HL Deb 26 October 1994 vol 558 cc38-9WA
The Countess of Mar

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In view of the statement made by Dr. Graham Pearson of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment [WA 78–79, 26th July 1994] that, although NAIADs (Nerve Agent Immobilised Enzyme Alarm and Detector), "like all other chemical warfare agent detectors, can respond to substances other than chemical warfare agents, it is important to recognise that these other substances are very unlikely to be present on the battlefield in concentrations sufficient to produce an alarm", why troops were told that the alarms which sounded on the night of 20th/21st January 1991 during Operation Granby were activated by aircraft fumes, when NAIAD alarms and two RVD (Residual Vapour Detector) tests confirmed the presence of the toxic chemicals NAIADS are designed to detect.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley)

Responsibility for the subject of this question is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. The Director General of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has therefore responded to the question and his letter is given below.

Letter to the Countess of Mar from Dr Graham Pearson, Director General of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, dated 26 October 1994.

  1. 1. Your Parliamentary Question asking Her Majesty's Government in view of the statement made by Dr Graham Pearson of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment [WA 78–79. 26th July 1994], that although NAIADs (Nerve Agent Immobilised Enzyme Alarm and Detector), "like all other chemical warfare agent detectors, can respond to substances other than chemical warfare agents, it is important to recognise that these other substances are very unlikely to be present on the battlefield in concentrations sufficient to produce an alarm", why troops were told that the alarms which sounded on the night of 20/21 January 1991, during Operation Granby, were activated by aircraft fumes, when NAIAD alarms and two RVD (Residual Vapour Detector) tests confirmed the presence of the toxic chemicals NAIADs are designed to detect [12 October] has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.
  2. 2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the British Armed Forces have the most effective protective measures possible against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.
    3. WA 39
  3. 3. As I indicated in my previous answer to you of 26 July 1994, we are aware that chemical warfare agent detectors can respond to substances other than chemical warfare agents or if incorrect drills are used. The drills and training of the British Armed Forces are designed to ensure that should there be an alarm then protection is first donned whilst a judgment is being made at the next higher level of command as to whether chemical warfare agents have indeed been used and caused the alarm.
  4. 4. The event to which you refer on the night of 20/21 January 1991 is entirely consistent with the occasional transient false alarms that arose during Operation Granby. In addition, there has been no evidence to suggest that chemical warfare agent was used at any stage by Iraq during Operation Granby. The equipment provided to the British Armed Forces to detect and monitor chemical warfare agents, when used in accordance with their drills and training, is highly effective and is second to none.