1994 RAF Chinook Crash

Alex Easton Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Alex Easton]

To 2001.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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.