Military Helicopters: Blood Cancers

16:00:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered military helicopters and blood cancers. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am here because of someone who joined the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm at the age of 19 because he had always wanted to fly. He always had the vitality to attack life and live it fully. He flew everything from Hawks to helicopters, and was a talented and committed pilot. By the time I met him, he was teaching new recruits to fly at RAF Cranwell, and was Navy snowboarding champion. In 2005, he went to Cornwall and was stationed at Culdrose, where he flew search and rescue on the old Sea Kings. I represent Truro and Falmouth. Cornwall is rich in forces personnel and veterans. Five and a half per cent of people in Truro and Falmouth have served, which is a much higher percentage than the national average of 3.8%. In Truro and Falmouth, 4,160 houses—more than 10%—have at least one veteran living in them. He was living in Dorset when he suffered strange symptoms of blood clots in his lungs and legs in the spring of 2022. It took some time and persistence, but he was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, a rare blood cancer that affects only 5,000 people a year in the UK and is most common in men over the age of 85. He was lucky to have some pioneering treatment in Dorset and later at the Royal Marsden hospital, and he was able to trial drugs that were not yet available in the UK. Treatment is developing for blood cancers all the time, and it is important that people in the UK have access to new treatments. The cancer, however, returned, and he died a year after diagnosis, not long after his 54th birthday. His was not an isolated case. Last Tuesday, in the Welsh Senedd, Julie Morgan led a debate very like this one about RAF winchman Zach Stubbings. Zach died from multiple myeloma at the age of 46, after working many hours on Sea Kings.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent, sterling efforts to advocate on behalf of serving personnel and veterans, seeking answers on the important matter of military helicopters and blood cancers. Does she agree that although the current in-house testing of in-service helicopters is welcome, we must ensure full transparency on the matter so that there is work done for those who have previously worked on those helicopters? The health and wellbeing of our serving personnel must always be front and centre.

I agree absolutely. The health of our serving personnel is and always must be paramount. I will move on to previous cases shortly. I know of 180 cases with solicitors of crew working on military helicopters who have contracted cancers, many like those of the two people I mentioned. They worked on the Sea King particularly, but also the Westland Wessex, the Puma, and the CH-47 Chinook. Many of the crew affected were in touch with each other, as there seemed too many of them, and the cancers too rare, to be pure coincidence. Last July, a report was written by the Independent Medical Expert Group on medical and scientific aspects of the armed forces compensation scheme, and was published in November last year. There was a section at the end on the potential link between exhaust fumes such as benzene from helicopters and blood cancers such as multiple myeloma. The findings were that the evidence and data available did not meet their threshold to establish a causal link between Sea King helicopter exhaust fumes or benzene and multiple myeloma, leiomyosarcoma, and soft tissue sarcomas.

I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. In the short time that she has been in the House, she has made a real name for herself as an assiduous MP, and I wish her well in her efforts. I concur with her comments. For us in Northern Ireland, helicopters were a part of life for getting troops in, and the police in and out. Numerous cases have been settled out of court for aircrew who developed rare cancers after being exposed to helicopter exhaust fumes. Given that certain types of blood cancer can take 10 to 20 years to manifest themselves, does the hon. Lady agree that steps should be taken to encourage those who served in specific aircraft types to seek screening and early intervention to provide better outcomes? With your indulgence, Sir Jeremy, on the question I asked earlier, there is a specific case of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. Those who did undercover work carried battery packs on their backs by their kidneys. Of a patrol of 12 policemen who did undercover work, 11 are dead. There is a big case to answer for all that happened in relation to helicopters and service in Northern Ireland.

I thank the hon. Member. He is correct that some cancers can take a long time to manifest. Personnel, veterans and those around them in their communities have to be aware that this could show itself much later in their lives. Solicitors for some of the personnel point to an RAF Institute of Health report dated March 1999. Although it did not establish a causal link, it contained recommendations to reduce crews’ exposure to exhaust fumes. I understand that modifications to the aircraft to do that were not made, although they did take place on some other countries’ military helicopters. Six cases in this country, including Zach’s, have so far been settled, and compensation paid by the Ministry of Defence without admission of liability. The Sea Kings were taken out of UK military service in 2018, and the Westland Wessex in 2003. Pumas and Chinooks are still in service, although the older aircraft have recently been retired. Sea Kings, however, are still in service in the private sector, and in military use in other countries. Three were donated by the UK to Ukraine in 2023. The MOD started testing exhaust emissions from military aircraft this February and has started the process of checking the records of personnel and veterans, to assemble data about how many have subsequently developed cancer. That will provide crucial data about who and how many people may have been affected.

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the attention of parliamentarians. It is not just about those who have contracted cancer. We know that other respiratory problems may also occur. Does he agree that our veterans, who do so much for our country, need the benefit of additional research to ensure all aspects are covered, not just those who have suffered cancer? I pay tribute to her late husband for his effort and involvement in the military.

I agree with the hon. Member that all manner of injuries may have occurred due to people’s military service. It is important that every single one is investigated to check if there is a link. I thank him for reminding me of that. Due to the sheer number of records and the way they are stored, I understand that checking them could take weeks, if not months. There are a number of things that could be done by Government or further afield that could help people who are affected now or in future. First, the Government could help to spread awareness of this potential link. There will be men and women with initial symptoms of these cancers that can easily be missed. If the serving personnel and veteran communities, who served with or on these aircraft, are alive to the possible risks, they will know what symptoms to look out for and to raise with medics. Secondly, GPS should be educated in places where there are clusters of personnel and veterans who have worked with these aircraft, so that they know to look for a military record when assessing symptoms that could indicate blood cancers. Thirdly, as well as signposting for veterans, a screening scheme for blood cancers could be set up for those who may be most at risk. Fourthly, the MOD can move faster on assembling, analysing and releasing the data on how many service personnel and veterans have subsequently developed these cancers, so that more research can be done on causation, action can be taken and cases can be quickly concluded. The five-year survival rate for multiple myeloma is 50%, so people are dying before their cases are settled and many are still being turned down for compensation. Fifthly, testing exposure to emissions must be done to take into account and replicate the real-life conditions that personnel were working under while undertaking search and rescue and military combat sorties. Sixthly, crews should still be advised to take sufficient precautions around aircraft, such as not standing directly in exhaust fumes and wearing personal protective equipment. Private companies and other countries that still use these aircraft need to be informed of the potential risks so that they can take steps to modify the aircraft and take other preventive action.

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing us this really important debate. Does she agree that the Ministry of Defence has a duty not just to those people who have already died or those people who are currently suffering but to their family, friends and loved ones? They are the backbone of so much of our armed forces. We need to make sure that this issue is dealt with efficiently and in an open environment so that if there is an ongoing issue, it is dealt with transparently.

I agree that these things should be dealt with as swiftly as possible and that it is not just about current personnel and veterans but people who may be affected in the future. Military personnel think they know the risks of what they are taking on when they sign up to fly for the military or work as aircrew. What they could not realise is that there were, and possibly still are, other hidden risks. The people who risk their lives in the service of this country are courageous men and women, and they deserve the very best care and the very best chance.

16:11:00

I thank you for allowing me to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for securing this debate. I begin by paying my deepest respects to the families, veterans and friends of all those who have tragically lost their lives to rare cancers in any way, shape or form. My hon. Friend’s great courage in sharing her story and her wider efforts to raise awareness of the issue, about which we have talked many times in the past, are both humbling from my perspective and inspiring to us all. I also thank Members of the House and of devolved Parliaments who have engaged on this issue, from Scotland to Wales and back again, particularly my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Their voices are vital to raising awareness, ensuring that robust debate takes place today and that actions that will come from it. This debate has highlighted the significant contribution of those who serve, and not just those who serve but the whole family who serves with them. Although in some cases there are differing views, the debate has also been a stark reminder that the health and safety and wellbeing of our personnel must remain at the very heart of everything we do in defence. Our people are the backbone of our armed forces. As an individual who served for 24 years, I can guarantee that. They are the guardians of our national security and the embodiment of all our values. Their health and safety and wellbeing are not just priorities; they are at the heart of all defence work. I have stood shoulder to shoulder with many colleagues in times of both triumph and sad adversity and have spent thousands of hours on helicopters and on the Sea King when it was in service—yes, I am that old. I know the pride of service but also the weight of its demands. That is why I am personally committed to ensuring that every individual who serves the country is treated as a highly valued member of our defence family. The Ministry of Defence has made significant strides over the past year to enhance the support we provide to our personnel. We are working tirelessly to modernise and to improve our environment in defence, so that everyone can truly thrive and reach their full potential, but we are certainly not complacent. We know that there is more to do and accept that there is further ground to cover. Defence must continue, however, to do everything it possibly can to prevent, protect and defend our personnel from illness or injury in whatever form. We owe it to our people, their families and their loved ones to do that. Beyond policies and programmes, our commitment must be reflected in our actions and our attitudes. Hopefully, Members have seen that in the last 12 months. It is about fostering a culture of care and respect where every individual feels valued and supported, and it is about recognising that our people are not just sailors, soldiers or indeed airmen; they are fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, friends and neighbours. That is why in February, after discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, we launched a comprehensive programme to test the engine exhaust emissions of all our in-service helicopter fleet. That work builds on several sampling surveys—I note they were sampling surveys—conducted on Sea King helicopters between 1999 and 2015. Those previous surveys were part of the Ministry of Defence’s long-standing commitment to our people, and to ensuring their safety at work. The surveys found no conclusive evidence to suggest that aircrew were subject to exposure levels above UK and international safety standards. I must emphasise that in most cases there is no evidence, in any way, shape or form, to suggest that aircraft today are causing issues with safety at work.

If the Minister does not mind my saying so, does he, and the Government, not have an obligation to ensure that all those who suspect they have blood cancer, or are worried that they may have it, are notified so that they are aware? They could then go and check, if they had not already done so. That at least should be done out of courtesy, good manners and respect, and for the protection of those who have served in uniform.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Various programmes reach out to those serving, and those who are ex-serving, to highlight the risks of serving in defence. The lack of evidence linking the two together withholds us from being very specific but, generally, we push really hard for everyone in defence with any indication of an issue caused by service to get it seen to, and make sure that a claim goes forward. The testing programme that we are putting in place is a proactive measure, reflecting our commitment to the highest standards of health and safety. It involves rigorous analysis of emissions from all operational helicopters, conducted in accordance with approved methodologies, ensuring that we have a clear understanding of any potential risks. We will not hesitate—and I will review this regularly—to take swift action if required, once that data is compiled. This is about more than compliance: it is about meeting existing safety standards, and about trust. It is about demonstrating to our personnel that their safety is our unwavering priority. As part of that commitment, the independent medical expert group, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, was asked to review not just the UK but worldwide medical literature on this issue. It concluded that there was no evidence of a medical, causal link between helicopter exhaust fumes and rare blood cancers. But, as I have mentioned to my hon. Friend, although that provides an element of reassurance, we remain vigilant and committed to monitoring any emerging evidence. That is critical. With the Department, I have been exploring options for a broader holistic review of cancer diagnosis in service personnel, which should give us an iron-clad view of certain groups across defence. Throughout that process, we will keep personnel, their families and this House informed, but that is quite a comprehensive study.

As a lawyer, I know there are always complexities around causal links, statistics and experts. There will always be a differing opinion. Does the Minister agree that anyone who has been part of the military should have available to them a legal team, funded by legal aid, to progress a claim—as opposed to a lawyer in a no win, no fee arrangement, which can bite into a substantial chunk of any compensation?

I will need to come back to the hon. Member on the specific legalities around that issue; I am not a lawyer. The war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme for individuals provide a route for compensation, in any way, shape or form. If there is a cause, as far as I am concerned there will absolutely be a redress or compensation scheme to support that, but I will write to the hon. Member on that issue. I want to be really clear on that last point. Although the IMEG’s findings provide some reassurance, I want to be absolutely clear that I have been exploring options for a broader, holistic review of the cancers. We talk about the simplicity of finding the data, but I want to give hon. Members the scale. There are 2.1 million veterans in the UK. We do not track cancers post-service for those veterans. In some cases, we do not even know where those veterans are. We do not know where the pockets sit. We can have a rough view, and make a guess, but we do not have the statistical data. The Valour programme, which we launched a while back, should help build up a clear understanding of our veteran demographic and the issues that veterans face, and help address them in the most programmatic way. At the moment, the data does not exist. We will continue to work with independent experts in both the UK and, importantly, the US, to closely monitor and understand any emerging evidence around aircraft exhaust fumes and cancers. Let me reiterate: we will continue to monitor the data. We will monitor this issue closely and act decisively if concerns are identified.

I thank the Minister for his incredibly detailed and helpful responses. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for raising this important topic with such clarity and compassion. She has been such a strong champion for our armed forces and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Her words today carry real weight. Does the Minister agree that there is clearly further vital work to do to ensure that all those who have served can access the care and support that they so need?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is why we brought the armed forces covenant into law just two weeks ago, which now increases the number of Government Departments that have a responsibility to ensure that no one is disadvantaged because of their service from four to 14. That is fantastic. It also enhances the support that we can give to those serving, their families and loved ones, the bereaved, and our veterans in general. The safety of our people is non-negotiable. To the families who have campaigned so passionately to raise awareness of this important topic, I say this: “You have sparked a conversation. It has resulted in action. That action and detail will follow through in due course.” But we must make an active move now to collect the data, as broadly as possible.

It is good news that the Minister has identified the requirement to collect data, but data collection can take a long time. Is he able to give any comfort on the timescale for building up the evidence base to determine whether there is a direct link one way or the other?

Unfortunately, we do not have a timescale at the moment. The scale of the task is hard to define. In terms of where the records sit, no one keeps records on veterans when they leave, apart from the NHS. Those records are held in different buckets all over the UK. It is going to take some time to pull that together and analyse it, and to work out whether there are pockets of very rare cancers from one part of defence, another part of defence or from other industries. Unfortunately, we just do not know. I will endeavour to get back to my hon. Friend once the scale of the task, which is gigantic, is conceptualised into time. I come back to some points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. On spreading awareness of a potential link, we work really hard to ensure that all service personnel have access to national cancer screening programmes. The MOD regularly runs health education campaigns—I hope that answers her earlier question—that encourage participation in national cancer screening programmes and raise awareness about cancers. Any veteran listening to this debate who has a cancer or a suspicion of cancer should please ensure they get it checked out and get the details recorded medically so that, if there may be a claim of any shape or form, that can be processed and they have the evidence, and it can get dealt with in the fastest and most efficient manner. Educating GPs in places where there are clusters of personnel and veterans also goes back to data. There are clusters of veterans everywhere, ranging from 1,000 to 17,000, to 33,000 in Portsmouth. I will refrain from speaking about healthcare professionals any broader than the MOD in this forum, but I expect every defence medical service doctor to work in accordance with best practice, particularly National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, to identify individuals with symptoms that could be caused by cancer and to arrange the appropriate speedy follow-up for a specialist referral. As well as signposting for veterans, a screening scheme for blood cancers could be set up for those who may be at most risk; that point was mentioned earlier. The current medical advice from IMEG is clear, but I am mindful that there is also no UK screening programme for multiple myeloma or other rare cancers. I have read some of the medical advice, and it looks like some of those screening processes can cause a percentage of harm—I will need to look at that in a bit more detail. Any harm from screening must be outweighed by the benefits of screening. I go back to causation, and a focus on getting data on who needs to be screened and who does not. This is a deeply complex problem. I am not trying to confuse or confuddle the debate. We need to get to the bottom of this, but we need to do it the right way, and in the speediest, most efficient way. The real-life replication of testing conditions was also mentioned. I want to reassure hon. Members that the testing we do on aircraft mirrors real life. In some cases, it is on the sampling equipment that is carried on the person, on the air crew and indeed the ground crew as well, because not just the pilots are involved, but the broader group. On whether they should still be advised to take sufficient precautions, I should say that I have spent a large proportion of my career in helicopters and stood in the exhaust fumes, which often used to heat us up in cold environments, which I would not recommend. I can attest to the quality and professionalism of the air crew. Indeed, the air crew as a whole are absolutely prepared with both PPE and understanding.

I thank the Minister for his clarification about the testing of helicopters currently in service. But could he clarify something? Are there any provisions to conduct tests or derive data on previous models and those not in service?

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Several studies were conducted on the Sea King. In 2010 a study was conducted during operational flying in Afghanistan—I was out there at the same time and probably on them every now and again. It found notable levels of exposure to carbon monoxide and nitrogen monoxide. However, all exposures were below levels considered to be harmful to health. In 2013, there was a study on search and rescue Sea Kings that found exhaust gases were below levels considered harmful to health. A 2014 study measured exposure to elements of carbon. That was found to be well below the German exposure standard; unfortunately, no UK standard existed at the time. The highest exposure was found to be at least less than a third of the concentration at which, based on the scientific knowledge, long-term repeated exposure could potentially cause ill health. On the private companies and countries that still use these aircraft, the previous testing of the Sea King helicopters, which I just mentioned, did not have conclusive evidence that air crew were exposed to substances above UK-wide international limits—those German studies. Third party operators and countries may operate the aircraft differently and for different purposes, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth that they should ensure that they appropriately manage potential risks. I think we can help with that. Although views differ, some of the evidence is over a long period of time. The subject group is huge, but it could be quite concentrated in some areas. I accept that we differ on some of the points today. I think we are united in our commitment to the health and safety of our armed forces and the protection of our people, our territories, our values, and indeed our interests, both at home and overseas. It is the most fundamental duty of defence. But that duty is only as strong as the people who uphold it. Our armed forces are not just a source of national pride; they are the lifeblood of our security, admired across the globe for their expertise, professionalism and unwavering commitment. Together we will ensure that the Ministry of Defence remains steadfast in its commitment to the health and safety of its people. Their safety is non-negotiable. Their wellbeing is not optional. It is an obligation. I want to be clear that we are conducting testing now. We have looked at the reviews of previous testing, and there are options for understanding the broader cancer demographic among our veterans population. I have taken that on after the discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. We will do everything in our power to ensure that everyone who wears the uniform of this country is protected, respected and supported, because they deserve nothing less. Question put and agreed to.

16:28:00