Lords Hansard Extracts 16 Dec 09
Selected extracts from House of Lords 16 Dec 09
Nimrod Review
Statement
4.15 pm
Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, before I repeat the Statement today……………
In his report, Mr Haddon-Cave also criticised the personal conduct of a small number of civilians and service people who held positions in the MoD and in industry in the period leading up to 2006. A number of those individuals work for BAE Systems or for QinetiQ, both of which are conducting their own investigations. A number of others are now retired.
In relation to the two serving RAF officers who were named, neither officer currently holds a position in any way related to safety. An RAF police investigation is now under way. Honourable Members will understand that I am unable to comment further on these matters at present……………..
Mr Haddon-Cave’s analysis and conclusions on safety management in aviation have wider relevance and we are looking to see what changes we may need to make across other safety domains in defence. He made a number of broader observations on areas that were not the main focus of his report. Mr Haddon-Cave did not take evidence on the department’s approach to change management.
Lord Astor of Hever………………………….
The report was very critical of two companies, BAE Systems and QinetiQ. The delay in their responses is not acceptable, as they both had plenty of warning. Did those two companies give the Government any reasons for that delay?
The report criticised two senior retired officers, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, for their roles as CDL during the key periods. Yet in all that they did, they were carrying out the strategy, policies and actions of the MoD, continuously reiterated and discussed with Ministers. If there was, as has been described in the report,
“a sustained period of deep organisational trauma”,
within the MoD, the Secretary of State must answer for that. In our parliamentary culture, it is Ministers who are accountable, both to Parliament and to the public, and it is wholly wrong that those retired officers should be pilloried in the press as they have been. What message does that send to serving members of the Armed Forces? I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge the injustice done to them.
Lord Lee of Trafford…………………………
On the Haddon-Cave review itself, I pay tribute to that near 600-page tome as a remarkably comprehensive and detailed document, but I do have a number of questions. I echo very much the probing of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in this regard, but given that Ministers have overall responsibility for their departments-certainly, for the financial resources allocated to them and for overall policy-why were no Ministers questioned by Haddon-Cave? Similarly, there was no questioning of either the Permanent Secretary or the second PUS despite, if I understand it correctly, the latter having overall responsibility for health and safety. Additionally, why were no non-executive members of the Defence Logistics Organisation board interviewed? I believe that we will be hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, shortly.
Haddon-Cave found against both BAE Systems and QinetiQ. On page 301, his report says:
“If BAE Systems had carried out the NSC task properly, the accident”,
would not have happened. In a press release dated 29 October 2009, BAE says:
“We accept full responsibility for these failings and apologise unreservedly for them”.
QinetiQ, as has been said, has appointed a former judge to oversee that company’s formal investigation.
However, the review also comes out heavily against two senior figures: General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, both former Chiefs of Defence Logistics. Paragraph 17 on page 353 says:
“Two very senior figures bear particular responsibility for the episode of cuts, change dilution and distraction and its consequences”.
From my reading of the report