(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The date of 2 June 1994 was a dark day in the history of our United Kingdom. On that day, on the Mull of Kintyre, Chinook ZD576 crashed, killing everybody on board: nine senior military officers, 10 Royal Ulster Constabulary special branch officers, five MI5 officers, a senior civil servant and four highly skilled members of the RAF. They were not only servants of the state, but husbands, fathers, sons, brothers and friends. They carried on their shoulders some of the most sensitive responsibilities in the defence and security of our country, and lost their lives in the course of that service.
More than three decades on, the quest for truth and justice in relation to that crash remains as relevant, urgent and morally compelling as ever. Sadly, the investigations and inquiries to date have not met the standards that those families or this country are entitled to expect. We have seen gaps in the chains of evidence, missing or incomplete documentation, the then Secretary of State for Defence being given an incomplete briefing, key information withheld or redacted, and manuals produced with missing pages.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I congratulate my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) on securing this important debate. It follows a series of interventions, most recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) with the Prime Minister. Given the Hillsborough disaster and the change in the law to create a duty of candour, with the tools in place and the onus on Government to be open and answer unanswered questions from the families, does the hon. Member agree that this is a most opportune time, and one that the Government should seize?
Alex Easton
I wholeheartedly agree—we need to get the truth, and there are mechanisms for that truth to come out. To put it bluntly, all that has gone on before has been weighed in the balance of justice and found to be severely wanting. It is now undoubtedly clear that we must give a proper final opportunity for the truth to be told in full, in public and under oath, with the power to compel witnesses and require the production of documents. Those on board Chinook ZD576 gave their lives in the service of our country. In all conscience, the minimum we can give in return is a process worthy of their sacrifice and the trust that their families once placed in the institutions of the state.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Indeed, is that not the ultimate insult? Those who lost their lives had given indescribable service to this nation and were a huge loss to our intelligence community, but what has happened since has been a series of events of obfuscation and probably cover-ups. That is compounded by the fact that documents have been sealed for 100 years, causing families to question what on earth there is to hide. Only if that question is answered will there be any rest for those people or a final, acceptable conclusion.
Alex Easton
I totally agree with everything the hon. and learned Member says. The families deserve better; they deserve the truth, and we in Parliament deserve the opportunity to get them that truth.
Today, with the clear backing of tens of thousands of British citizens—as evidenced by the Change.org petition—I rise to demand a full public inquiry, because nothing less will provide justice for the dead or restore faith among the living. At the very least, any functioning democracy must be able to answer three basic questions in circumstances such as these: what happened; why did it happen; and what have we done—or what are we going to do—to ensure that it can never happen again? To put it in the terms set out by 24 of the 29 bereaved families, the bare minimum requirement is a fully independent, judge-led public inquiry with statutory powers to compel witnesses and to take evidence under oath; access to all relevant material, including currently sealed documentation; and clear, robust recommendations for systemic reform, so that nothing like this can ever happen again.
The integrity, clarity and reasonableness of what is being sought could not be more evident. This is not a radical demand; it is the basic standard of accountability that a mature democracy owes to its citizens and, above all, to those who lost their lives and the families. Having identified the gaps, as well as the remedy—a judge-led public inquiry—the question before us is whether we have the will to act. We are here not simply to catalogue injustice, but to confront and correct it. That is ultimately the purpose of this House: to ensure that when wrong has been done, justice is not just spoken of, but delivered.
Let me turn to the doubts and divisions that have marred this process. The record shows that from the very outset, the handling of this tragedy has in many ways been a second tragedy. It has been marked by profound and enduring concerns, including the initial findings of gross negligence against the pilots; the long and painful campaign by the pilots’ families—I pay tribute to them all—to overturn that verdict; serious concerns about the airworthiness and software of the Chinook fleet at the time; questions about pressures on crews, training, procedures and decision making; and deep unease, to put it mildly, about conflicts of evidence and missing, incomplete or constrained documentation.
Years later, the pilots were posthumously cleared of gross negligence. When I look at what evidence ever existed for such a grave accusation, I find it inexplicable that the original conclusion was reached. That should make every Member of this House stop and think. Let me be absolutely clear: if the state can wrongly pin gross negligence on two dead airmen—men who could not speak in their own defence—what confidence can we possibly have that the whole truth has been properly and fully explored?
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have a history with this story. Back in 1999, the late Lord Chalfont and I tried to draw attention to the fact that even at the time, the rules said that only if there was no doubt whatsoever should dead airmen be blamed for gross negligence. Since this case, under no circumstances are dead airmen blamed for gross negligence. That should be some comfort to the families, at least those of the airmen, because there have since been cases in which the Chief of the Air Staff has rightly ordered records to be changed retrospectively to clear airmen in other crashes who were unfairly blamed. That is a result of the furore about this terrible case—it is something for which the relatives of those who died can take credit. It will never happen again to any other airman who dies in the course of fulfilling his or her duty.
Alex Easton
The right hon. Member makes some very poignant points, and makes them well. I appreciate that they have been made.
I will tell you what I do have confidence in, Mr Dowd: I have confidence in the words of Niven Phoenix, a bereaved son who lost a heroic father. He said that if he were choosing the aircrew again, he would choose exactly the same ones. That is the measure of the men we are talking about. The clearing of the pilots did not close the book on the story; it reopened it, raising further fundamental questions. If not pilot error, then what? What combination of factors—technical, procedural and organisational—contributed to this disaster? Why were certain lines of inquiry seemingly resisted or, at best, left under-examined? Why were experts put under a direct order to cease their investigation? For many of the families, and for many observers, those questions remain profoundly unresolved.
Let me turn to why a judge-led inquiry is not only desirable but necessary. To the cynics who say, “This has been looked at before; it is time to move on,” let me be absolutely clear that that argument fails on three levels—moral, constitutional and practical. First, I will set out the moral case. There is a clear and unavoidable duty owed to the dead and to their families. The men and women on board ZD576 were in the service of their country; they were doing their duty, often in the most sensitive areas of national security. The very least they deserve in return is something fundamental: if they are killed in the line of duty, the state will move heaven and earth to discover how and why.
Instead, for 30 years, the families have had to fight again and again for answers that should have been offered willingly. They have had to endure conflicting official narratives, piecemeal disclosures and technical complexities sometimes being used as a shield and barrier against proper lay scrutiny, as well as long periods of silence, delay and dismissal. All this has unfolded while families have grown older waiting for justice, and some parents have died without ever seeing their child fully cleared, or having received a clear and honest account of what happened to them. We cannot change the past or undo this terrible crash, but we can decide how we face it; we can choose either candour or continued evasion. Make no mistake—that is the moral choice that Members of this House are making today.
Secondly, there is the constitutional case, which is a question of trust in the state itself. Our democracy fully functions only if our citizens can believe with confidence that when something goes terribly wrong, the state will not close ranks to protect itself. When tragedies such as this aircraft crash occur, in which decisions at the highest level may have played a part, the very minimum that the British public are entitled to expect is that evidence is not buried, mistakes are not quietly airbrushed away, and those in authority are not shielded simply because of their rank or department.
A full judge-led public inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath is the gold standard in our constitutional toolkit for restoring truth and trust—for examining major disasters, exposing state failings in policing, health, security and transport, and confronting painful truths about institutional abuse and misconduct. If the deaths of 29 people, including senior security and intelligence figures, on a military aircraft in the service of their country do not meet the bar for such an inquiry, it is very hard to see what ever would. It would be a profound constitutional error for this House to imply that there are areas of state activity that can never be fully examined, regardless of how serious the consequences are. I do not believe that any Member of this House would be content with that.
Thirdly, let me turn to the practical realities. We insist on a judge-led inquiry with powers to compel witnesses and take evidence under oath because it is the only form of inquiry that has tools equal to the task. This House knows that only a full public inquiry can compel serving and former officials to give evidence; require the disclosure of all relevant material across departments and agencies; hear expert and technical testimony with the rigour needed to weigh competing interpretations; test accounts against each other in a structured and forensic way; and place everything within a publicly accessible framework in a clear, reasoned report. Let us be honest: without the power to compel, we rely on voluntary co-operation, which is by its nature selective. Without evidence given under oath, we cannot properly test credibility or consistency, and without judicial leadership, we cannot guarantee the independence, discipline and authority needed to command public confidence.
Let me tackle the objections to a public inquiry head on. Some people say, “This happened a long time ago.” Indeed, the crash was in 1994. Time has passed, but it has not healed; it has fomented doubt, leaving a growing sense of injustice. Memories may fade, but documentation does not. Technical records can be scrutinised. Policies, processes and decision making can be examined. Many witnesses are still alive and capable of giving evidence. The delays we have seen to date are not an excuse to fail to act now; they are, in truth, a reason to act.
Some people say, “There have already been investigations” —well, yes, of sorts. There have been fragmented processes, internal reviews and limited inquiries, but we have never had the single, judge-led public inquiry that the gravity of this tragedy demands. Those piecemeal processes cannot substitute for a full public reckoning. If previous procedures had been adequate, we would not be standing here now three decades on. The fact that this question remains unsettled is deeply telling in itself.
Some people say an inquiry will cost money—of course it will: truth, justice and confidence in democratic processes have a cost, but what is the cost of failing to act? It is the cost to the families in prolonged anguish and uncertainty. It is the reputational cost to the RAF and our democratic institutions, given the inadequacies of past investigations. It is the cost to the wider public’s confidence when it appears that some tragedies receive full scrutiny, while others are expected to be quietly managed and forgotten. When heroic lives have been lost in the service of the Crown, the cost of an inquiry is not a luxury or an optional extra; it is part of the debt we owe.
Some people say that an inquiry might endanger national security. We have heard that before in other contexts, yet time and again it has been shown to be possible to balance transparency with legitimate secrecy— inquiries can take sensitive evidence in closed session, for example. Highly classified material can be handled through carefully controlled procedures. Redactions can be made, subject to independent oversight. National security must never be used as a blanket to smother legitimate questions. The families are not seeking operational secrets; they are seeking an honest account of why their loved ones died and whether the actions or omissions of the state played a part. I contend that it is not only possible, but now entirely normal for a public inquiry to both protect the safety of our nation and respect the rights of citizens to the truth.
The issue is about far more than one crash, one aircraft and one dark day in 1994; it goes to the heart of how we treat those who serve, and how we respond when they are lost. Failure is not an option because if we continue to fail the families of those who died on Chinook ZD576, we send a chilling message to every current and future member of the armed forces and security services: “We value your service, but if the worst happens the truth about your death may not always be negotiable.” I do not believe that a single member of this House finds that acceptable, let alone tolerable. A proper judge-led public inquiry is not simply about revisiting the past; it is about learning lessons for the future. It is about airworthiness, risk and how we respond to concerns over equipment.
Behind each of the 29 lost lives was a unique and irreplaceable story: a pilot who trained for years and took deep pride in his aircraft and his crew; specialist officers who sacrificed family life and health to confront some of the most brutal terrorism western Europe has ever known, placing their own lives between the innocent and those who would harm them. Parents, wives, husbands and children have been left with an empty chair at the table, birthdays never celebrated, and milestones never reached. Children have grown up with treasured photographs and cherished memories instead of a living parent. Then there was a knock on the door, the formal words of condolence and the long, grinding aftermath of unanswered questions.
For so many of the families, the search for truth has required them to become unwilling experts in aviation, procedure and bureaucracy, simply so they could argue their case on something approaching equal terms. They have pored over reports, examined technical data and followed every thread of the investigation to date. They have written to Members of the House again and again in the hope that somewhere in authority there might be a listening ear with the courage to act.
We should hang our heads in shame that three decades on the families are still having to ask. Their position is not radical or unreasonable; it is, in fact, an appeal to simple integrity. They want a judge-led full public inquiry, with the power to compel witnesses—past and present—to attend, with the ability to take evidence under oath and with access to all the relevant documentation, to produce a public report that clearly sets out what is known, what is not known and what must change. That is not some dramatic departure from constitutional norms; it is entirely in line with the very best of our tradition of providing accountability when things go badly wrong.
We face a stark choice today. When the victims’ families knocked on our doors, did we listen politely and then quietly turn our backs or did we take their pain seriously? Did we recognise the limitations and shortcomings of the earlier processes? Did we accept that in a mature democracy the state must submit itself to the discipline of searching, independent scrutiny?
What is being sought is a fair route to the truth and to justice: an honest account of what happened and why. It should not be feared. Indeed, it should be embraced if we truly believe in the rule of law, accountability and the dignity of those who served and died. Today, we choose between courage and convenience. I urge Members to choose courage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd? You are known as probably the most friendly Chair in the House, so we are pleased to have you here. We all enjoy your company. I certainly did last night; you and I had a good time together. Thank you very much for that.
I also thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), my constituency neighbour. He has fought this battle for a long time. He has also been a good friend of mine, going way back to the time of the council and the Assembly.
Jim Shannon
Was it 2001? My goodness! There we are—that is how long ago it was; I was not sure. I was really pleased to see the hon. Member set the scene so incredibly well today.
As I listened to the hon. Member’s speech, my mind—my memory—went back. Last night, Mr Dowd, we talked about things from many years ago and this debate has given us the chance to look back on that fateful day in June 1994. I remember what happened at that time; the story has been regurgitated each time the possibility of an inquiry has been mentioned since. I also remember the mists of the Mull of Kintyre. At one time the theory was that the IRA had done it, which was probably a reasonable assessment to make, but the fact is that it was not.
I pay tribute to the families of the victims, who over the years have given time and energy to pursue the truth. They have been patient over the years, even though every time they think about what took place, they must relive the trauma that they experienced then. We must be very aware of that. In the past, constituents have come to me about this issue, but we always seemed to hit a brick wall when it came to asking questions. The families had the questions and the questions that we asked as elected representatives were the questions that they asked us to ask for them. I should have said this before; forgive me for not doing so. It is nice to see the Minister for Veterans and People here today. I wish her well in her role. I understand that the Government have agreed to a meeting with the victims’ families. That is the right thing to do because the families are the reason we are all here today. I appreciate that.
The background to this case is very well known. There were 29 victims of the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash back in June ’94, including 25 very senior Northern Ireland intelligence experts who deserve the transparency and accountability that only a judicial review can compel. As the years have passed, the evidence that the victims’ families have gauged and brought together is the work that the Government should have done, but did not. What a pity that is.
As I have said before, and as the Minister and others will know, Chief Constable Jon Boutcher supports a public inquiry, and that is of major importance. The fact that he is backing one is clear evidence that there should be an inquiry at the highest level. He, of course, might have known some of the victims, or none of them, but his present role is to ensure that the questions that the families want answered are answered, and the only way of doing that is through an inquiry. He further highlighted the need to address the uncertainty of the event—an endorsement at the highest level in relation to an inquiry.
Those who died in the Chinook crash of June 1994 were undoubtedly the cream of intelligence—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and those involved in other realms of intelligence. It is important that we deliver the justice and truth that their families seek. We have heard on numerous occasions about the cross-party support for a judicial review, and we have now engaged that collectively in this House: when we ask for this, it is on behalf of all parties. I am sure that those in the Labour party are equally anxious to ensure that we get justice and that those questions are answered.
This is not a political issue, though—it never has been. It is about taking the steps that are true and right. This is about justice for the families. The lack of transparency in this matter only betrays the truth and the victims’ service to this great nation. The hon. Member for North Down referred to their sacrifices—the efforts that they put in, the years that they spent in their jobs—and the families’ quest for justice over all those years. I am glad that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made the point about the pursuit of the airmen; their credibility was never questionable. We thank him for that. The right hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous Member of Parliament over all the years I have known him. His interest in this matter is deeply appreciated.
The families have been grieving for too long; that feeling of loss and unanswered questions will never go away. The Ministry of Defence’s lack of willingness to pursue the matter only prolongs that lack of trust. Was the helicopter airworthy? The evidence seems to show that it was not, and the pilots were certainly not to blame. There also seems to be evidence that this was not the first time the helicopter had broken down and had to be fixed, only for the same repairs to be needed again. The evidence suggests that. The families brought that evidence together, and we appreciate that. There are many questions that the families want answered.
I understand that the Minister will agree to a meeting with the victims’ families, and that that will involve more than one Minister. The Chinook crash has been described as the worst single loss of life in the history of the RAF during peacetime. We have all heard the speculation about the technical difficulties and the allegations of gross negligence. The evidential base that the families and others have brought together clearly shows that that was not the case. It is now time for the MOD to step in and step up.
Historically, documents such as the ones we are discussing have been sealed, sometimes for a century. I just cannot get my head around why anyone would want to seal something for a century if it has some impact on the inquiry that we are all seeking on behalf of the families. Releasing necessary documents allows for a restoration of trust, which some feel is wanting. Can the Minister say whether the decision to seal the information for 100 years —a century—can be reviewed and overturned? Many of us are asking that question on behalf of the families.
The second thing I would ask for is an apology to the victims’ families and friends, for having to wait for all these years to have the meetings and the inquiry that they have asked for. The Minister might be able to respond to that. There must be a formal acknowledgment of the tragedy—not for any admission of legal liability, but as a recognition of the emotional and societal impact that it has had on so many for so many years. The fact is that for years the Government and the MOD have tried to suppress what was happening; now, hopefully, the chance to hear about that is drawing closer. Confidence when it comes to the victims of the Chinook disaster of June 1994 has been wanting since that time.
My third ask is this: the overarching goal is to rebuild trust through transparency, accountability and genuine engagement, so will the Minister and the Government prove that that is what they are trying to achieve? Simply providing information is not enough. Families need to feel that the MOD is taking responsibility and prioritising justice.
Along with Northern Ireland colleagues, I will continue to represent the families of the Chinook crash until accountability prevails. As always, we offer our deepest sympathy to the families, who to this day are still living with the devastation of the events that occurred in 1994. Today, Government have the opportunity to give truth and justice to the victims’ families. We ask for that on their behalf.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and speaking so eloquently on the issue, which I know is close to his heart.
This event, the tragic crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994, has left an indelible mark on the lives of many families in Northern Ireland and across this United Kingdom. Twenty-nine lives were lost that day, including 25 intelligence experts from the security services, the RUC and the British Army. The majority of the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence and counter-terrorism experts were wiped out, along with four crew members. The loss shook not only their families, but the communities they served and the nation as a whole. Many of them served on the frontline, standing against terrorism in Northern Ireland at some of the most dangerous times.
In recent months, I have been approached by families who continue to seek answers, clarity and recognition for the profound suffering they have endured. They are not merely questions about the past; they are urgent calls for justice and transparency. Families who lost loved ones were denied answers to their questions by successive Governments who hid behind the Official Secrets Act. Their grief and loss has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed, and I believe they deserve answers.
The families are frustrated and angry at the continued lack of transparency. I recently spoke in Tesco to the wife of one of the gentlemen who lost their life, and it was plain to see that the pain is still as raw today as it was back in 1994. Their lives were changed forever on that day.
Important Ministry of Defence documents remain sealed, limiting the public’s understanding of the decisions made that day. The families and, indeed, the wider public have a right to know what happened. It is not simply about accountability; it is about openness, honesty and their right to know the circumstances leading up to their loved one’s death. The cloak of secrecy has heightened suspicions.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
One of my constituents is a cousin of Master Air Loadmaster Graham Forbes, who was one of the four crew members who died that day. The bereaved families were never informed that the MOD had sealed those documents for 100 years, and it took a BBC investigation for that to be revealed. Will the hon. Lady comment on that? It seems utterly outrageous that the families were not informed in the first instance.
Carla Lockhart
I will mention that later in my speech, but it is absolutely outrageous that families who had been seeking answers learned of it from the BBC and not from our Government.
It is difficult to summarise the failings within a 90-minute debate. Despite the repeated claim that there have been six investigations, none had the legal powers of a full inquiry, none could compel documents or witness testimony, and all relied almost entirely on information controlled by the MOD and RAF—information we now know was incomplete, withheld or simply wrong. Early investigations wrongly blamed pilot negligence, only for those findings to be overturned some 17 years later, after the families of the pilots put up such a fight and campaign. It is right to mention Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper today.
At the heart of the tragedy lies one central fact: the Chinook Mk 2 was officially deemed unsafe. MOD test pilots described its FADEC—full authority digital engine control—software as “positively dangerous”, and the aircraft was grounded. The release to service in 1993 falsely declared it airworthy, even though only one of its 60 regulatory components was fully compliant. Repeated engine faults, unpredictable flight control behaviour and warnings dating back to 1988 were never resolved, yet ZD576 was allowed to fly. And 29 people paid for that decision with their lives.
Key evidence disappeared from the crash site. As has been said, we know through a BBC documentary that those documents remain sealed for 100 years—to find that out in such a way is absolutely outrageous. Senior figures, including Defence Secretaries and fatal accident inquiry participants, were not told about ongoing MOD litigation over FADEC failures at the time, but they were expected to deliver judgments on its safety.
Today, we must ask: why were passengers placed on an aircraft deemed unfit to fly? Who authorised its use, despite unresolved technical faults? Why were MOD test pilots prohibited from flying the Mk 2, yet the 29 who lost their lives were not? Why were airworthiness concerns ignored, expertise overruled and evidence withheld? How can we prevent future disasters if the truth remains locked away?
The families are not seeking blame; they are just seeking answers. They are calling for an independent, judge-led public inquiry with full legal powers to compel documents and testimony, review technical and regulatory failures, and recommend reforms to ensure such a tragedy never happens again. After 30 years, transparency is not just overdue; it is a moral obligation. Only a full inquiry can deliver justice for the 29 lives lost and restore public trust in military aviation oversight.
I asked the Prime Minister for a meeting in a recent parliamentary debate on the duty of candour, and I am pleased that it has been confirmed to the families that they will receive a meeting with the MOD before the end of the year. That critical step is a recognition of the pain the families continue to carry, and a signal that their voices are being heard at the highest level of government. However, meetings and discussions alone are not enough. We must ensure that the families’ calls for a judge-led public inquiry are granted. We owe them a process that is thorough, independent and capable of uncovering the truth, unimpeded by bureaucratic delays or secrecy.
It is essential to acknowledge the work of the Chinook Justice Campaign. The campaigners have fought tirelessly. They have come together, they have gelled and they are on a mission to get answers from this Government. By supporting their efforts, we reinforce the fundamental principle in a democratic society that no tragedy should be hidden and no family should be denied answers.
The Chinook tragedy is not simply an historical event; it is a living wound for the families and friends of those who perished. They have now waited 31 years and counting for clarity, recognition and justice. It is our duty, as elected representatives, policymakers and citizens, to ensure that their voices are heard and that the process in place reflects fairness and compassion, and is one they can support. I urge the Government to act decisively. Let us ensure that the families have access to the information they need, that those who were involved in the aftermath are recognised, and that lessons are learned so that we safeguard our service personnel and communities in the future.
In closing, I reiterate the simple truth that guides my engagement on this matter: these families have suffered unimaginable loss, and they deserve transparency and justice. Let us commit to supporting them, to honouring the memory of those lost, and to ensuring that no evidence is left unheard in the pursuit of truth. If I had time, I would read out the 29 names. I encourage every Member to read them, because behind every name is a family who remain broken because of unanswered truths.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Dowd. I, too, begin by thanking the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this debate and for the thoughtful and considered way in which he opened it.
This debate is long overdue, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that it will be the start of a process that leads to a much-needed and much-called-for fully independent, judge-led public inquiry. That inquiry must be able to compel people to give evidence so that we and, more importantly, the families can get to the truth of exactly what happened on the evening of 2 June 1994 when that ill-fated Chinook Mk 2 crashed into a fog-shrouded hillside on the Mull of Kintyre at the southernmost tip of my Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber constituency.
It was of course a tragedy for the families, but it has also had a deep and lasting impression on the community of Campbeltown and south Kintyre, many of whom were first on the scene of the accident and are still haunted by the experience. This is deeply personal for many of my constituents. The issue has come up time and again since my election to this place in 2015, brought to my attention by people in the local area. I recall attending a packed memorial service at Southend parish church on 2 June 2019 to mark the 25th anniversary of the disaster, before joining scores of local people on that desolate, windswept hillside on the Mull of Kintyre for a ceremony at the memorial cairn erected to the memory of all those who died in the crash.
The families have fought for more than three decades to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones, only to be met by a wall of silence and obfuscation by the Ministry of Defence and repeated refusals to meet with them. No doubt the Minister will point to the fact that there have been numerous inquiries and investigations into the crash, but she knows that not one of those investigations has examined the central question of why the decision was made to authorise a flight in an aircraft that was known to be unfit and not airworthy. She knows, too, that every inquiry hitherto has not had the power to compel evidence, which is why it is essential that we have an independent, judge-led public inquiry.
The Minister will also know that many of the findings of those early investigations have been thoroughly discredited, particularly the shameful attempt by the Ministry of Defence to pin the blame on the flight crew—Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook—who she knows were both subsequently fully exonerated. As one of the family members told me recently,
“Rick and Jonathan were the best pilots, flying the worst aircraft.”
Of course, if the MOD was so confident that it had got to the bottom of what happened on the Mull of Kintyre that evening and that there is nothing more to learn, why would it lock away and seal the key technical and legal documents for 100 years? There is a catalogue of such incidents, which means that the trust between the families and the MOD has completely evaporated over the past 31 years.
That suspicion and loss of trust is deeply entrenched among the families. I recall, in 2019, raising on the Floor of the House of Commons how rumours were circulating that the Ministry of Defence was about to destroy some of the files pertaining to the crash. I had to ask the then Leader of the House to make sure that her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence did no such thing. That was the level of distrust back in 2019, and sadly, it has not improved.
Last month, I was honoured to be asked, alongside the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), to join the families when they handed in a 51,000-name petition to Downing Street, demanding an independent judge-led public inquiry to get to the bottom of why that unairworthy aircraft was allowed to leave Belfast, and why it subsequently crashed into a Scottish hillside. After we handed in the petition, a few of us sat with the families for a few hours to hear about the impact the crash has had on them—not just the crash but the subsequent cover-up.
I leave Members with some of the statements I jotted down from those meetings with those still-grieving family members. One of them told us:
“It is like living with a chronic disease… the pain is always there.”
Another, whose father was a senior police officer on board, said that because of their circumstances,
“we all held our lives so dearly, but officers and Ministers held it so cheaply when they loaded them”—
their families—
“on to that Chinook.”
A third added that
“this is not a political issue. It is just an old-fashioned issue of right versus wrong.”
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is hugely significant that two former Defence Secretaries, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Sir Liam Fox, have publicly expressed their support for the families’ campaign, stating that they now believe that they were misled regarding the circumstances of the flight. Given that, it has become increasingly difficult to conclude anything other than that what we have witnessed for the past 31 years is simply a cover-up. It is not a cover-up for reasons of national security; it is a cover-up for reasons of national embarrassment.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, given your insight on matters of national security. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing the debate today.
This summer, a constituent joined me in my surgery at Honiton and explained that she was the widow of one of the victims who had been killed in a helicopter crash in 1994. Her husband was one of the 29 security personnel who were killed when Chinook Zulu Delta 576, in which they were travelling, crashed over the Mull of Kintyre. In my speech, I want to focus on what has happened since: the years of uncertainty, the fragmented investigations, the unanswered questions and the decision to seal key documents away until 2094.
My constituent is now a member of the Chinook Justice Campaign, led by 24 of the 29 families who are seeking answers about the crash itself, but also accountability for way that it was handled in the aftermath. They have set out a long list of unanswered questions—a stark reminder of how much remains unresolved for the families—including: “Why were our loved ones placed on an aircraft that even the Ministry of Defence and its most experienced test pilots were prohibited from flying?” and “Were the passengers on board told that the proper authority in the Ministry of Defence had determined that the aircraft was not to be relied on in any way whatsoever?” After three decades, those are modest and entirely reasonable requests.
The withholding of information has denied families the answers that could have brought some closure to their grief. Across 31 years, six separate investigations have examined the Chinook crash, yet none has provided a full or coherent account of what happened. The original RAF board of inquiry in 1995 blamed the pilots without ever resolving the serious airworthiness concerns known about at the time. Later reviews, culminating in the 2011 Lord Philip review, overturned the negligence verdict but still did not address why the aircraft was allowed to fly despite being declared unairworthy by the MOD’s own testing centre in 1993.
Even subsequent parliamentary scrutiny and internal MOD examinations, including through the 2000s and the 2010s, left major questions unanswered. Those include how the false declaration of airworthiness was made, why crucial information was withheld from the pilots, and what is contained in the documents now sealed until 2094.
Tessa Munt
When the Minister replies, I wonder whether she might answer this question, with which I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. When did the MOD stop allowing so many critical personnel on one flight? Those on board included members of MI5, RUC special branch and the British Army intelligence corps, as well as Northern Ireland security experts—almost all the UK’s senior Northern Ireland intelligence capability on one flight. We know that in the case of the royal family, the monarch and the heir are not allowed to fly together. Will the Minister explain exactly when the MOD stopped the practice of putting everybody on one flight? Has that actually happened?
Richard Foord
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I understand that so many high-value, senior and experienced personnel would not be put on the same flight today. If we reflect on that collision in 1994, we have to ask why six inquiries have not brought clarity. Instead, families are left with a patchwork of findings, and gaps where the truth should be.
The Chinook Justice Campaign poses a crucial question: how can future tragedies be prevented through changes to oversight and accountability? That brings me to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which passed its Second Reading this month. Its central idea is that public servants should have a duty of candour—a legal requirement to act truthfully, to co-operate and to avoid the kind of defensive practices that have deepened the suffering of victims’ families in the past.
The Bill contains a significant exemption under clause 6: the duty of candour does not apply to the intelligence agencies or others who handle material falling within the definition of “security and intelligence” in section 1(9) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. I entirely understand why some agencies and the broader intelligence community might need to be exempt, but if certain institutions are to be exempt from a statutory duty of candour, Parliament must at least strengthen the independent mechanisms that can review and oversee sensitive decisions behind closed doors.
At present, that mechanism is the Intelligence and Security Committee, but its remit no longer reflects how all national security work is carried out across Government. In its 2022-23 annual report, the ISC warned that the
“failure to update its Memorandum of Understanding”
has allowed key intelligence-related functions to shift into policy Departments outside its oversight, creating what it called an “erosion of Parliamentary oversight”.
Families want to see the full truth and have urged MPs who represent them to call for relevant documents to be released where possible. Liberal Democrats support the families and are calling for the release of those sealed Chinook documents that can be released, and a judge-led public inquiry in due course with access to all relevant material, so that the unresolved questions about airworthiness and accountability can be answered. We are also urging the Government to follow through with a duty of candour on public bodies, which should of course include the Ministry of Defence, in which the Minister and I and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), all served.
We need to ensure that bereaved families are never again forced to fight for decades to have basic transparency. Where documents relating to the Chinook crash can be released, they should be, so that families can finally understand the full truth of what happened and why. If there are elements relating to national security that genuinely cannot be made public, the Government must put in place trusted, independent parliamentary oversight with the authority to examine that material. For the sake of my constituent, and for every Chinook Zulu Delta 576 family still waiting for answers, we must not let this injustice endure for another generation.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and giving us the chance to revisit what more can be done for those involved in the Chinook Justice Campaign. We have already heard in detail the circumstances surrounding the fatal crash of the RAF Chinook on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994. Like others, I begin by paying tribute to the 29 people who lost their lives that day in what remains one of the worst tragedies in the history of the RAF.
Many of the passengers were members of the Northern Ireland security and intelligence community. Their deaths were not only a serious loss to this country’s security but, above all, a profound personal tragedy for each of the 29 families who lost loved ones that day. It is deeply saddening that, 31 years on, those families still feel that their fight for truth and justice—we have heard those two words repeatedly today—is unfinished.
I am genuinely honoured to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Like many others here, I remember watching the BBC documentary series on this tragedy when it aired early in 2024. It laid bare the lasting impact of that horrific day, the grief carried by the families and the distress caused by the RAF board of inquiry’s now-discredited findings, which placed blame on the pilots. Long, determined campaigns have followed to clear their names, and I pay tribute to the families for those efforts. We can all agree that those documentaries were deeply sad to watch. For those who remember the event itself, it was a horrible mark on this country’s history in Northern Ireland.
I do not believe that anyone who saw the documentary could fail to feel disappointed, or indeed frustrated, at the wholly unnecessary suffering that these families have endured. It took a 16-year fight, and a determined campaign by these families, for a formal acceptance that an injustice was done—that is a long time to have to live with that. In 2010, it was right that the Government at the time listened to the families and the repeated concerns raised by various Committees across both Houses, and commissioned the independent inquiry that finally set aside the findings of gross negligence against the pilots. Lord Philip’s conclusions cleared the pilots’ names, and formal apologies were issued to the families for the distress that they had carried for so many years.
Many of today’s contributions have outlined what action Members would like to see from the Government, and I believe that there is cross-party consensus on our asks. The hon. Member for North Down reiterated the two aspects of truth and justice, and he laid out a practical approach to getting answers, as well as the mechanisms needed to find out what really happened. I completely agree with him that the families deserve truth, and I align myself with a key point that he made: we need to provide justice for the dead and—from what we have seen recently—restore faith among the living. Ultimately, we are all asking for this because no one wants to see such a thing happen ever again. The hon. Member laid out the three parts of the argument—the moral, the constitutional and the practical—and I think we can all agree that they are very compelling.
I also put on record my apologies to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for missing him out in my last wind-up speech. He brings a great deal of experience to this House and contributes to many debates. He is also a veteran and speaks up for the people of Northern Ireland repeatedly. I completely align myself with his approach. The time and the energy that the bereaved families have had to put into the campaign to get basic answers is a stain on multiple Governments, and I really hope that answers can be found. I am glad that the Minister and the Government have agreed to meet the victims’ families before Christmas. That is important, and I look forward to hearing the findings.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said that an indelible mark has been left on so many lives across Northern Ireland. She lives and breathes that every day, and I know she fights for her constituents. She highlighted the loss to our intelligence and security community; losing such key personnel at a time of increased instability will have had a massive impact on operations in Northern Ireland. She talked about the need for openness and trustworthiness. It is right that the families and those who are interested in this matter find out what happened. We have heard several times today that there were significant inconsistencies in the multiple investigations over 31 years. She rounded off by saying something that the families would agree on: they are not seeking to blame anyone; they just want to find out what happened.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) talked about the impact that the crash had on his constituency. I have watched the documentary and seen the interviews with the families, but it is difficult to put myself in the shoes of the local people who were just going about their daily businesses when such a horrific crash was inflicted on their community. It has had a lasting impact across multiple generations. He spoke about the previous investigations, many of which have been discredited. I am glad to see the effort he put in to get together the 51,000 names to be presented to the Prime Minister in a petition, and I heard his calls for a judge-led inquiry.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my neighbour in Devon, talked about the years of uncertainty. He looks into matters of intelligence and security in this House and brings weight to this conversation. He talked about the inconsistencies between multiple investigations, and about the six inquiries over the years, which have not produced an acceptable response to the families.
This issue is personal to me. I spent much of my career in the Royal Marines, and I relied on Chinooks. After a long night’s work in a hostile country, the moment that we heard one coming over the hill was the moment that we allowed ourselves to breathe. We trusted the aircraft and, of course, we trusted the people flying it even more. I know how highly trained and highly skilled the men and women who fly these aircraft are. They are utterly committed to their jobs. Having had the pleasure of being transported by special forces Chinook pilots, I can personally attest to their consummate professionalism. We knew that they would do everything in their power to keep us safe and get us where we needed to go.
That is why the original finding of gross negligence was so hard to accept, given the complete lack of evidence. It ran directly against the RAF’s rule that deceased aircrew should be found negligent only when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Aircrew deserve the assurance that when something goes wrong every other explanation will be examined and, unless clear evidence points to fault, they will be given the benefit of the doubt.
In this case, as we have heard multiple times across the investigations, there was a great deal of doubt, yet two of the RAF’s finest special forces pilots, unable to defend themselves or explain what happened, were held responsible. That decision ignored the uncertainty and the RAF’s own regulations. For those of us who have placed our lives in the hands of aircrew, I can understand why that feels like a breach of the trust that every service person must have in those responsible for bringing them home.
We also know that there were persistent concerns that the aircraft itself may have suffered a malfunction—we heard that again from right hon. and hon. Members today. As has already been acknowledged, Boscombe Down, the military aircraft testing site, had repeatedly raised worries about the airworthiness of the Chinook HC2 variant. In the period leading up to the accident, those concerns became significant enough that Boscombe Down stopped flying the HC2 altogether. This is a very important point: if test pilots—people whose job is to push aircraft to their limits—decline to fly something because of safety concerns, that cannot be overlooked. Despite those warnings, the aircraft were still brought into operational service.
I have waited for Chinooks in some of the most dangerous moments of my life. The Minister probably has similar experiences. I cannot imagine being sent an aircraft that was even suspected of being unsafe. If we ask people to risk their lives for our country, we must ensure that the equipment they depend on and the decisions taken on their behalf meet the highest possible standard. I very much hope that lessons are learned from this incident so that nothing like it ever happens again. With that in mind, I again offer the families, some of whom are here today, my deepest sympathies that the full facts of what happened on that day remain largely unknown. I can only imagine the anguish that brings.
I understand entirely why the families are asking for the 100-year closure to be lifted. When the Chinook Justice Campaign approached my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, he wrote to the Armed Forces Minister seeking an explanation for that decision. I understand that the Government’s answer pointed towards GDPR restrictions and the assumption of a 100-year lifetime for sensitive material. I hope the Minister might expand on that. Personal information must be protected, but a century-long closure is a substantial barrier. Surely there is some way to provide the families with at least some sense or measure of clarity. Under the current approach, they will never see the information in their lifetimes. That is deeply sad for anyone who has lost someone and wants to find out what happened.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the inconsistencies of the wider Government position. One of the main arguments that we have heard time and again over recent months in support of repealing the Northern Ireland legacy Act is that the victims’ families have a right to know what happened, but that principle does not seem to apply in this case. I hope that changes when the Minister meets with families. It is difficult to reconcile.
The Ministry of Defence has said that the 100-year closure will be reviewed in 2029. Although I appreciate that that is part of a regular cycle, it must feel very far away for families who have spent decades searching for answers. I am willing to work with the Minister and the defence team to see what can be done. I ask the Minister to work closely with the Chinook Justice Campaign in the meantime and to provide whatever information can be safely shared.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) for securing this important debate and speaking with such passion on behalf of the bereaved families who were impacted by this tragic accident 31 years ago. As he will know, I am a veteran myself. I know that the pain of losing loved ones does not diminish with the passage of time, and nor should it. In this case, there is the added hurt for families of not knowing, after more than three decades, precisely why the Chinook crashed or why their loved ones died. As he may know, I served in the Intelligence Corps. The loss of the Intelligence Corps personnel on board was felt when I joined in 2014 and, indeed, I discussed it with former colleagues recently. Their legacy is very much still alive and the impact of their service very much still remembered.
Colleagues will be well aware that the courts are considering the Chinook Justice Campaign’s request for a judicial review of the ministerial decision not to grant a new public inquiry into the accident. The judicial review process is a vital mechanism to hold public bodies to account and the courts will make their decision fairly and impartially. I will not provide a summary of our response to the courts or justify our position, but I will touch on a few points, including those raised in the debate.
I want to focus on the lessons that have been learned and applied as a lasting legacy of the 29 people who we lost that day and I know are greatly missed. It is vital that the public have confidence that those of us in positions of responsibility will honour our commitment to the duty of candour. That is the message at the heart of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill, which I am pleased to say has cross-party support for the reasons that we have heard several Members address today.
I want to address some of the points about the files that are held in the National Archives. There are claims that the files contain vital information about the cause of the crash, and that the information has been intentionally withheld. As we have stated publicly, the documents contained in the files have been reviewed by officials, who have confirmed that they contain no information that would offer new insights into the crash. I understand that only 0.1% of the documents are subject to the 100-year review. Most of those relate not to maintenance or repair logs, but to compensation or personal details, which of course was the reasoning for the 100-year closure in the first place.
Tessa Munt
I have done quite a lot of reading and received information from the family, but it is not clear to me the date on which the documents were sealed or by whom. Can the Minister confirm that? Who made the request that they be sealed, who made the decision that they should be sealed, and when was that decision made? I do not expect her to be able to answer off the top of her head, so I am happy for her to write to me.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I do not have the exact details to hand right now, but it is quite routinely the case that, where documents of this nature contain personal information, they are closed for 100 years to allow for the people whose details they contain to have passed away, at which point the privacy considerations obviously change.
Tessa Munt
I understand why they have been sealed. I would like to know who made the decision to seal the documents for 100 years, and on what date it was made. It was clearly not in June 1994, because it lasts for 100 years. Somebody made the decision after that date to seal those documents.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I will get the hon. Member the information. I understand that they are sealed until 2094.
Carrying on the point I was making, there is some material, from various sources, that puts forward theories relating to the crash, but those theories have been publicly aired in previous investigations, and I reiterate that the reason for those documents being closed is that they contain personal information. As has been mentioned, that is up for review in 2029. Although these documents are FOI-able, personal details would none the less remain redacted. The files have been transferred to the National Archives, which is standard practice, and the personal data has been marked as closed.
There have been six investigations and inquiries into the crash of Chinook ZD576. As a result of those, and the inquiries into the tragic fatal crash of RAF Nimrod XV230 in 2010, the Department has made a number of very important changes to its air safety and incident—
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Did the Minister just say that all of these documents would be FOI-able and would then be released, albeit in redacted form, presumably in the usual way, with personal details being blacked out?
Louise Sandher-Jones
Yes, that is the information I have been given.
The Department has made a number of important changes to its air safety and incident review processes since 1994. As we heard from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the change to the board of inquiry process so that negligence is not attributed to dead airmen is a hugely important step, which resulted partly from the investigations of this incident.
Chief among the changes is the establishment of the Military Aviation Authority, an independent and autonomous body that ensures that expert, no-blame investigations of safety-related incidents and near misses across all defence domains are independent, impartial and timely. As recommended by the board of inquiry report, accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders are now installed across the vast majority of Ministry of Defence air fleets, and formalised instrument meteorological conditions climb procedures were introduced throughout the RAF to support aircrew to safely negotiate poor weather conditions. Today the RAF has a robust and effective safety management system, and a commitment to total safety is embedded in the culture of the organisation.
Sir Julian Lewis
I apologise for intervening after having stepped out for part of the debate—this may already have been covered. Has any consideration been given to possible embarrassment over the decision to put so many staff, in so many sensitive positions, into a single aircraft? Despite my past interest in this case, I am not sure that I have ever heard that rules have been changed so that so many precious resources are not put at risk all in one single vehicle.
Louise Sandher-Jones
It is a very interesting point. I understand the reference, and I would be interested to know about further standard operating procedures. I am sure that, as the right hon. Member will understand, it is quite a rare occurrence to have that many senior people on the same airframe in the course of business, but I cannot say right now that that is definitely the case, or what the bounds are in terms of ranks and so on. I am sure the right hon. Member will appreciate that.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. If the Minister wants to give way, she is perfectly entitled to, but you should not force it by standing up.
Tessa Munt
Exactly as has just been said, I asked earlier whether, and when, that practice had been changed. I would very much like to know the date on which that decision was made, the nature of the decision and its wording, which I would share with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and note her request.
The hon. Member for North Down spoke movingly in his compelling speech about our moral duty to uncover the truth. I am committed, as I know my colleagues are, to the contract with those who serve our nation—we are serving them. Part of that contract is that when we ask them to do dangerous things, or put them into harm’s way, we have a moral duty to have done what we can to mitigate the risks they will face. To do that, we must do all the preparatory work necessary and learn the lessons when there is the opportunity to do so.
Let me briefly address a point—a single point, and not necessarily the entire argument—raised by the hon. Member for North Down and others. Although the review by Lord Philip was not statutory and therefore did not have the power to compel, I note that nobody who was called to give testimony absented themselves. Although they were not compelled, nobody refused to come.
The right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made an excellent point about the need for the Government to be open. I wholeheartedly agree on that, and on the need for accountability. I have already addressed the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately, as he always does, on behalf of those who have suffered. I reiterate the importance of getting to the truth of what happened. That is the central driving point and why we are all here for this debate.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke passionately on behalf of her constituents, and rightly called for justice and transparency. She called on us to read those 29 names, as I will do after this debate. She made the valid point that we must remember each and every person we lost in the crash. I thank her for her impassioned call.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) asked some very important questions, and I will write to her on the specifics. I hope I have already addressed at least some of her questions about the closed documents. Her point about the families not being told about the documents being sealed is a valid one. In this and similar situations, it is incumbent on us, the Ministry of Defence, to communicate everything we can to the affected families. I thank her for raising the point.
The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) raised the issues that the families have faced over the past 31 years in getting to the truth of what happened to their loved ones and why, and in achieving an understanding of the factors in the flight. I thank him for speaking so passionately on their behalf.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) spoke very well on behalf of his constituents. He made an important point about the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill. As he will know, some Government business is quite rightly classified, but there is still, of course, a need for accountability. He may be aware of my previous military service, and he will know that I absolutely understand the value of being able to carry out classified work, but the issue of accountability is valid whether we are talking about classified or unclassified work. I will certainly take his point away with me.
The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke very well, particularly about his own personal experiences. We heard a Chinook go overhead—
Louise Sandher-Jones
Exactly. It is a sound that the hon. Gentleman and I obviously know very well. Again, this goes back to my service in the Intelligence Corps. Before I deployed to Afghanistan, someone who was interested in my safety, and who was in the corps, told me to be careful, because it is when travelling that, unfortunately, we in the Intelligence Corps tend to lose our personnel. I am well aware that this is not the only crash in which we have lost members of the corps.
We are well aware of that every time we get into a military aircraft, particularly if it will be flying in hostile conditions. Every time I climbed into an aircraft, predominantly RAF Pumas, that had to fly in certain tactical ways—a bit more acrobatically than usual—I, and every single person on that flight, put so much trust in those who maintained, certified and produced the airframe. It is the work of many people to ensure that someone, whether the pilot or a passenger on the flight, can trust that it will get them from A to B as it should. That trust also extends to knowing that if anything happens to a flight, there will be truth and accountability in getting to the bottom of what went wrong, whatever the cause may be, without fear or favour. I very much acknowledge that principle today.
I also acknowledge the level of anger felt by those represented by the Chinook Justice Campaign. The noble Lord Coaker has written to them to invite representatives to meet him, the Minister for the Armed Forces and me, with the meeting scheduled for 16 December. I understand that the families and loved ones of the 29 people killed that day continue to search for answers to explain what went wrong. The review that was undertaken by Lord Philip concluded that the cause of the accident is likely never to be known, and I am truly sorry for that. Once again, I thank the hon. Member for North Down for securing the debate.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Before I call Alex Easton, I remind Members that I have allowed them more flexibility in coming and going than I would ordinarily, given the sensitivity of the issue and people having arrived late. Please bear that in mind in future.
Alex Easton
I thank all Members for their speeches and interventions. On behalf of the families, we appreciate the interest and the real reason: trying to get to the truth. Will the Minister to confirm something the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) mentioned about FOIs? Am I correct in saying that if somebody submits an FOI request for the documents that were sealed for 100 years, they can all be obtained, with redactions? I am willing to take an intervention.
Louise Sandher-Jones
They would have to go through the FOI process, which of course is not—[Interruption.]
Louise Sandher-Jones
I cannot prejudge the outcome of an FOI process for something that has not been asked for, but they can absolutely go through that process.
Alex Easton
I thank the Minister for her answer. We will certainly look at an FOI on that, just to see.
For too long, questions have remained unanswered. Why have the Ministry of Defence documents been sealed for 100 years? Why were repeated warnings ignored time and again? Where was the due diligence on the Chinook Airworthiness Review Team reports, which identified systematic failings? Where was the due diligence in response to the September 1993 report that described the FADEC software as “positively dangerous”? Where was the due diligence on the October 1993 findings of MOD test authorities that were unable to recommend the aircraft for flying? These are not just abstract questions; they go to the very heart of accountability, trust in our institutions, and justice for the families, who have waited far too long.
A 100-year blanket ban of secrecy cannot be allowed to smother the quest for truth, so we will test that with an FOI request. Light must be shone into the darkness. Today we have a choice to continue to hide behind delays and smokescreens, or to honour that long-held principle that justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and finally deliver the truth that is owed to the families through a judge-led public inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter crash.