| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Burns: I see that he is nodding, which suggests that he has seen the document.
I assure the House and the hon. Member that the Government understand the fears and concerns of a parent who has obtained a contact order from the courts but who has been frustrated when the other parent has not complied with the order. We also understand the fear of a mother who is threatened with violence to her or her children. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important--
Mr. Michael Paynter
1 pm
Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent Michael Paynter and his experiences as a volunteer national service man at the former chemical defence establishment at Porton Down in the 1950s, which he believes, have resulted in permanent ill health. Having pursued the matter in some detail on his behalf for nearly two years, I am now convinced of the credibility of my constituent's claims, upon which I have drawn some serious conclusions that I wish to share with the House.
On 11 November 1994, Mr. Paynter came to see me at my surgery to seek advice on how he should pursue justice in response to the outcome of his experiences 40 years ago. In May 1954 and again in March 1955, Mr. Paynter--as a conscripted national service man in the RAF--volunteered to be the subject of research into the common cold at Porton Down. On both occasions, he stresses, that involved going into a gas chamber without any special protective clothing apart from a gas mask.
Mr. Paynter further stresses that, had he known that he was to be the subject of studies into anything else--and certainly studies into what I have been informed was the supposed real subject of the experiments--he would not have volunteered. Only research into the common cold was mentioned and, as a naive 18-year-old, he had no reason to question or disbelieve that. It was, after all, a welcome break during his two years as a conscripted national service man, and it also provided him and nine other volunteers with extra pocket money.
The fact is that Mr. Paynter has not enjoyed his previously robust good health ever since. Within six months of his second visit to Porton Down, he developed two skin infections that lasted for two and a half years. One was psoriasis that covered most of his body, while the other was running eczema. The latter infection hospitalised him for 10 weeks and did not clear up for 10 months. In 1956, he started to suffer severe migraines, for which he still receives medical care. He developed some small growths on his body that have never been diagnosed. In 1959, a twisted spinal column developed, causing permanent and severe restrictions on his neck movements, as well as other problems for which he has found no effective treatment.
In other words, since his experiences at Porton Down, Mr. Paynter's quality of life has been devastated--"Altogether, a life of hell," as he described it to me. All Mr. Paynter's claims are supported fully by his GP, Dr. Nandra. Indeed, it was his GP's unsuccessful attempt to obtain medical records of his time at Porton Down that caused Mr. Paynter to speculate that Porton Down could have been responsible for his bad health. The ITV "Network First" programme on 11 October 1994, which detailed similar cases to his, prompted him to seek my advice and help.
I referred my constituent's case to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)--the then Secretary of State for Defence--and I received a reply from the then chief executive of the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down, Dr. Graham Pearson. That confirmed that Mr. Paynter attended the CBDE as a volunteer on two occasions--3 to 7 May 1954 and 28 March to 1 April 1955.
I was told that, on the first occasion, Mr. Paynter took part in treadmill testing to assess the physiological load induced by wearing individual protective equipment. On the second occasion, Mr. Paynter again took part in treadmill testing, and trials involving sensitivity to rubber mixes. On both occasions, I was told, there were no grounds for believing that those experiments would result in any harm or long-term health effects for Mr. Paynter.
All that was news to my constituent, who assures me that at no time did he undertake treadmill tests. He also points out that there was no follow-up whatever from Porton Down to discover whether there had been any effect on his health following his visit. In his letter to me, Dr. Pearson said rather pointedly that any volunteer who believes that his health has suffered as a result of participating in studies at Porton Down may apply for compensation or the award of a war pension.
That statement, in the light of what we know now, implies an acceptance of guilt on the part of the authorities at Porton Down. Moreover, Dr. Pearson pointed out that the medical records of such service volunteers are provided on request to their GPs, as is information from Porton Down on the studies in which they participated. That statement flies in the face of the experience of Mr. Paynter's GP, who has to this day been unable to obtain any record at all of any experiment carried out on Mr. Paynter at Porton Down.
I pursued those matters with Dr. Pearson and, in response, I received a reply from Mr. John Chisholm, the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which now includes CBDE Porton Down as one of its divisions. In that letter, Mr. Chisholm re-emphasised that the past 40 years had shown no evidence of any harmful effect on the health of volunteers participating in studies at Porton Down. Moreover, the long-term purpose of those studies had been explained to the volunteers. Neither of those statements is true in Mr. Paynter's case.
Mr. Chisholm's letter confirmed that my constituent had taken part in a study to assess the effect on performance and personnel of wearing clothing designed to protect against chemical and biological agents, and to assess human sensitivity to rubber mixes used in making protective equipment. On neither occasion was Mr. Paynter exposed to biological or chemical warfare agents. Moreover, Mr. Chisholm pointed out that research into the common cold had never been undertaken at Porton Down.
Only when I pursued matters further with Mr. Chisholm did he reveal that my constituent had, in addition, participated in a study to investigate the effect of substances found in London smog. That involved exposure through a mask in a chamber for between 10 and 60 minutes, on one or two occasions, to an artificial fog containing sulphuric acid mist and various aldehydes produced by diesel engines. Those are the suspected toxic constituents of London smog--either alone or mixed with magnesium oxide or ammonia--and the experiment aimed to neutralise the irritant effects of the smog.
It is clear to me and to my constituent Mr. Paynter that that subsequent piece of information comes much closer to his recollection of his experience at Porton Down and the cause of his subsequent and permanent ill health. He recalls that the chamber remained completely clear throughout and that no visible smog appeared. As he rightly points out, if that was research into the effects of
London smog, why was he required to wear a gas mask? Needless to say, Mr. Paynter was appalled to learn for the first time that he was apparently the victim of research into London smog, and had been "duped"--his term--into volunteering for tests involving potentially dangerous gases.
If the experiments to which my constituent was exposed were related to London smog and were not defence related, why were they being undertaken at the defence establishment? If they were not defence related and were otherwise more innocently in the public interest, why were the participants not informed that antidotes to smog were being researched? Why were the participants required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911, binding them to confidentiality on every visit to Porton Down?
I sought answers from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to those questions together with related others in my letter of 31 July. I had originally sought to table the questions for written answer, but was told by the Table Office that that was prevented by the 30-year rule. I wanted my right hon. Friend's confirmation that research into London smog was undertaken at Porton Down, and on whether it involved volunteer national service men in the 1950s, if so, whether they were informed of that and whether such research was defence related. I wanted to know whether his Department had monitored the subsequent health of those national service men and how many applications for a war pension or compensation had been made by them. I wanted to know what legislation prevents them and their legal advisers from pursuing action and claims against his Department and why. And I wanted to learn more about the Nuremberg code and how it applied to the use of service men at Porton Down.
Unfortunately, the reply that I received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that those matters are the responsibility of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and that its chief executive had been asked to reply to me directly. That reply from my right hon. Friend was dated 7 August, and until yesterday I had not received any such reply from the chief executive. Then, lo and behold, I received this reply from the Under-Secretary of State, Earl Howe. I must ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State why it has taken my successful application for this Adjournment debate to obtain a ministerial reply, which I was not originally going to receive.
I have not read my noble Friend's reply. Instead, I look forward to some clear answers to my questions from my hon. Friend the Minister of State today. In particular, I seek his response to my clear conclusion, in the light of my constituent's experiences at Porton Down, that national service men such as him were encouraged to be used as guinea pigs for research into the effects of certain gases, that, as my constituent adamantly maintains, they were told and accepted that it was research into the common cold, that that was never the case and that records were designed to show that it was research into the effects of London smog, but that the research in which they voluntarily and innocently participated was much more lethal and dangerous than that. It was indeed defence related, which necessitated and justified the application of the Official Secrets Act. In effect, it was exposure to G-agents--nerve gas known as sarin and mustard gas.
As a consequence, those people's lives have been irrevocably impaired because their health defences have been damaged and destroyed. That is a grave national scandal.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |