HC Deb 25 July 2000 vol 354 cc547-50W
Mr. Matthew Taylor

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 434W, on Porton Down, if it is the assessment of the Chemical Defence Establishment that the nerve agent GF is more toxic to humans than sarin (GB). [130528]

Dr. Moonie

This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

years; to which companies; how many of those employees are still employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [130380]

Dr. Moonie

Details of Senior Civil Servants in my Department who have undertaken secondments to companies in the defence sector over the last five years are contained in the table. Of the ten individuals, three are no longer employed by the MOD and one is currently on loan to another Government Department. Encouraging interchange with the private sector has been the policy of successive governments.

Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 July 2000: I am replying to your parliamentary question about the relative toxicity of nerve agents since the laboratories at Porton Down are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. The relative potency of the nerve agents GB and GF depends on the route of entry of nerve agent into the body, the conditions in which the exposure occurs and the toxicological end point chosen. It is not our policy, or that of the Ministry of Defence, to publish our assessment of the human toxicology of potential chemical warfare agents because to do so could aid proliferation. I am, therefore, withholding this information under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 435W, on Porton Down, for what reasons the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has compiled since 1970 an alphabetical list of individuals who took part in the service volunteer programme; and when this list was compiled. [130529]

Dr. Moonie

This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 July 2000: I am replying to your parliamentary question about information relating to the service volunteer programme at Porton Down since the Porton Down laboratories are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). Alphabetical lists of those attending DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector and its predecessor organisations at Porton Down as volunteers have been maintained since about 1940 in order to provide a record of participants in the service volunteer programme. The lists contain the name and service number of the volunteers and their dates of attendance at Porton Down. I hope this is helpful.

Mr. Matthew Taylor

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 435W, on Porton Down, if he will list the dates on which the Health and Safety Executive visited the Porton Down site between 1996 and 2000 in order to discuss specific issues. [130530]

Dr. Moonie

This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 25 July 2000: I am replying to your parliamentary question about visits made by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to Porton Down since the laboratories at Porton Down are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). As I explained previously, there have been two formal inspections since January 1996 during February 1996 and May 2000. HSE staff also visit the site either to seek our advice because of our expertise in specific areas or to discuss various aspects of our own operations at Porton Down. These visits occur relatively frequently and are arranged at all levels in the organisation. It is therefore not possible to provide dates as records of these visits are not kept centrally. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

Mr. Salmond

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people in the UK served at(a) Porton Down and (b) other chemical and biological warfare establishments; how many of these are suffering illnesses that they claim are attributable to exposure to chemical and biological warfare experiments; how many are in receipt of pensions for these illnesses; how many of these are in Scotland; and what the total expenditure is on these in Scotland. [131590]

Dr. Moonie

This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Sir John Chisholm to Mr. Alex Salmond, dated 25 July 2000: I am replying to your question about CBW experiments as the Chemical and Biological Defence sector at Porton Down is now part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Since 1916, establishments based at Porton Down have been involved in the research and development that has underpinned the UK's chemical and biological defence capability. Throughout Porton Down's history, volunteers from the services have been a vital part of the research programme. Over 20,000 individuals have participated in projects aimed at developing protection against and treatment for the effect of chemical and biological agents. The majority have had no complaint about their attendance at Porton Down. We are, however, aware that there are some former volunteers who believe that they have suffered ill-health as a result of the trials in which they took part. I am afraid we are unable to provide the exact number of complainants as they have made their representations through a number of different channels. Since 1 March 1998, we have responded to 42 enquiries from the War Pensions Agency concerning claims arising from taking part in the service volunteer programme at Porton Down. In each case, we have provided information about the particular trials in which an individual participated but we have not been informed whether these claims have been successful. We are, therefore, unable to answer your specific questions about the number of pensions and expenditure on them in Scotland. We are not aware of any other establishments in the UK that have carried out chemical and biological defence research involving service volunteers. I hope this explains the position.