House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Jul 1993

Column 713

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 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 Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out research on Coxiella Burnettii, the causative agent of Q-Fever. This work was carried out in the late 1980s and has been directed at the development of identification techniques for the organism based on gene probe and antibody technologies. The results of this work have formed part of the programme of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment which is the subject of collaboration with the United States, Canada and Australia under The Technical Cooperation Programme and with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him if all research carried out by the Ministry of Defence's Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down into LSD was conducted within the establishment itself (Question 30, Order Paper 8 July 1993) 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 United Kingdom 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 majority of the work at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment into the evaluation of the potential hazard of possible chemical and biological warfare agents is carried out within the Establishment. Extramural research contracts are placed with universities and other higher education institutes and industry when these outside bodies have an appropriate expertise that is not available within the Establishment and which compliments the expertise of the Establishment.

4. Insofar as the research into LSD is concerned, most of this work was carried out within the Establishment. Some complementary research was carried out in a university under extramural research contract to the Establishment.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what factors led to the signing of the 1980 memorandum of understanding between the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada on chemical and biological defence, as referred to in his Answer of 21 May 1992, Official Report, column 255 (Question 31, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

3. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was signed in 1972 and entered into force in 1975. As it was then perceived that the threat from biological weapons had reduced, steps were taken in both the United Kingdom and the United States to reduce their biological defence programmes. There was also a reduction in chemical defence work in the 1970s.

4. As a consequence, it was recognised in both the United Kingdom and the United States that there would be mutual benefits from close collaboration in the fields of chemical and biological defence. Consequently, the Memorandum of Understanding was drawn up between the United Kingdom and the United States together with Canada and signed in

Column 714

1980 with the objective of integrating the chemical and biological defence programmes of the three countries to the maximum possible extent.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 162, when the two memoranda of understanding referred to in the answer were signed ; how many other memoranda of understanding relating to chemical and biological defence Britain has signed with Australia since 1963 ; and what they were about (Question 32, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. 2. The Memorandum of Agreement between the UK and Australia relating to a joint programme of research, investigation and material testing at the Joint Tropical Trials Research Establishment (JTTRE) was signed in October 1977 and this superseded the Joint Tropical Research Unit Memorandum of Understanding signed in December 1970 which in turn replaced an earlier Memorandum of Understanding in 1962 setting up the Joint Tropical Research Unit.

3. There have been three other agreements with Australia relating to chemical and biological defence since 1963 :

(a) The Technical Cooperation Programme set up in 1958 under which chemical and biological defence was addresed in Sub Group E which was created in 1967. Australia joined The Technical Cooperation Programme in 1965 and information on research into chemical and biological defence has been exchanged with Australia under this agreement since Sub Group E was created in 1967.

(b) The United Kingdom-United States-Canada-Australia American British Canadian Australian (ABCA) Armies agreed The Basic Standardisation Agreement in 1964 with the aims of ensuring the fullest cooperation and collaboration between the Armies, the highest possible degree of interoperability through standardisation and the greatest possible economy through the use of combined resources and effort. This includes a group known as the Quadripartite Working panel on NBC defence.

(c) The United Kingdom United States and Canada Air Standization Coordinating Committee (ASCC) was extended to include Australia in 1964 ; the ASCC has a working party addressing CB defence. 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 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 164, if he will list the location, dates and participating countries at each of the subsequent tripartite conferences on toxicological warfare until the present day ; and if he will outline the recommendations and conclusions of each of these conferences (Question 34, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The locations, dates and participating countries at each of the subsequent tripartite conference on toxicological warfare until the present day are as follows :

(a) Fifteenth Conference held in the United Kingdom in 1960 and attended by representatives of Canada, United Kingdom and United States.

(b) Sixteenth Conference held in Canada in 1962 and attended by representatives of Canada, United Kingdom and United States. (

(c) Seventeenth Conference held in the USA in 1964 and attended by representatives of Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States.

3. In 1965 the America, British, Canadian and Australian (ABCA) Armies Group reviewed the effectiveness of these toxicological conferences. This led to their being subsumed into the Technical Cooperation Programme under which Sub Group E on Chemical and Biological Defence was created in 1967.

4. It is not practicable to outline the recommendations and conclusions of each of these conferences as these were the subject of trinational and, in the 17th meeting quadrinational

Column 715

agreement. It would be necessary to seek the agreement of all the countries concerned to the release of the recommendations and conclusions of these conferences.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him which British scientific research institutions have received stocks of toxins and biological agents from the United States of America Department of Defense since 1979 ; which toxins and biological agents have been transferred and when ; which United States Department of Defense establishments have supplied these toxins and biological agents ; under which defence agreements these toxins and biological agents were transferred ; and for what purpose on each occasion (Question 36, Order Paper 8 July 1993) 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 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. It is not possible for us to comment on what toxins and biological agents may have been received by other British scientific research institutions from the United States of America Department of Defense since 1979. This reply is necessarily limited to the Ministry of Defence scientific research institutions.

4. The quantities involved are very small and in no way could be regarded as stocks of agent. Small quantities of the following toxins and micro- organisms which might be used by a potential aggressor as biological agents have been provided :

(a) Shellfish toxin (saxitoxin) from the then US Army Chemical Research and Development Center in 1982

(b) Clostridium perfringens betatoxin from the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in 1992.

(c) Bacillus anthracis strains from the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in 1985. The strains received did not contain the toxin plasmid and are regarded as attenuated strains.

5. In addition other materials including some vaccines and simulants have been transferred which are neither toxins or biological agents. All the materials transferred have been to support collaboration into the provision of effective protective measures. 6. These materials have been supplied under The Technical Cooperation Programme and under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him on what dates, and in which publications, scientists on extramural research projects funded by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, published their findings in 1991, as referred to on page 15 of the Establishment's annual report 1991-92 (Question 39, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. It is not the practice of the Ministry of Defence on both national and personal security grounds to identify links between the Ministry of Defence and the contractors engaged on extramural research. It is left to the individual contractors to decide whether or not to disclose their contracts with the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him for what reasons the Ministry of Defence delayed dismantling its nerve gas agent plant at Nancekuke, Cornwall after the Ministry had decided to decommission the plant ; what tasks were carried out at the site in the intervening years between the decommissioning and dismantling ; and if these tasks were connected to the United Kingdom's chemical and biological defence programme

Column 716

(Question 41, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. Work on the pilot scale nerve agent plant at Nancekuke was completed and the plant decontaminated in January 1956 before the decision was taken to decommission the plant later in that year. The plant was partially dissembled to allow other work to be carried out on the site. This other work included tasks related to the chemical and biological defence programme such as the manufacture of a dye for detector paper, a chemical needed to produce P2S, which is an ingredient in medical countermeasures against nerve agents, as well as research work aimed at determining whether other nerve agents presented a hazard to British Armed Forces.

3. The plant was not finally dismantled until the closure of Nancekuke in the late 1970s because of the absence until then of the necessary resources as great care was taken to avoid any hazard to the staff involved in the dismantling work and to ensure that any toxic chemicals were safely disposed of.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him, pursuant to his Answer of 1 December 1992, Official Report, column 164, if he will publish the official name and details of the informal agreement under which the 15th Tripartite Conference on Toxicological Warfare was organised ; and if this agreement still exists (Question 44, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Exeuctive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The 15th Tripartite Conference on Toxicological Warfare had its origins in informal agreements of 1946 which in turn had their roots in World War II allied cooperation between the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Whilst the agreement which led to the Toxicological Warfare conferences no longer exists, its spirit continues in respect of the cooperation between United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand under the Technical Cooperation Programme in the activities under Sub Group E on Chemical and Biological Defence. This transition from the Tripartite and eventually Quadripartite Conferences occurred in the mid 1960s. 1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many members of the 1985 Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island have since been on scientific advisory committees serving the Ministry of Defence or the Porton Down chemical and biological warfare establishment. (Question 47, Order Paper 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island was established by the then Chief Scientific Adviser of the Ministry of Defence writing to the President of the Royal Society to invite him to nominate a Chairman for the Independent Advisory Group. The Chairman of the Advisory Group then decided who he wished to have on his Advisory Group and he chose its membership which included a representative from the Scottish Home and Health Department. At the time of their appointment, none of the members of the Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island were on or had been on scientific advisory committees to the Ministry of Defence or to the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.

3. The Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island carried out its work during the period 1985 to 1989 which resulted in Gruinard Island being returned to its original owners in May 1990. Since becoming members of the Independent Advisory Group on Gruinard Island, one member of the Group has served as a member of the Chemical and Biological Defence Board of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council and subsequently as a member of the Defence Scientific Advisory Council.

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what experiments his Department has carried out on the chemical agent B staphylococcal enterotoxin ; when and where these tests and studies were carried out ; for what purpose ; when the results of these experiments were first exchanged with the United States of America, Canada and Australia ; and if this exchange occurred under the arrangements of the Technical

Column 717

Co-operation Programme (Question 48, Order Paper, 8 July 1993) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

3. Staphylococcal enterotoxin B is a potent toxin produced by the bacterium staphylococcus aureus. The toxin causes vomiting and diarrhoea and is known to be highly active when delivered by the aerosol route and for these reasons, the toxin is considered to be a potential biological agent which might be used against the United Kingdom Armed Forces.

4. The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment has carried out studies on staphylococcal enterotoxin B to assess the potential hazard to the United Kingdom Armed Forces and to devise effective protective measures such as detection and medical countermeasures against this toxin. The results of this work have been exchanged with the United States, Canada and Australia under the Technical Co-operation Programme since 1979 and also with the United States and Canada under the Memorandum of Understanding on Chemical and Biological Defence since 1980.

Defence Scientific Advisory Council

Mr. Livingstone : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name all the chairmen and chairwomen of the Defence Scientific Advisory Board since 1984.

Mr. Aitken : I assume that the hon. Member refers to the Defence Scientic Advisory Council. Its chairmen since 1984 have been : 1981 1984 Mr. P. E. Trier

1985 1991 Professor Sir J. I. G. Cadogan

1991 present Professor D. E. N. Davies

Army Recruitment

Mr. Hutton : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department expects to implement plans for gender-free physical testing for recruitment to the Army.

Mr. Hanley : It is currently planned to introduce gender-free testing of Army recruits in April 1995.

Royal Family

Mr. Tony Banks : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of expenditure in support of the royal family in respect of (a) the Royal Yacht, (b) the Queen's Flight, (c) royal flights in civil aircraft and (d) equerries for the 1992-93 financial year.

Mr. Hanley : Expenditure in 1993-93 was as follows :


<

                                    |£ thousands            

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

(a) Royal Yacht                     |8,361                  

(b) Queen's Flight                  |7,590                  

(c) Royal flights in civil aircraft |9                      

(d) Equerries                       |170                    

Note: The figure for The Queen's Flight is a total          

operating cost. The flight is not exclusively used by the   

Royal Family, but it is not possible to allocate            

expenditure to users without disproportionate cost.

Column 718

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 July Official Report , column 629, what is the proposed United Kingdom contribution to the 1994 budget for the preparatory commission for the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons ; and how much will be charged to the estimates for 1993-94.

Mr. Hanley : The executive secretary intends to present his 1994 budget at the September plenary session of the preparatory commission of the chemical weapons convention. Until then it is not possible to give accurate assessments of the United Kingdom contribution and of how much will be charged to the estimates for 1993-94.

Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a full disclosure of the details of Britain's past chemical warfare activities, under the terms of the chemical weapons convention.

Mr. Hanley : After United Kingdom ratification and the convention has entered into force.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Wareing : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has of the existence of (a) Serbian and (b) Croatian regular forces in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Mr. Hanley : We are aware of media reports claiming the presence of Serbian and Croatian regular forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Any information gathered by UNPROFOR troops about force composition would be passed through the United Nations chain of command, ultimately to the Security Council. As a member of the Security Council, the United Kingdom receives information reported by UNPROFOR.

Military Tasks

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide more detailed information on the estimated costs of the individual force elements allocated to military tasks, as described in Cm. 2270, page 23.

Mr. Hanley : There are no plans to publish detailed information on the estimated costs of force elements.

Tornado

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role Tornado F3 aircraft and regular infantry batallions have in the provision of a strategic and substrategic nuclear capability.

Mr. Hanley : Tornado F3 aircraft are required as part of the forces necessary to safeguard the deployment of the deterrent. Regular infantry battalions are required as part of the forces necessary to safeguard the physical security of nuclear assets and the command and control infrastructure. In both cases, the units involved are normally available to carry out other tasks in peacetime.

Surface-to-Air Missiles

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what sea -launched medium-range surface-to-air missile capability is currently operational.

Column 719

Mr. Hanley : RN carriers and anti-air warfare destroyers are currently armed with the Seadart medium-range surface-to-air missile system.

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what ground-launched medium-range surface-to-air missile capability is currently operational.

Mr. Hanley : There is no ground-launched medium-range surface-to-air missile currently in operational service with United Kingdom Forces. RAF Tornado F3 aircraft provide the United Kingdom with a medium-range air defence capability, and these are supplemented by Royal Navy destroyers and Sea Harriers. A shorter range ground-launched surface-to-air missile capability is provided by the Rapier and Javelin air defence systems.

Queen's Flight

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration he has given to the procurement of new aircraft for the Queen's flight.

Mr. Hanley : There are no current plans to procure new aircraft for the Queen's flight.

Diego Garcia

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current size of the naval party based at Diego Garcia.

Mr. Hanley : The party consists of three officers and 38 ratings and marines.

Service Units

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether information on the average annual running costs of service units has contributed to the information given in Cm. 2270, page 23.

Mr. Hanley : The estimated force element costs referred to in "Defending Our Future"--Cm. 2270--were derived from a wide range of data sources, including, where available and appropriate, running cost information.

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current average annual running costs of all those units listed in Cm. 2270, page 22, table 3.

Mr. Hanley : Running cost information could be provided for those units listed at page 22 of "Defending Our Future" only at disproportionate cost. Information on running costs for each top-level Budget is set out in the supply estimates--Cm. 495-1.

Rapid Reaction Corps

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts concerning the future use of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps in United Nations military operations.

Mr. Hanley : NATO Defence Ministers agreed at the December 1992 defence planning committee meeting that support for United Nations and CSCE peacekeeping should be included among the missions of NATO forces and headquarters. In principle, therefore, the Allied

Column 720

Command Europe rapid reaction corps would in future be available for such support to the United Nations in common with other NATO formations.

Defence Staff

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the compendium of staff targets and staff requirements, referred to in Cm. 2270, page 73.

Mr. Aitken : We plan to publish the compendium as a special issue of the "Defence Contracts Bulletin", on 21 July. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

Dr. David Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether compendium of staff targets and staff requirements that he is due to publish will include in-service dates.

Mr. Aitken : Yes.

Departmental Land

Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much land his Department proposes to (a) purchase and (b) dispose of in the coming year.

Mr. Hanley : Purchase of land is carried out on an opportunity basis once a landowner has indicated a willingness to sell a particular area of land. Similarly, we do not maintain a record of the area of land we expect to dispose of as changes in site boundaries often occur before a property or piece of land is finally sold.

Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was his Department's total land holding in the United Kingdom for each of the past five years.

Mr. Hanley : My Department's total land holding in the United Kingdom for each of the past five years was :

1 April 1993 242,542 hectares

1 April 1992 243,333 hectares

1 April 1991 242,865 hectares

1 April 1990 240,613 hectares

1 April 1989 241,300 hectares

Service Accommodation

Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards discount sales of Ministry of Defence flats to service personnel leaving the forces.

Mr. Hanley : Surplus flats in Scotland are wherever possible offered for sale to service personnel through the services' discount scheme. This scheme is open to all eligible service personnel, not just those leaving the forces. Surplus flats in England and Wales are not offered for sale through the discount scheme because of different property laws, and are instead offered for sale to housing associations in exchange for nomination rights on a percentage of the properties to house those leaving the services over the next few years. If sales cannot be agreed on this basis, the properties are offered for sale by tender on the open market.

Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards residence by separated wives of service personnel with children in Ministry of Defence married quarters not required for use.

Column 721

Mr. Hanley : If the separation arises because the requirements of the service prevent a wife and family accompanying her husband on a posting, she will be allowed to remain in her married quarter for up to 12 months. If a service man is posted away for a longer period, his wife will normally be given the opportunity to join him. If she chooses not to, she must vacate her quarter within three months. If there are special or compassionate circumstances, which prevent her from joining her husband, she may be offered a surplus married quarter, subject to availability, in the area of her choice. If the separation arises because of the breakdown of the marriage, an estranged wife will be allowed to remain in her married quarter for a period of 93 days, to allow her time to find alternative accommodation. If the marital breakdown occurs overseas, the wife will be moved at service expense to an address of her choice in the United Kingdom. If a wife has no home to go to, she will be offered a surplus married quarter in the United Kingdom, where she may stay for up to 93 days.

Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of providing caretaking for empty Ministry of Defence married quarters over the past year.

Mr. Hanley : The cost of providing caretaking for some 2,000 surplus married quarters in the process of being sold amounted to £270,000 in financial year 1992-93. Caretaking costs of empty properties which are not surplus to requirements are not separately identifiable.

Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel left the forces in 1992.

Next Section

Home Page