Hoon is urged to 'come clean' over uranium report

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent

OPPOSITION parties demanded yesterday that Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary, should "come clean" over an Army document that said inhalation of depleted uranium dust increased the risk of contracting lung, lymph and brain cancer.

They had previously been prepared to accept a statement by John Spellar, Armed Forces minister, that there was minimal risk to British Servicemen from the use of the ammunition.

But attempts by the Ministry of Defence to portray a report warning of the cancer risks as a "discredited document written by a trainee" backfired.

Iain Duncan Smith, shadow defence secretary, pointed out that a covering letter, suggesting that the document be given wide distribution, was written by an RO2, A H Lyall Grant, on behalf of the Chief of Staff of the Quartermaster General's Department.

Defence sources said that an RO2 was an experienced staff officer of major rank who would not have distributed the document without knowing that the Chief of Staff wanted it to be done. Mr Duncan Smith said: "The Government have to stop playing this silly game, pretending they know everything and don't have to tell anybody. They should clarify things once and for all."

The document, issued by UK Land Forces in early 1997 to all units and ranges using the ammunition, said inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust created by its impact with a target might never leave the lungs, resulting in cancer.

The MoD initially admitted that it was genuine but said that it had been based partly on a draft written in 1993 by a trainee and that as a result some of its content was "misleading and inaccurate".

When asked what parts were inaccurate or misleading, the MoD pointed to three paragraphs of the document that had no relevance to the media reports on the increased risks of contracting cancer.

By yesterday morning the 1997 document was itself being widely dismissed by MoD officials as having been written by a trainee.

Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said the Government's attempts to explain the document lacked credibility.

"The March 1997 document is not a draft and appears to be official. The contents are clear and unqualified. The confusion ought to be cleared up as soon as possible."

In a letter to Geoff Hoon, Mr Duncan Smith said it was clear from the letter that the Quartermaster General's Department was concerned. If it was later found to be inaccurate then it must have been rescinded, Mr Duncan Smith said. The MoD had only to produce those documents to show that the advice was, as it claimed, inaccurate.

The MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Keith O'Nions, insisted that the medical report contained "many, many scientific errors" and did not form any part of the advice given to ministers. "It is not part of the approved advice stream to ministers," he said.

Back