Having had a chance to read the report, MoD is almost correct in saying it contains nothing new; primarily because, as I said earlier, the Committee was awaiting answers to certain questions, but the bulk of the evidence was already published. These supplementary questions include;
Questions 64-66 (Mr Bacon): Who was the predecessor as the head of the Integrated Project Team or its equivalent to the present one, Group Captain Sibley?
In line with Cabinet Office guidance1 and the principle that employment matters are a matter of confidence and trust (extending beyond the end of employment) the Ministry of Defence is unwilling to release publicly the names of the previous Chinook IPT Team Leaders. The Senior Responsible Officer for Helicopters, is currently Capability Manager (Battlefield Manoeuvre) Maj Gen Chris Wilson. He is responsible for ensuring the delivery of benefits for helicopter projects and sits on the MOD's Joint Capabilities Board.
Question 72 (Mr Mitchell): Can you give us, perhaps in a letter to the Committee, an indication of who stayed with the project all this time to make all these cock-ups or are folk constantly moving on?
No member of staff has worked continuously on the Chinook Mk3 procurement from its original approval in July 1995. Postings to the Chinook IPT, in common with postings across the Ministry of Defence, are normally between two and five years in length.
To these and other questions, we get the normal MoD dissembling; however they are helped by the ill-informed questions. For example, why ask who the predecessor to the current IPTL was when it is clear that the IPT, formed in 1999, had nothing whatsoever to do with the negotiation and letting of the contract? The mistakes were made years before (and predicted and risks notified before that). And the notion that those in post at the time cannot be named is plain daft. For example, House of Commons - Public Accounts - Minutes of Evidence, but perhaps MoD is being selective.
Q72 is a more valiant effort but again suffers because it is poorly phrased. (Who briefs these committees?). Nevertheless, MoD’s answer is pure bollocks as the answer only discusses the IPT (post-1999). No mention at all of the 1, 2 and 4 Stars who were in post in PE for the crucial years before (and after in the case of the 2* and 4*) the IPT was formed.
The report also purports to include the written evidence it received. It doesn’t, at least not all of it. This combination of faffy questions and selectivity leads me to conclude this is the usual stitch up. Everyone agrees MoD must take a hit; the name of the game is to dilute it as far as possible while protecting the guilty. No change there then. It is a pity the press can’t see through this and report the facts.