteers on average each year are rejected as being unfit following the medical examination on arrival at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and whether they still receive payment if they are rejected.

Mr. Hanley

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

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his answer of 26 January, Official Report, columns 304–5, further questions relating to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment volunteer programme have 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 ensure that the United Kingdom 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. Service volunteers re-attend CBDE to take part in further studies according to their willingness and availability and are paid the same as volunteers who may only attend on one occasion. There is no restriction on the number of times a volunteer may return to CBDE to participate in studies but a volunteer cannot re-attend to participate in the same study for scientific and statistical reasons. Volunteers are paid to compensate them for the inconvenience of the tests carried out as part of the study; there is no difference in the amount of the payment for volunteers who have returned for a further study. 4. It has long been MOD policy to release Service volunteers' medical records to a patient's GP on a MEDICAL-IN-CONFIDENCE basis when they are needed for the management of a particular case. It is entirely up to the GP how much or how little of this information he conveys to his patient. The Service volunteer's medical documents will include the results of the investigations performed as part of the entry medical examination. There are no central records maintained of how many medical records have been released in such circumstances. 5. Over the past three years, only one volunteer has withdrawn from a study following detailed explanation of the protocol. He received payment in compensation for the inconvenience of the tests he had undertaken during the entry medical examination. 6. There is no set pattern of recalls or selection of volunteers for recall. The number of volunteers recalled and the time after the study are varied according to the objective of recalling the volunteers. The current practice is that all volunteers upon arrival at the Establishment are read a lay statement by a military officer which states that it is our policy to call back some volunteer subjects for re-testing from time to time to ensure that the techniques used give consistent and reproducible results and that no changes in the way we apply the tests have occurred with time." The recall of any volunteers to CBDE is recorded on their medical records. 7. About 5% of volunteers are rejected following review of their medical documents prior to their attendance at CBDE. They receive no payment. Between 5–10% of volunteers are rejected as unfit following the entry medical examination upon arrival at CBDE. They will receive payments in compensation for the inconvenience of the tests undertaken as part of the initial medical examination.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 163–64, (1) what was the purpose of experiments carried out on the nerve agent VX during the specified years at Nancekuke; what was the conclusion of these experiments; what quantities of the agent VX were used in these tests; when the results of these experiments were exchanged with the United States of America; with which other countries these results were shared; and under which defence agreements this information was exchanged;

(2) on which agents in the V series Nancekuke carried out research in the specified years; what was the purpose and conclusions of this research; when the results of these experiments were exchanged with the United States of America; and under which defence agreements this information was exchanged.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 11th January, Official Report, columns 163–4 for further information about the nerve agent VX and the V series research carried out at Nancekuke have 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 research 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 this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated. 3. The studies on VX during 1957–1976 were to determine whether or not this agent was producible in quantity and was stable when stored. Our records do not indicate the amount of VX but it is estimated to be less than 100 kgs. 4. The V series agents were substituted analogues of VX. The V series agents were investigated to determine whether they were stable and whether they could be produced effectively by an aggressor. 5. The results of this work have formed part of the chemical and biological defence programme and is 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. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what precautions are taken to ascertain whether individual service personnel have allergies before they are tested in the human volunteer programme at the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down;

(2) how long is the average stay for service volunteers who are involved in studies at the chemical and biological warfare establishment at Porton Down; how much payment each service volunteer receives; and how many tests each individual undergoes on average.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what precautions are taken to ascertain whether individual Service personnel have allergies before they participated in the human volunteer programme and how long is the average stay for Service volunteers who are involved in studies at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; how much payment each Service volunteer receives; and how many tests each individual undergoes on average have 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 ensure that the United Kingdom 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. 370
  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. In order to ascertain whether individual Service personnel have allergies before they are tested in the human volunteer programme their Service medical documents are reviewed at CBDE before the volunteers attend for studies. No volunteer is accepted for studies at CBDE with a medical history suggesting allergic response to any substance. A recent, positive history of hay fever, asthma, eczema or other allergic phenomenon will lead to rejection at the initial medical examination, despite the fact that this may not be directly relevant to the study, or substances being used in the study being performed. Evidence or allergic response found at the initial medical examination, such as urticaria, or respiratory function tests suggesting an allergic airway response (asthma) will also lead to automatic rejection. 4. Service volunteers may remain at CBDE for between three days to four weeks depending on the study protocol in which they are participating. The majority of recent and current protocols involve a two or three week stay. Payment for the inconvenience associated with the tests in a study will vary according to the number of tests undertaken which may vary between about a minimum of 100 to a maximum of approximately 400; a payment is made for each test. The minimum amount presently paid is £142 after tax whereas the maximum is £350 after tax.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 306, what was the conclusion of the Biotechnology Committee's report into the implications of biotechnology for defence; how many members were then serving on the Biotechnology Committee; how many of them were academics; whether they were given access to the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 26th January, Official Report, column 306, what was the conclusion of the Biotechnology Committee's report into the implications of biotechnology for defence; how many members were then serving on the Biotechnology Committee; how many of them were academics; whether they were given access to the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The Biotechnology Committee considered the impact that biotechnology would have on the threat from biological weapons and the ways in which this technology could be harnessed to enhance the United Kingdom's defence capability to detect and provide medical countermeasures against biological agents. The Biotechnology Committee consisted of 14 members of which 7 were from academia. They were given access to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down and to relevant documentation in order to carry out their task. Their report is classified and as such I am unable to arrange to place a copy in the Library.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 163, (1) how many service volunteers were used for tests at Porton Down in each year between 1964 and 1979; what was the purpose of those tests; and which chemicals and biological organisms were used in those tests;

(2) what were the reasons for the increases in the number of tests on service volunteers in 1980 and 1981; why only GB (Sarin) has been used in the tests since 1979; and what were the highest and lowest amounts of this agent used in these tests.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 11 January, Official Report, column 163, asking how many volunteers were used for tests at Porton Down each year between 1964 and 1979 and the reasons for the increases in the number of tests in Service volunteers in 1980 and 1981 and why only GB (Sarin) has been used since 1979 have 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 ensure that the United Kingdom 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. The number of Service volunteers used for studies at Porton Down in each year between 1964 and 1979 was as follows:

Number
1964 298
1965 146
1966 149
1967 244
1968 263
1969 181
1970 327
1971 225
1972 358
1973 264
1974 304
1975 137
1976 254
1977 117
1978 104
1979 153

These volunteers have participated in studies carried out for the purposes outlined in paragraph 2 above. No volunteer studies have been carried out involving biological organisms.

4. The number of Service volunteers increased in 1980 and 1981 because of the need to carry out studies into aircrew protection. A number of studies were carried out to determine the lowest acceptable level for exposure to nerve agents.

5. GB (Sarin) is an example of a volatile nerve agent which has been used in all studies involving nerve agents since 1979. This agent has been used as it is representative of the range of nerve agents.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, columns 165–66, which of the studies on nerve gases, CR gas and CS gas were carried out in Australia; at which Australian defence establishment these tests were done; what was the purpose and conclusion of these tests; and in which years these tests were carried out.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 11th January, Official Report, columns 165–6, which of the studies on nerve gases, CR gas and CS gas were carried out in Australia, at which Australian defence establishment these test were done; what was the purpose and conclusion of these tests; and in which years these tests were carried out 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 research 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 this work the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is assessed and the effectiveness of British protective measures evaluated. 3. In this work it has been necessary to evaluate the potential hazards from nerve gases and the irritants CR and CS. Our records do not indicate that any of our work on these materials has been carried out in Australia.

Mr. Livingstone

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 January,Official Report, column 303, (1) at which military establishments studies for the human volunteer programme have taken place other than the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down; when and for what reasons these studies were conducted at Porton Down; and what was the conclusion of these studies;

(2) when the detailed protocol was approved by the independent ethics committee and adopted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if he will publish this protocol covering the testing of volunteers.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 22 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer of 26 January, Official Response, column 303, when the detailed protocol was approved by the Independent Ethics Committee and adopted by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment; and if he will publish this protocol covering the testing of volunteers and at which military establishments studies for the human volunteer programme have taken place other than the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; when and for what reasons these studies were conducted at Porton Down; and what was the conclusion of these studies have 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 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 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. A separate detailed protocol is prepared for each study; these are classified and are not published. 4. Our records indicate that studies involving Service volunteers have also taken place at RMCS Shrivenham, Dover, Bulford, The Cambridge Military Hospital and some collaborative work has been carried out with the Institute of Aviation Medicine. Such studies are carried out at these other Establishments when it is more convenient to do the studies there than to require the volunteers to come to Porton Down.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies have been carried out by Porton Down to assess the so-called pepper sprays; when these tests and experiments were carried out; whether they involved humans and animals; what were the conclusions of these studies; when the results of these studies and tests were exchanged with other United Kingdom Government Departments and other countries; and with which other countries and United Kingdom Government Departments these results were shared.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what tests and studies have been carried out by Porton Down to assess the so-called pepper sprays; when these tests and experiments were carried out, whether they involved humans and animals; what were the conclusions of these studies; when the results of these studies and tests were exchanged and other United Kingdom government departments and other countries; and with which other countries and United Kingdom government departments these results were shared 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 research 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. Our records indicate that no tests or studies have been carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to assess so-called pepper sprays. We are aware that the active material in the so-called pepper sprays devices is capsaicin; this was studied by CBDE in the 1920s as a possible incapacitating agent. Our records do not indicate what detailed work was done with capsaicin.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department last negotiated with the United States of America to supply Britain with a shipment of nerve gas; what prompted the negotiations; and what were the conclusions of the negotiations.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when his Department last negotiated with the United States of America to supply Britain with a shipment of nerve gas; what prompted the negotiations; and what were the conclusions of the negotiation 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 research 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. Our records indicate that the last transfer of nerve gas from the United States of America to Britain took place in June 1967 and was transported to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down. Our records do not indicate precisely when the negotiations took place but they are likely to have been in the course of the regular trilateral and quadlateral discussions with the US on chemical and biological defence, and to have taken place shortly before the transfer in 1967. The negotiations which led to this transfer took place to enable a collaborative programme of work into the stability and analytical research of nerve agents to be carried out. The results of this work was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation 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 (1) how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down have been permanently disabled since 1964 due to work-related activity; in which year each occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each one; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such cases;

(2) how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down have died due to work-related activity since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many staff at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have died or been permanently disabled due to work-related activities since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the Establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths 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 have 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 have available small quantities of materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor. 3. Our records indicate that no members of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment staff have died or been permanently disabled due to a work related activity since 1964.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 397, with which other countries the results of the tests on tryptamines were shared; when these results were shared and through which defence agreement they were exchanged; which animals were tested with tryptamines; how many of each of these animals were used; and when Porton Down ended its work on tryptamines.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to 27th January, Official Report, column 397–8, with which other countries the results of the tests on tryptamines were shared; when these results were shared and through which defence agreement they were exchanged; which animals were tested with tryptamines; how many of each of these animals were used; and when Porton Down ended its work on tryptamines 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 research 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. Our records do not indicate precisely how many small laboratory animals were used in this work but they are likely to have involved rats, mice, rabbits and monkeys. The work involving tryptamines ceased in the mid 1960s and the results of this work was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation 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 work the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has done to assess the threat of genetically engineered toxins; what was the conclusion of the work; which toxins have been studied; what tests and studies have been involved in this work; which section of the establishment has been carrying out the work; whether the results have been published in open literature; and whether the results have been exchanged with any other country.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down has done to assess the threat of genetically-engineered toxins; what was the conclusion of the work; which toxins have been studied; what tests and studies have been involved in this work; which section of the Establishment has been carrying out the work; whether the results have been published in open literature; and whether the results have been exchanged with any other country 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 research 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. Theoretical reviews have been carried out to evaluate the threat from genetically engineered toxins by the Defence Microbiology Division in conjunction with appropriate sections of the Establishment. The results are classified and have not been published in the open literature. In addition genetic engineering has been used as a tool in work to study medical countermeasures to toxins by, for example, detoxifying toxins in order to produce safer vaccines. This work was part of the chemical and biological defence programme and would therefore be part of the technical database drawn upon in collaboration with the United States, Australia and Canada under the Technical Co-operation 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, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), on 11 January,Official Report, columns 163–64, what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GD during the years outlined at Nancekuke; what was the conclusion of this research; what quantities of the nerve agent were used in this research; with which other countries the results of this research were shared and under which defence agreement this occurred.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Brent East on 11th January, Official Report, columns 163–64, what was the purpose of research on the nerve agent GD during the years outlined at Nancekuke; what was the conclusion of this research, what quantities of the nerve agent was used in this research; with which other countries the results of this research were shared and under which defence agreement this occurred 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 research 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 Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out work on the nerve agent GD to evaluate the feasibility and hazard of the use of such an agent against the UK Armed Forces. The work enabled assessments to be made of the ease of acquisition of the precursors for GD, the case of stabilisation of GD and the shelf life of thickened GD. The quantity used was about 60 kg. 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 Co-operation 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 (1) when female service personnel have taken part in tests under the human volunteer programme at Porton Down;

(2) how many service personnel have died while taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths;

(3) how many service personnel have been involved in accidents requiring hospital treatment while or after taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Warfare Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each accident occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each accident; and what was the establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such accidents.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many service personnel have been involved in accidents requiring hospital treatment while or after taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each accident occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each accident; and what was the Establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such accidents, how many service personnel have died while taking part in the human volunteer programme run by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1964; in which year each death occurred; what were the causes and circumstances of each death; and what was the Establishment's response in terms of changing procedures to prevent such deaths and when female service personnel have taken part in tests under the human volunteer programme at Porton Down have 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 United Kingdom 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. Our records indicate that no Service personnel since 1964 have been involved in accidents requiring hospital treatment or have died while or after taking part in the human volunteer programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. Female Service personnel have been invited to participate in the human volunteer programme since May 1972 and first participated in the volunteer programme in November 1972.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work Porton Down has carried out to assess substituted hydroxylamines and hydrazines as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of this work; which and how many animals were involved in this work; if the tests involved humans; with which other countries the results of the work were shared; when this information was shared; and under which defence agreement these results were exchanged.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what work Porton Down has carried out to assess substituted hydroxylamines and hydrazines as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of this work; which and how many animals were involved in this work; if the tests involved humans; with which other countries the results of the work were shared; when this information was shared; and under which defence agreement these 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 carry out research 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. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment to assess substituted and unsubstituted hydroxylamines and hydrazines as incapacitating agents.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) of 11 January,Official Report, column 160, where the results of the work on pyrroles were published in open literature.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Brent East on 11th January, Official Report, column 160, where the results of the work on pyrroles were published in open literature 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 research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Froces 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. Our records indicate that the results of the work on pyrroles carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has not been published in the open literature.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 11 January,Official Report, column 167, why Australia requested each of the agents and materials from Britain; from which British military establishment each was transferred; to which Australian establishment each was transferred; how each was transported and what safety precautions were required; and what was the nature of the V agent and G agent intermediates.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East on 11 January, Official Report, column 167, why Australia requested each of the agents and materials from Britain; from which British military establishment each was transferred; to which Australian establishment each was transferred; how each was transported and what safety precautions were required; and what was the nature of the V agent and G agent intermediates 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 research 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 V agent intermediate was methyphosphonodichloride and the G agent intermediate was Di-Di which is a mixture of methylphosphonic difluoride and methylphosphonic dichloride. These were transferred from the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke. Our records do not indicate why Australia requested the agents and materials from Britain or how they were transported to Australia. They were, however, transported to London, suitably packaged in accordance with the safety standards applicable at that time, for onward transportation to Australia.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) of 11 January,Official Report, columns 164–65, what work Porton Down has also done on assessing the hazard of tremorines; when this work started and ended, what was the conclusion of the work; where were the conclusions published; and with which other countries the results of the work were shared and when this information was exchanged.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24th June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Brent East of 11th January, Official Report, column 164–5, what work Porton Down has also done on assessing the hazard of tremorines; when this work started and ended, what was the conclusion of the work; where were the conclusions published; and with which other countries the results of the work were shared and when this information was 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 have 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 have available small quantities of materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor. 3. In my reply of 11 January I advised the honourable Member for Brent East that the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment had carried out work on oxo-tremorine. Our records indicate that we have not carried out work on tremorines as such although pyrroles are substituted tremorines and my answers of 11 January 1994, Official Report, column 160 and 19 July 1993, Official Report, column 82 relate to pyrroles.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research projects relating to genetic engineering have been funded in universities and polytechnics by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1979; what are the titles of these projects and what was the duration and value of each project.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many research projects relating to genetic engineering have been funded in universities and polytechnics by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1979, what are the titles of these projects and what was the duration and value of each project has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. A total of seven research projects relating to genetic engineering have been funded in universities and polytechnics by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1979. The details are as follows:

Title Duration
Gene probes for flaviruses 3 years
Plasmid stability in bacillus 3 years
Genetic control of translational fidelity in yeast 3 years
Eukaryotic expression vectors 3½ years
Mapping of bacterial proteins 4 years
Bacillus brevis for biosynthesis of heterogeneous proteins 3 years

3. The total value of these contracts was £1,059K; it is not our normal practice to reveal the value of individual contracts as the disclosure of the value is left to the individual universities and polytechnics to make as they feel appropriate.
Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which years Porton Down has tested(a) CR gas and (b) CS gas on service personnel in the human volunteer programme; what was the purpose of these tests; how the gas was administered to the volunteers in both cases; what was the conclusion of these tests for each of the gases; how many service volunteers were tested with each of the gases; and where the results of these tests are published in open literature.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are 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 Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking in which years Porton Down has tested (a) CR gas and (b) CS gas on service personnel in the human volunteer programme; what was the purpose of these tests; how the gas was administered to the volunteers in both cases; what was the conclusions of these tests for each of the gases; how many service volunteers were tested with each of the gases; and where the results of these tests are published in open literature 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 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:

  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. Our records indicate that 460 Service volunteers were exposed to the irritant CS during the period 1959–1973 and 190 Service volunteers were exposed to CR during the period 1963–1976. 4. The purpose was to carry out skin and eye sensitivity tests, food palatability tests, physiological tests to determine the effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems and exercise testing to determine the degree of incapacitation following exposure. The CS and CR was administered in controlled amounts in an exposure chamber or to the skin in the form of a solution. 5. Our records indicate that the results of the human volunteer programme involving CS and CR have been published in the open literature as listed in the Annex.

Open Literature Publications

  • The presentation and management of individuals contaminated with solutions of dibenzoxazepine (CR).
  • Ballantyne, B., Beswick, F. W. and Price Thomas, D.
  • Medicine, Science and the Law, 13, No. 4, October 1973.
  • The cutaneous reactions produced by dibenzoxazepine (CR).
  • Holland, P.
  • Brit. J. Derm (1974), 90, 657–659.

Effects on man of whole body drenches with dilute solutions of c-chlorobenzilidene malononitrile (CS) and dibenzoxazepine (CR).

  • Ballantyne B, Gazzard M. F., Swanston D. W. and Williams P. Arch. Toxicol 34 183–201 (1975).
  • Riot control agents. Biomedical and health aspects of the use of chemicals in civil disturbances.
  • Ballantyne B.
  • Medical annual 1977.
  • Report of the enquiry into the Medical and Toxicological aspects of CS orthochlorobenzylidene malononitrile. Part I. Enquiry into the medical situation following the use of CS in Londonderry on 13th and 14th August 1969.
  • Himsworth Committee. October 1969. HMSO Cmnd 4173.
  • Report of the enquiry into the Medical and Toxicological aspects of CS, Part II. Enquiry into Toxicological aspects of CS and its uses for civil purposes.
  • Himsworth Committee. September 1971. HMSO Cmnd 4775.
    • 382
  • The effect of CS aerosol upon exercise, ventilation and cardiac frequency in healthy men.
  • Cotes J. E., Evans L. R., Johnson G., Martin H. de V. and Reed J. W.
  • J. Physiol, 222, 77–78, 1972.
  • Effect of CS aerosol upon Lung Gas Transfer and Alveolar Volume in Healthy Men.
  • Cotes J. E., Dabbs J. H., Evans M. R. and Holland P.
  • Q.JI. exp Physiol. (1972), 57, 199–206.
  • The cutaneous reactions produced by o-chlorobenzylidene malononitrile and w-chloracetonphenone when applied directly to the skin of human subjects.
  • Holland P., and White R. G.
  • Br J. Derm (1972), 86, 150.
  • The palatability of food exposed to o-chlorobenzylidene malononitirile (CS).
  • Kemp, K. H. and Wilder W. B.
  • Medicine, Science and the Law, 12 No. 2, April 1972

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what work Porton Down has carried out to assess benzimidazoles as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of the work; which and how many animals were tested during this work; how many service volunteers were tested; and where the results of the work were published in open literature.

Mr. Hanley

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

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what work Porton Down has carried out to assess benzimidazoles as an incapacitating agent; when this work started and ended; what was the conclusion of the work; which and how many animals were tested during this work; how many service volunteers were tested; and where the results of the work were published in open literature 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 have 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 have available small quantities of materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor. 3. We have no record of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment having carried out work on benzimidazoles as an incapacitating agent.

Mr. Cohen

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the numbers of staff and budget of the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has increased or decreased since the division was set up;

(2) what publications have been published by scientists in the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1986; in which scientific journals they were published; and on what date they were published;

(3) what are the current priorities of the defence microbiology division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

Mr. Hanley

These matters are for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member. There is also an annex listing research publications by scientists in the defence microbiology division, which will be placed in the Library.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 24 June 1994: 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what are the current priorities of the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, whether the numbers of staff and budget of the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has increased or decreased since the division was set up, what publications have been published by scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1986; in which scientific journals they were published; and on what date they were published have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down is to carry out work on defence against pathogenic micro-organisms and toxins that are assessed to present a threat to the United Kingdom Armed Forces. The work of this division contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence which is aimed at ensuring that the United Kingdom Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. 3. The current priorities of the Defence Microbiology Division are to investigate technologies for the rapid detection and identification of biological warfare agents and to investigate medical countermeasures against their use. 4. Since its establishment in 1979 the numbers of staff and budget of the Defence Microbiology Division have increased. Our records indicate that the research publications by scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division since 1986 are listed in the Annex.

Back to