From the Nuclear SQEP description you have this:
and conversely suitably means suitably, not particularly well: the Office of Nuclear Regulation takes SQEPness to be broadly equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency concept of 'competence'
IAEA has defined competence as “the ability to put skills and knowledge into practice in order to perform a job in an effective and efficient manner to an established standard” ONR concurs with this definition, which is widely accepted within the international nuclear community. Other factors contributing to a person’s competence include the person’s prior experience, aptitudes, attitudes, behaviours, skills and qualifications.[2]
Within the MAA competencies are within RA 1002:
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...petent-persons
However I think the point being made is there may be some lower down that are considered SQEP/competent and fulfil the criteria laid down, it is some of the management, both military and civilian, who don't necessarily hold that same competency or knowledge of the subject matter required of the post they hold, 'jobs for the boys' springs to mind, and are averse to being 'shown up' by their more capable subordinates, so ignore/suborn/prevaricate/hide information to cover their backsides when things go wrong, these are the ones who are at the heart of the issue.
To fill gapped posts some incumbents do not always fill the regulated requirements of experience and competency for that post, so end up not fulfilling the due diligence for the task, totally innocently in most cases, which would appear to suit the management style described above.
As has been said before, in cases like this the Accountable Manager/Duty Holder is where the buck stops and when it goes wrong they should be standing in the court to explain why it went wrong under their watch, don't see that often with regard the military to date, so these threads will no doubt continue unless they sort themselves out.