HC Deb 29 June 1993 vol 227 c489W
Mrs. Anne Campbell

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the practice of issuing British troops with uranium-tipped bullets and shells; and to what extent these weapons were used by British troops in the Gulf war.

Mr. Hanley

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on 11 June 1993,Official Report, column 309.

Mr. Flynn

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 194, if he will place in the Library copies of (a) the health evaluation of depleted uranium-tipped shells and (b) the advice on risk in use issued to British forces.

Mr. Hanky

No. The documents are classified because they give information about the size and composition of United Kingdom ammunition which could be of advantage to an enemy.

Mr. Flynn

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 23 June,Official Report, column 194, what general or informal information he has received from the United States Government regarding dangers to service men in the Gulf resulting from the use of shells tipped with depleted uranium.

Mr. Hanley

Potential risks from handling depleted uranium (DU) were well understood in the United States and United Kingdom before the Gulf conflict. Since then, my Department has monitored reports in mass media and specialist journals quoting United States officials on the subject. Most recently and authoritatively. my Department has received a copy of a United States Department of Defence fact sheet of 11 June 1993 which specifically relates to the possible health effects of DU and analyses known incidents involving exposure of United States personnel to it. These personnel continue to be monitored, but the fact sheet concludes that exposure to DU has not caused the unexplained symptoms associated with the so-called Desert. Storm syndrome (DSS). The existence of DSS and its possible causes have also been a subject of discussion between United States and United Kingdom medical officers in the course of normal liaison, which supports the Department of Defence official assessment. For the convenience of the House, I am arranging to have a copy of the document placed in the Library.

Forward to