Your support helps us to tell the story
Support NowThis election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
A senior MP has accused the former RAF chief air marshal of lying over allegations he had pushed through an illegal recruitment policy for the service.
Alicia Kearns, the former chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, used parliamentary privilege in prime minister’s questions (PMQs) to accuse Sir Mike Wigston of lying in the case of the RAF’s former head of recruitment group captain Lizzy Nicholl.
Challenging Sir Keir Starmer, Ms Kearns said: “Group Captain Lizzy Nicholl had an exemplary career with the RAF until she was forced to resign for refusing to implement illegal recruitment orders. Despite inquiry after inquiry vindicating Lizzy on every count, the RAF and Ministry of Defence have failed to offer her fair compensation and those responsible have just walked away.
“Shamefully, during the purdah election period – in what I believe was an attempt to subvert ministerial oversight - officials offered her a derisory £2,000. I have documents proving beyond doubt that the former chief of the air staff lied to the then-defence secretary about her case.
“If the prime minister believes in righting wrongs, will he meet Lizzy and help ensure those responsible are held accountable and that Lizzy gets the justice she deserves.”
Responding, the prime minister said: “I thank her for raising what is a very important case. I am not across the individual details, but it does need to be looked into. We will look into it. I will make sure she gets a meeting with the relevant minister to lay out what details she has and get some answers for her inquiry.”
The issue surrounds attempts by the RAF to bring positive discrimination into recruiting by allegedly prioritising ethnic minority and female candidates over white candidates.
Despite a Non-Statutory Inquiry and Services Complaint Process vindicating Group Captain Nicholl and concluding the RAF had implemented illegal recruitment practices, she is yet to receive compensation or justice.
The inquiry concluded Group Captain Nicholl had faced “significant and unreasonable pressure to meet diversity targets”.
Since the inquiry concluded, 161 cases of illegal positive discrimination have been identified.
The Directorate of Army Legal Services (DALS) sent the RAF a legal report on 5 September, with an executive summary stating, “the recruitment policies of the RAF over the past two years generate a very high risk of successful legal challenge” and “the polices… are highly likely to be regarded as going beyond lawful ‘positive action’ and constituting unlawful ‘positive discrimination’”.
Including the legal report by DALS, the RAF received legal advice on nine occasions from 3 August 2021 to 5 September 2022 stating both adopted and suggested recruitment policies had either a ‘high’ or ‘very high’ risk of a successful legal challenge.
But in the minutes from the Air Force main board held on 7 September 2022, Sir Mike told the then defence secretary Ben Wallace: “Chief of air staff (CAS) had asked the chief of the defence people (CDP) to conduct a swift review of the RAF’s recruiting practices; the review concluded that no evidence of actual discrimination had been found, however direction had been issued, when if acted upon would have left the RAF exposed to a high risk of successful legal challenge.”
The Ministry of Defence and Royal Air Force have declined to comment.
A source close to Sir Mike said: “The ex-chief (Sir Mike Wigston) had a long and distinguished career and he would not deliberately mislead, however, the information/facts provided to him by policy officials did change over time leading to changes in the official position, this is normal in a case as complex as this and may be what the MP is referring to.”
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.
