The man in charge of equipment at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has warned officials offer "opinion" not fact on defence programmes, including the aircraft carriers being built on the Clyde, because of pressure from ministers.
In recent years the department has become notorious for overspends and procurement problems. But Bernard Gray said that civil servants in his department had "their arms put up behind their backs" to produce hasty costings for projects.
Earlier this week Mr Gray revealed that in 2010, when Tory MP Liam Fox was Defence Secretary, officials were given just hours to estimate the cost of changing the planes to fly from the carriers.
Mistakes in that process led to a humiliating U-turn by Mr Fox's replacement Philip Hammond last year and have cost the taxpayer at least £74million.
Appearing before a separate committee of MPs, Mr Gray said officials should have been given six months, not a day, to complete the work. He said what was eventually provided was "opinion".
"People (within the MoD) come under pressure, with people saying, 'Everybody wants to know, we have to have an answer today,'" he said.
"'If you were any kind of a person you would be out there and would be able to tell us what this costs,' and so on and so forth; people have their arms put up behind their backs, and so they put in a number. That is a fundamental mistake and a weakness of the current system: it allows people to offer an opinion about something when they cannot about something like that." …
Instead, he told members of the Defence Reform Bill Committee, officials should have said that they could not offer costings without months of work "however much you want us to".
The MoD has stressed that Mr Gray has set out plans to change defence procurement to improve value for money for the taxpayer. A source suggested that by "opinion" Mr Gray was referring to estimates based on expert knowledge and provided due to time pressures.
But Thomas Docherty, the Labour MP for Dunfermline and a member of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said: "The Defence Review was a disaster that resulted in wasted money and a loss of vital defence capabilities."
Earlier this week MPs condemned the "deeply flawed" information on which the original 2010 decision was based.
"Incredibly basic errors" were made in plans to install aircraft with catapult and arrester gear for landing and take-off, instead of the jump jets planned under Labour, they found.
On Wednesday Mr Gray told MPs on the Defence Select Committee officials were asked to provide costings by "five o'clock" the same day.
Last year, the Commons public accounts committee (PAC) concluded that the taxpayer too often had to pick up the bill for the MoD underestimating the risks involved in building complex weapons systems.
It highlighted three large projects which suffered from long delays and overspend, including the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft which was scrapped in a 2011 review to save costs, despite £3.4bn being spent on the project.
MPs on the PAC said it was unacceptable the department could not identify the size of the gap between resources and expenditure.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article