1994 RAF Chinook Crash

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Tessa Munt

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Tessa Munt

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

Probably most of us have constituents in exactly the same situation. In just over a year, two prevention of future deaths reports have been issued related to severe ME. I have already referred to one of them, regarding the case of Maeve Boothby O’Neill; the other was on the case of Sarah Lewis. Neither report has yet resulted in satisfactory action. The risk of death, specifically from malnutrition, is real and ongoing.

Earlier today I spoke with Dr Binita Kane, a private sector clinician with a special interest in ME and long covid. She told me about the case of a 25-year-old woman, a medical student, who developed severe ME after a viral infection in 2018. The young woman has been in an acute NHS hospital for 17 months with nutritional failure and has deteriorated to the point that palliative care is being instituted. Her family is being prepared for the worst—it is dreadful. She has been disadvantaged not because of the individual clinical decisions, but because she suffers from a condition for which there is no safe or established service model. There have been multiple missed opportunities to prevent her condition progressing to this stage.

Sadly, that young woman is not alone. I have heard of many other cases today, and before today. What is being done to help patients like her? In the foreword to the final delivery plan, the Minister stated that

“tragically avoidable deaths of people with ME/CFS, in England…must become never events.”

However, the plan does not clearly set out what actions the Department will take to guarantee patient safety. No one is being held to account. The plan committed the DHSC and NHS England to

“explore whether a specialised service should be prescribed by the Secretary of State for Health for very severe ME/CFS”.

I hope that the Secretary of State will do the right thing and commission that service, but it is frankly astonishing that the option of leaving this group of patients without specialist NHS care, as they are now, is even on the table.

I ask the Minister to clarify what progress has been made in commissioning such a service. That is not to mention that developing a new service from the ground up is, at best, a medium-term solution. It may take years. It is astonishing that no interim solution has been proposed to ensure that patients with very severe ME, whose lives are at risk right now across the country, do not become tomorrow’s mortality statistics. How many more preventable deaths will it take? I ask the Minister to commit to work with groups such as #ThereForME to rectify the situation immediately, for example by convening a national advisory group to advise in these cases and by undertaking a full review of the lessons learned from ME deaths. Will the Minister clarify what data is being collected to better understand the number of those with ME who are affected by life-threatening complications?

The third area on which I would like to see the Government do much more is accelerating ME research. I spoke earlier about the need for investment in research and improving healthcare. For many patients, biomedical research represents their best hope of regaining their former life, yet the condition has historically received very low levels of research funding from the UK Government.

Based on parliamentary answers and official announcements, I estimate that around £10 million has been invested in ME research over the past 12 years. To put that figure into context, on the current numbers that is about 60p per person living with ME per year. Four times as much was spent on a helicopter for the former Prime Minister as has been spent on ME. We spent £125 million—12 times as much—on a bat tunnel for HS2. We spent £10 billion—about 1,000 times as much—on personal protective equipment that turned out to be unusable. Money talks, and the record of the past decade makes it clear to people with ME that their collective futures have been valued by successive Governments at astonishingly little.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tessa Munt]

Forgive me, but I am going to carry on.

The final delivery plan rightly points to the need to build capacity in ME research, given the small UK research community and very few funded research projects. The University of Edinburgh’s DecodeME project has been a notable exception, recently reporting groundbreaking findings that revealed distinct genetic signals in people living with ME—medical, not psychological. This gives us a solid and compelling foundation for future research. Can the Minister explain what plans are in place for future funding to capitalise on this research? Again, the delivery plan is light on actions to build UK capacity in any research. A consensus recommendation for a post-infectious disease research hub was not funded.

A joint showcase event was held earlier this month by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council, with the goal of stimulating research, yet it is not clear whether this will yield tangible results or how its outcomes will be monitored. Again, I ask the Minister what the plan is if, as seems possible, it is not a lack of information holding back capacity, but secure long-term finance to encourage researchers to build a career in the field.

The final delivery plan gestured to HERITAGE and PRIME, which were effectively pre-existing funding announcements. The only genuinely new funding announced through the plan from the National Institute for Health and Care Research for research into repurposed therapies was capped to grants of £200,000. The Government’s response on this issue, including in the letter sent in response to concerns raised by the 72 Lib Dem MPs, tends to be that it is not usual practice to ringfence funds for specific conditions, and that researchers can apply for funding in open competition. Yet historical funding imbalances mean that it is not realistic to expect ME researchers to compete with researchers of diseases that benefit from more advanced research and much stronger institutional capacity.

The UK Government do, in fact, set aside funding for specific conditions when they are considered a strategic priority. Just this June, £50 million of funding was announced for cardiovascular disease research to be awarded through open competition. In 2021, £50 million was committed to research into motor neurone disease. If we can award ringfenced funding through open competition for those conditions, why not ME? To echo a question asked at a recent research showcase event, why is ME not considered a strategic research priority? Can the Minister clarify that?

The fourth and final point on which I would like the Government to go further is support from wider Departments, particularly the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions. Children and young people are uniquely affected by ME. The condition disrupts and can derail key life stages and developmental milestones. Among educational professions, poor understanding of ME contributes to a lack of adjustments, limiting access to education and increasing school absences. The final delivery plan acknowledges the need for access to education and improved life chances among children and young people with ME, but while this is in theory a cross-Government plan, engagement from the Department for Education seems to have been extremely limited. Can the Minister outline what engagement has taken place so far and commit to speaking with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that they will engage with the delivery plan moving forward and ensure that children and young people with ME receive appropriate accommodations?

Meanwhile, welfare benefits are the most common issue that constituents with ME raise with me. Many have struggled for years to access the benefits they are entitled to, feeling that they are fighting a system that works against them. Like most people living with disabilities, my constituents are terrified at the prospect of future welfare reforms and losing the support that they have and rely on to meet their basic needs.

Looking at the current situation, I am indebted to a benefits adviser focusing on ME for her summary.

“People with ME face intersectional and compounding barriers when interacting with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). These include structural flaws in benefit design, widespread misunderstanding of their conditions, systemic disbelief, inaccessible systems, poor-quality assessment practices, and the cumulative harm of being required to repeatedly prove their illness. The current benefit system and emerging reform agenda both fail to reflect the fluctuating, energy-limiting multisystemic nature of these conditions.

And then, the Universal Credit Act 2025, together with the proposed abolition of the Work Capacity Assessment (WCA) and on-going threats to PIP eligibility, signals a fundamental shift in how disabled people meet entitlement to financial support.”

I am particularly concerned about the proposals to replace the new-style employment and support allowance with a time-limited unemployment insurance and to abolish the work capability assessment. Replacing the new-style ESA would disproportionately harm individuals who are not eligible for means-tested support, for example because their partner works. Among other harms, that would increase the risk of domestic abuse while heightening financial dependence—a particularly pressing concern, given that ME is considerably more prevalent in women.

Abolishing the work capability assessment removes critical safeguards in regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2013 for those whose health would be seriously harmed by work or work-related activity. Those protections are vital for people with ME, who are at particular risk of harm and long-term health consequences if they push beyond their energy limits.

Time prevents me from providing more detail, but I will conclude my observations by saying that, on the whole, what people with ME want most is to recover their capacity to contribute to their families, their community and wider society. They hate being ill. An appropriate benefits system must acknowledge that and treat them with dignity and fairness. The way to get people with ME and those caring for them back into work is not to take away crucial support, but to invest in helping them to get better.

Many will be watching this debate from home, desperately hoping that we are doing everything we can to build them a better future. They deserve the assurance that the Government are committed to a clear, ambitious and, crucially, properly funded vision for change across healthcare, research and all forms of Government support. I ask the Minister for a meeting to discuss myalgic encephalomyelitis and the way forward for the 1.35 million people affected. I very much hope that today’s debate represents a big step forward in delivering that for them.

ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Debate between Carla Lockhart and Tessa Munt

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tessa Munt]

Indeed, I do agree. Our interaction with the NHS needs to be far better. I will come to that later.

In December 2020, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice took the important step of commissioning an independent review into neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. The review was led by the chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor; the chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell; and the chief inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Thomas Winsor. The resultant report concluded that when ADHD goes unrecognised or unsupported, the cycle of

“crime, arrest, court, prison, probation and reoffending”

will repeat itself. That is likely to be because the root cause driving that cycle of constant repetition is not currently being addressed in a structured or uniform way in the criminal justice system.

According to the report, the identification, support and management of neurodiverse individuals, including those with ADHD, is “patchy, inconsistent and uncoordinated”. It exposed

“serious gaps, failings and missed opportunities at every stage of the system.”

To put it simply, the report identified that the system was not adequately supporting neurodiverse individuals.

There are many elements of the prison environment that can cause distress to neurodiverse people, including busy and noisy wings, cell-sharing and frequent changes in daily routine. There is no consistent approach to screening for ADHD across prison services, and no single screening tool is used as a standard across the system. The lack of consistent screening means that people who come into the system with ADHD are not identified in a timely manner, or indeed at all.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a real problem with data collection, which means that the extent of the problem in our prison service is not known? We experience that problem in Northern Ireland, and I am sure it is the same across the United Kingdom.

[Tessa Munt]

Indeed, there is no consistent data collection. That is a problem not only in Northern Ireland, but in England and Wales, which the debate is primarily about. If someone is identified and diagnosed, it can be hard for them to access the right care and support due to fragmented care pathways. That is compounded by limited awareness and understanding of ADHD in the prison services.