Just in case you missed it...
This is from June's HoC Committee debate on the renewal of search and seizure regs. Don't ask me why ZD576 is discussed, but it is.
Julian Lewis MP (Tory defence spokesman):
"Last June, when the order was considered in the other place, Lord Chalfont tabled an amendment because he did not wish the orders to be approved until justice had been done to the memory of the two pilots of Chinook ZD576. Many feel, in light of the RAF's regulations at the time, that the pilots were saddled unfairly with the blame for the crash on the Mull of Kintyre. Will the Minister give us an update on that continuing debate? On questions of ethos and spirit in
Column Number: 013
the armed forces, it is important that servicemen know that they will not posthumously carry the blame for something for which, if there were any doubt about the circumstances, they should not be blamed. If one thing is certain, it is that there was some doubt about the circumstances of the Mull of Kintyre crash. Significantly, the rules have been changed since the matter came to the fore, so that people can never be blamed posthumously as those young officers were. We have some unfinished business that the Minister would do well to address.
---
The new MoD Minister, Ivor Caplin, replied later:
I want to make two points to the hon. Gentleman about the issue of Chinook and the Mull of Kintyre. If I do not deal with the matter in full, I hope that he will understand that I am still considering some of the issues and will happily come back to him. The reviewing officers were and remain convinced that they had met the required standard, and the Government retain every confidence in their judgment. Since that tragic accident, the Ministry of Defence has examined all the complex technical, legal and airmanship issues raised by those opposed to the
Column Number: 019
finding, but we have found nothing to undermine that ruling.
I accept that it is possible for different people—perfectly properly and with entirely open minds—to reach different conclusions. Only if it could be seen that there was new evidence would it be right to consider moderating or setting aside the board of inquiry's findings to date.
Dr. Lewis: It is precisely because, as the Minister concedes, different people can reach different conclusions that it is wrong to say that there was no reasonable doubt. If under the old rules there was no reasonable doubt, dead aircrew should not have been blamed. The killer point is that the rules have been changed since the case, so should the same thing happen again, it would not be possible for pilots to be blamed in the same way. What is at stake is the posthumous reputation of two pilots who are being judged under a system that it has since been deemed necessary to change. That seems rather an unfair way to save the face of two senior reviewing officers.
Mr. Caplin: I part company with the hon. Gentleman on that. The Government have been entirely open and honest about those issues. We have co-operated fully with every inquiry, and the inquiry conclusions stand. As I told the hon. Gentleman at the outset, if I feel any differently in a few months' time, I will happily get back to him.
-------
Not sure if this is worth getting excited about, but nice to know that people are still flying the flag in Parliament.
Rex