Defence CommitteeFurther written evidence from the Ministry of Defence

RELEASE OF REDACTED OLAAAR

I write in relation to your previous request for a copy of the Operational Learning Account and After Action Report (OLAAAR) produced following the Camp Bastion attack of 14-15 September 2012. As the Defence Secretary has made clear, our position remains that we do not routinely release documents relating to force protection issues. We have, however, recently been working to produce an unclassified version of the OLAAAR for public release. This version, which is attached, has been redacted in accordance with Freedom of Information principles, including for operationally sensitive information and personal data.

While the Defence Secretary is content for the Committee to see this version of the report as background information following CJO’s recent open and closed sessions with your committee, he has asked me to emphasise the context in which the OLAAAR was produced and its purpose.

You will note the caveat on page one that this is a provisional report. OLAAARs are designed to identity the facts of a matter quickly, review the incident, take steps to prevent recurrence, and act as a record. OLAAARs are required to be produced within 120 hours of an incident. In this case the report was written very rapidly (within 48 hours of the attack) when all the facts may not have been readily available or verified effectively in the post incident confusion. As CJO explained to your committee during the recent evidence session, this report was wound into the ISAF process to avoid potentially unhelpful duplication; this has meant that it retains errors that would otherwise have been corrected during onward staffing.

You will see that the summary, at paragraph 54, for example, contains an assertion that funding for force protection enhancements [at Bastion] has not always been forthcoming despite warnings. I am aware that this will resonate with some of the media reporting that followed the publication of the US review, alleging that repeated requests for further investment in Bastion force protection were turned down in the UK on financial grounds. However, as CJO has made clear to you, we have found no evidence to substantiate such claims. I also refer you to Mr Rimmer’s remarks at the same evidence session on the level of delegations provided to in-theatre commanders for infrastructure spending.

I hope this proves useful.

13 January 2014