House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Feb 1993

Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if she will publish a table showing, for Greater London, the numbers of people employed in September of each year since 1988 in the finance and business services sector ; and what separate figures she has for the numbers employed in banking, credit granting institutions, insurance, accountancy and management consultancy, legal services, software services, property services, and international and equity markets.

Mr. McLoughlin : Estimates for the finance and business services sector for all the dates specified are available from the NOMIS database in the Library. Estimates for software services and international and equity markets are not available. The other industries listed are available from NOMIS, for September 1988 and September 1989. Figures for all the industries specified will be available when the September 1991 census of employment results are published in April.

Biofuel Industry

Mr. Alex Carlile : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the United Kingdom are currently employed in the biofuel industry.

Mr. McLoughlin : There are no figures available. The biofuel industry has been interpreted to mean the production of liquid transport fuels from biomass crops--such as rapeseed oil.

Column 58

DEFENCE

Trident

Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implication of the START II treaty on the price and specifications of Trident missiles purchased from the United States of America.

Mr. Aitken : The START II treaty has no such implications.

Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether Trident missile service units are designed for removing nuclear warheads from missiles on board Trident submarines ;

(2) if he will make a statement on the function of Trident missile service units ;

(3) how many Trident missile service units have been ordered from Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. for service at RNAD Coulport.

Mr. Aitken : The Trident missile service unit is designed to provide an environmentally controlled working area for the removal and installation of nuclear warheads from Trident missiles on-board Vanguard class submarines. Three missile service units have been ordered.

Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether it is intended to remove nuclear warheads from Trident missiles on land or while on board Trident submarines ;

(2) if he will make a statement on the procedures to be used for loading and unloading nuclear warheads on to and from Trident missiles and the hazards associated with these procedures.

Mr. Aitken : Installation and removal of United Kingdom nuclear warheads is planned to take place only when Trident missiles are on-board Vanguard class submarines. We envisage that United Kingdom procedures to install and remove warheads will mirror approved United States practice ; the United Kingdom safety assessment is expected to endorse these procedures.

Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to include within the terms of reference of the new examination of the bids by Rosyth and Devonport for repair and refitting of Trident

Column 59

submarines the matters of direct revenue and capital costs, and local social and economic factors in each area as well as technical capability ; if he will arrange for an element of scrutiny independent from the officers of his Department directly involved ; and if he will publish the detailed assessment and report on the comparative bids.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : All relevant factors will be taken into account in our considerations, which continue to draw on a wide range of expertise including that of specialist consultants. Once we have formulated proposals these will be announced to the House, and we will release as much information as possible, subject to the constraints of commercial confidentiality and security.

Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many technical projects at his Department's chemical and biological establishment at Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defence since 1963 ; what has been the total worth of these projects ; and what were the aims of these projects ; (2) how many personnel from the United States Department of Defence have been stationed on a permanent basis at the Ministry of Defence's chemical and biological warfare establishment since 1963 ; and for what purpose and under which specific defence agreement these postings were arranged.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : These are matters for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993 :

Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many technical projects at his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defense since 1963 ; what has been the total worth of these projects ; and what were the aims of these projects (Question 8, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and what funding the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment will receive from the United States Department of Defense for research in the near future (Question 24, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

I would refer you to my letter of 16 July 1992 in reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many research projects at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down have been funded by the United States Department of Defense since 1979 and their total worth (Question 24, Order Paper 15 July 1992) in which I said that there have been no research projects at CDDE Porton Down directly funded by the United States Department of Defense. I also said that CBDE had recently been tasked to carry out work under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Strategic Defence Initiative which is being funded by the US Department of Defense through the SDI Participation Office in London. The value of that work at CBDE in the current financial year is £1.59M. Since my letter to you of 16 July 1992, we have been awarded a contract from the United States Department of Defense to support the UK programme in aid of a NATO Project Group tasked with selecting a commercially available anti-emetic drug to protect servicemen against nuclear radiation induced nausea and vomiting. The value of this work is £250K.

Column 60

The aims of these projects are as follows :

(a The work in support of the Strategic Defence Initiative is to improve the effectiveness of such defences against the threat of chemical or biological weapons.

(b The anti-emetic work is to improve the protection of servicemen against nuclear radiation induced nausea and vomiting. Insofar as the future is concerned, it is not possible to estimate what future funding this Establishment will receive from the US Department of Defense as the annual defence budget in the United States is subject to extensive review and the outcome depends on the US Government and Congressional reviews of the budget.

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) under which defence agreement information from the defence microbiology division of the chemical and biological defence establishment has been exchanged with the United States of America ; to which United States governmental establishments this information has been passed ; when this information was first exchanged ; and with which other countries information from the defence microbiology division has been exchanged ;

(2) what is the primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment ; when it was set up ; how many staff are in the division ; and in which publications and on what dates scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division published their research findings during 1991.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993 :

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what is the primary purpose of the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment ; when it was set up ; how many staff are in the Division ; and in which publications and on what date scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division published their research findings during 1991 (Question 26 Order Paper 5 February 1993) and under which defence agreement information from the Defence Microbiology Division of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has been exchanged with the United States of America ; to which United States governmental establishments this information has been passed ; when this information was first exchanged and with which other countries information from the Defence Microbiology Division has been exchanged (Question 10, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to 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 UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

3. The Defence Microbiology Division was set up in 1979 when the Microbiological Research Establishment was transferred to the Public Health Laboratory Service and became the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. At that date, the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down took on the responsibility for biological

Column 61

defence. Currently, the Division has 44 staff. A list of the research publications for scientists in the Defence Microbiology Division in 1991 is as follows :

The monitoring and detection of Bacillus anthracis in the environment. J. Appl. Bacteriol., Special Supplement, 1991 20 : 9S-18S.

Toxicity of Clostridium perfringens alpha-toxin is dependent on a domain homologous to an enzyme from the human arachidonic acid pathway. Infect. Immun. 1991 59 : 1872-1874.

Development of a detection test for Herpesvirus simiae (B virus) using the polymerase chain reaction, patent application GB 9102157.6 1991.

Epitope mapping of the alpha-toxin of Clostridium perfringens. Infect. Immun. 1991. 59 : 4338-4342.

Quantitative and qual-itative analysis of airborne spora. Grana. 1991. 30 : 407-408.

Microorganisms in Aerobiology. Grana. 1991. 30 : 17.

Roles of Maillard Reactions in Diseases. 1991. HMSO Publications. Evaluation of a small-scale method for the extraction of the K88 antigen from Escherichia coli. FEMS Microbiol. Letts. 1991. 78 : 81-84.

Production and characterisation of monoclonal antibodies directed against the lipopolysaccharide of Francisella tularensis. J.Clin. Microbiol. 29 : 1407-1412.

4. Insofar as the exchange of information with the United States of America is concerned, I would refer you to my letter of 10 August 1992 in response to your Parliamentary Question asking under what defence agreement information from the Defence Microbiology Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, is passed to the United States Department of Defence (Question 9, Order Paper 16 July 1992). In that response I referred you to the reply of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Right Honourable Archie Hamilton, MP, of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255-256 which indicated that there are a number of agreements with NATO allies covering research, development, deployment and standardisation of chemical and biological defence equipment. The purpose of these agreements is to exchange information and to promote co-operation and collaboration with our allies in the field of chemical and biological defence. The work of the Defence Microbiological Division at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down contributes to the United Kingdom programme on chemical and biological defence and such information is exchanged with the United States Department of Defence under the agreements listed in the reply of 21 May 1992.

5. The United States Governmental Establishments to which this information has been passed include the following :

a. The United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseas, Fort Detrick, Maryland.

b. The US Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the US Edgewood Development and Engineering Center).

c. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama. In addition, information has been exchanged from time to time with the appropriate US Navy and US Air Force establishments as well as with the Department of Defence in Washington DC. Most of the collaboration and information exchange has taken place with the US Army as they have the lead US responsibility for chemical and biological defence.

. The information from the Defence Microbiology Division has been exchanged since its establishment in 1979. Information from the Defence Microbiology Division has also been exchanged with the other allied nations identified in the reply of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255-256.

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies his Department has conducted on the chemical agents bromacil, monuron and 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid ; when these tests and studies were carried out ; whether they were carried out on

Column 62

humans ; and whether the results of these tests and studies have been passed on to the United States Department of Defence.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : The substances bromacil, monuron and 2,4, 5- trichlorophenoxyacetic are commercially available herbicides and not chemical agents. Our records indicate that no work has been carried out on bromacil or monuron ; 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid was, however, used operationally in Malaya in the 1950s. Details are available on files held by the Public Records Office.

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department produced the nerve agent VX ; where it was produced ; for what purpose ; and in what quantity ;

(2) how the results of the collaborative programme between his Department and the United States Department of Defence on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defence ; in what year these collaborative programmes ended ; and what United States military establishments took part in these programmes.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : These matters are for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993 :

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him when his Department produced the nerve agent VX ; where it was produced ; for what purpose ; and in what quantity (Question 14, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and how the results of the collaborative programmes between his Department and the United States Department of Defense on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defense ; in what year these collaborative programmes ended ; and what United States military establishments took part in these programmes (Question 28, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to 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 have available small quantities of the materials which may be used as chemical or biological warfare agents by a potential aggressor. 3. VX was first synthesised on a laboratory scale in the early 1950s and subsequently produced in appropriate quantities for the research carried out into its toxicological characteristics, thermal stability and analytical research. Synthesis has been carried out at the then Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down and at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Nancekuke, Cornwall.

4. The purpose of producing VX was stated in my letter to you of 10 August 1992 replying to your Parliamentary Question asking in which years the Department of Defence's scientists carried out studies and tests on quantities of VX nerve gas prepared by the United States of America, what was the purpose of these tests and studies and how many British Service personnel have been subjected to tests involving VX nerve gas (Question 26, Order Paper 14 July 1992). As I indicated in that letter, the purpose of the tests and studies of VX, although initially to assist the UK programme into producing nerve agents, was subsequently to evaluate the potential threat to the UK Armed Forces should an aggressor produce and use the nerve agent VX. The UK programme into offensive CW was abandoned in the late 1950s and since

Column 63

then our work has been wholly concerned with the provision of effective protective measures. No studies involving British Service personnel have been carried out using VX nerve agent.

5. In respect of the quantity of the nerve agent VX, I would refer you to my letter of 10 August 1992 in answer to your parliamentary question asking what quantity of VX nerve gas is currently stocked by his Department (Question 12, Order Paper 14 July 1992). In that I stated that small quantities of the nerve agent, VX, are held at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment in order to enable us to carry out our work to ensure that the protective measures for the UK Armed Forces are effective. It would not be in the national interest to disclose the precise quantity of VX nerve gas ; it is, however, a small quantity and is very much less than the aggregate quantity of chemical warfare agents that will be permitted to be held for protective purposes under the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention that opened for signature in Paris on 13-15 January 1993. 6. The way in which the results of the collaborative programmes and information exchnage between the Ministry of Defence and the United States Department of Defence on the thermal stability and analytical research of VX nerve gas were used by the United States Department of Defence is a matter for the United States Government. Insofar as the duration of these collaborative programmes and information exchange is concerned, I would refer you to the reply given by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, MP of 16 July 1992, Official Report, Column 936, which stated that research information had been exchanged on a continuing basis on the potential hazard from chemical and biological agents including VX nerve gas under the agreements listed in the reply of 21 May 1992, Official Repot, Columns 255-256 concerning international agreements on chemical and biological defence.

7. The United States military establishments that took part in this information exchange and collaboration were primarily the US Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center At Edgewood Arsenal, now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the Edgewood Research Development and Engineering Center, and the US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defence also located at Edgewood, Maryland. Most collaboration has taken place with the US Army as they are the US lead agency for chemical and biological defence.

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the lodger units at the chemical defence and biological defence establishment referred to on page 11 of the establishment's latest annual report.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : This is a matter for the chemical and biological defence establishment (CBDE) under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livinstone, dated 15 February 1993.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which are the lodger units at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, referred to on page 11 of the Establishment's latest Annual Report (Question 15, Order Paper 5 February 1993) has been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The lodger units at CBDE referred to on page 11 of the 1991/92 Annual Reports and Accounts were :

a. Hunting Engineering Ltd

b. Royal Ordnance Plc who have now left the site

In addition, receipts are received for services provided to two colocated units at Porton Down.

c. The Department of Health

d. The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many staff from his Department's chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down have been stationed on a permanent basis at United

Column 64

States Department of Defence establishments and for what purpose ; and at which United States Department of Defence establishments they were ;

(2) under which defence agreements the chemical and biological defence establishment arranged the current visit of the United States Navy scientist for a collaborative project to improve detection capabilities ; and from which United States defence establishment this scientist came ;

(3) what funding the chemical and biological defence establishment will receive from the United States Department of Defence for research in the near future.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993 :

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many staff from his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been stationed on a permanent basis at United States Department of Defense Establishments and for what purpose ; and at which United States Department of Defense Establishments they were (Question 16, Order Paper, 5 February 1993), how many personnel from the United States Department of Defense have been stationed on a permanent basis at the Ministry of Defence's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1963 ; and for what purpose and under which specific defence agreements these posting were arranged (Question 31, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and under which defence agreements the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment arranged the current visit of the Unites States Navy scientist for collaborative project to improve detection capabilities ; and from which United States Defense Establishment this came (Question 23, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. Our records do not allow us to readily determine the numbers of staff stationed in the United States or at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment over an extended period. During the past nine years, three members of staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down have been stationed for an extended period at United States Department of Defense Establishments to carry out collaborative work in the field of chemical and biological defence. The United States Department of Defense Establishments were the US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center located at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency and the US Army Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Centre) and the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

3. Over the same period four United States Department of Defense personnel have been stationed for extended periods at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. These attachments have been to carry out collaborative research in chemical and biological defence under the defence agreements identified in the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP of 21 May 1992, Official Report, columns 255-256.

4. The current visit of the United States Navy scientist for a collaborative project to improve the detection capabilities was arranged under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence between the UK, US and Canada pending agreement of a bilateral arrangement with the US Navy. This scientist came from the United States Navy Medical Research and Development Command in Bethesda, Maryland.

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which United States Department of Defence establishments have sent staff on visits to his Department's

Column 65

chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1979 ; under which specific defence agreements these visits have been organised ; and which other United States Government departments and agencies have visited Porton Down during this period ;

(2) how many staff from the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down have visited United States Department of Defence establishments in each year since 1979 ; what was the purpose of these visits ; which United States Department of Defence establishments they visited ; which grade were the staff ; and whether the visits included academic working for his Department.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 15 February 1993 :

1. Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking which United States Department of Defense Establishments have sent staff on visits to his Department's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down in each year since 1979 ; under which specific defence agreements these visits have been organised ; and which other United States Government Departments and Agencies have visited Porton Down during this period (Question 20, Order Paper 5 February 1993) and how many staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton have visited United States Department of Defense Establishments in each year since 1979 ; what was the purpose of these visits ; which United States Department of Defense Establishments they visited ; which grade were the staff ; and whether the visits included academics working for his Department (Question 37, Order Paper 5 February 1993) have been passed to me to reply to as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The principal United States Department of Defense Establishments which have sent staff on visits to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down are :

a. The US Army Chemical Research, Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency and the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center).

b. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

c. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defense at Edgewood, Maryland.

d. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama. e. The Department of Defense at the Pentagon.

3. In addition, representatives occasionally visit the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment from the US Navy, US Air Force and other Defense Establishments. Most visits are made by representatives fro the Department of Defense in Washington DC and from the US Army Establishments as the US Army have the lead responsibility in the US for chemical and biological defense.

4. The specific defence agreements under which these visits have been organised are those referred to in the reply by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, The Rt. Hon. Archie Hamilton, MP, of 21 May 1992, Official Report, Columns 255-256. Occasionally visits are made to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment by other representatives of the United States Government from time to time. These include the State Department and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

5. In respect of visits by staff from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down to the United States Department of Defence Establishments, we do not maintain records in a way that enables us to identify how many staff have visited United States Department of Defence

Column 66

Establishments in each year since 1979. In the last five years the following are the number of CBDE personnel who have visited the United States of America on official duty :


        |Number       

----------------------

1988-89 |36           

1989-90 |35           

1990-91 |40           

1991-92 |56           

1992-93 |56

6. The purpose of these visits was to promote information exchange and collaboration between the United Kingdom and the United States and on occasion to attend international conferences held in the United States. The principal United States Department of Defence Establishments visited are the following :

a. The US Army Chemial Research, Development and Engineering Center at Edgewood, Maryland (now known as the US Army Chemical and Biological Defence Agency and the Edgewood Research, Development and Engineering Center).

b. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease at Fort Detrick.

c. The US Army Medical Research Institute for Chemical Defence at Edgewood, Maryland.

d. The US Army Chemical School at Fort McClellan, Alabama. e. The Department of Defence at the Pentagon, Washington DC. In addition other US Navy, US Air Force, US Army and Department of Defence Establishments are visited. Most visits are to US Army Establishments as the US Army has lead responsibility in the US for chemical and biological defence. The grade of staff ranged from Senior Scientific Officer up to Grade 3. Visits very occasionally have included academics working for the Department but this is exceptional.

Next Section

Home Page