Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much additional expenditure has been incurred by his Department as a direct result of operations in the Gulf (a) between 1 August 1992 and 15 December 1998 and (b) since 16 December 1998, indicating in each time period the percentage of that expenditure relating to (i) personnel, (ii) base expenses, (iii) munitions, (iv) aircraft and fuel, (v) intelligence and (vi) other; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Hoon: The information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out the total additional expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence as a direct result of operations in the Gulf from 1992-93 onwards.
This expenditure relates to residual costs incurred during the Gulf War, the enforcement of the no-fly zone since 1991 and the associated deployments of naval, air and ground forces in support of our policy of containing Iraq. These figures do not include routine naval deployments to the Gulf.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many (a) war ships and (b) merchant marine ships sunk as a result of hostilities in the 20th Century, which are also war graves, are situated within (i) the United Kingdom's territorial waters and (ii) the waters of UK overseas territories; and if a list of such vessels is published; 
23 Jan 2001 : Column: 537W
There is no single source of reference which identifies all vessels lost in the service of the Admiralty or on Government Service since 1914. The returns to Parliament, following the end of both World Wars, Navy losses and Merchant Shipping losses, list some 12,000 vessels. No distinction is made between those vessels in Government Service or Mercantile vessels. Only one list identifies vessels where lives were lost. These records have not been updated in the intervening years.
The UK Hydrographic Office has records of those vessels located in the vicinity of the Irish Republic during surveys between 1840 to 1935. Records of subsequent sinking are obtained from Irish maritime sources. This list is not published but is available, at a charge, from the Hydrographic Office at Taunton, Somerset.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with other foreign Ministers about the plundering of ocean war graves; and if he will make a statement. 
Discussions continue with other like-minded Governments in the lead up to the next meeting of interested parties to the UNESCO Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage in March/April 2001.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to agree and enforce an international convention to prevent the looting and trespassing by divers of sunken war ships and merchant vessels which are war graves; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Moonie: My officials continue to negotiate through UNESCO for the inclusion of warships and, in particular military maritime graves in the Draft Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what artefacts and structural parts have been removed from the sunken HMS Prince of Wales; who authorised their removal; and if he will make a statement. 
Dr. Moonie: There are unsubstantiated reports that items have been removed from the wreck site of HMS Prince of Wales. Our High Commissions in Singapore and Malaysia have investigated these reports, but they remain unsubstantiated. Assistance in monitoring activities on the wreck has been sought form the Singapore and Malaysian authorities.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action is being taken to obtain bilateral agreement with (a) the USA, (b) Commonwealth countries, (c) the Republic of Ireland and (d) the former belligerent countries of the First and Second World Wars to prevent divers looting and trespassing on sunken war ships and merchant ships which are war graves, and situated within United Kingdom territorial waters. 
23 Jan 2001 : Column: 538W
Dr. Moonie: My Department continues to talk with many other countries in several different forums in order to take forward the protection of sunken military vessels. The issue of protection of military remains is presently under review and a consultation process is taking place. The consultation document will be issued to other Governments who may have military graves that lie in UK territorial water.
Each of the Royal Navy's Type 42 destroyers and Assault Ships are fitted with the Phalanx weapon system and this system is capable of firing both depleted uranium and tungsten ammunition. These vessels are required to conduct Pre-Action Calibration checks, system sensitivity firings and an annual target firing against a towed target. Such firings may on occasion take place during exercises. A detailed interrogation of individual ship logs to determine which firings took place during specific exercises, or which utilised tungsten since its introduction to service, could not be undertaken without disproportionate cost.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those local authority areas in which depleted uranium-tipped ammunition was (a) tested and (b) used by HM forces; if the local authorities were informed of such testing and firing; what the incidence of leukaemia and other cancer-related illnesses is (i) in those areas and (ii) in similar local authority areas where such firing and testing has not taken place; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what depleted uranium weapons manufactured in the United Kingdom have been tested at sites abroad; and when and where the tests were. 
23 Jan 2001 : Column: 539W
for Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank are the only operational ammunition natures of UK manufacture using depleted Uranium (DU) that have been fired abroad.
|United States of America
|United States of America
(10) Operation Granby/work up training
(11) Development trial
(12) In-service trial
Mr. Spellar: Between Christmas 2000 and 22 January 2001, my Department has received 77 written representations from members of the public expressing concern over depleted uranium (DU) ammunition. Of these, 14 called for a ban on the use of DU.