The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

Chapter 29 – Military Covenant and Final Remarks
CHAPTER 29 – MILITARY COVENANT AND FINAL REMARKS
29.1
29.2
A sacred and unbreakable duty of care is owed to the men and women of the Armed Forces by reason of the
fact that they are necessarily called upon to make substantial personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice,
in the service of the Nation.
Early manifestations of this duty are to be found as far back as Elizabeth I’s reign in statutes providing for relief
for sick or wounded veterans. 1
The Military Covenant
29.3
29.4
This duty has found modern expression in the term ‘Military Covenant’. The Military Covenant is most commonly
voiced, and understood, in the context of the care and support which should be given to wounded Service
personnel returning from theatre and to service families who have suffered loss. The duty is, however, in my view,
much wider than that, and embraces the whole panoply of measures which it is appropriate the Nation should
put in place and sustain for Service personnel, including adequate training, suitable and properly maintained
equipment, sufficient provisions in theatre and proper support and conditions for Service personnel and their
families at home. This view of the Military Covenant finds eloquent articulation in the land domain in the Army
Doctrine Publication of 2000 which provides not only that soldiers and their families should always be able to
expect “fair treatment” and “commensurate terms and conditions of service”, but also that the (unique) nature
of land military operations means that that the Army “must be sustained and provided for accordingly by the
Nation”. 2 In my view, exactly the same rationale applies to the Navy and Air Force.
The acquisition and maintenance of modern military equipment is increasingly complex-technically, financially
and logistically. The history of In-Service Support has seen a shrinking of the role of uniformed and Crown
personnel and commensurately greater devolvement of responsibilities to, and reliance, on the Defence
Industry. It is important, for the future, that all organisations involved in this endeavour recognise their collective
responsibility to work together to ensure that the Military Covenant is never broken, as it was in the case of
Nimrod XV230.
The Nimrod Review
29.5
The Nimrod Review has found manifold shortcomings in the UK Military Airworthiness and In-Service Support
regime, and uncovered matters which are as surprising as they are disturbing. The wholesale failure of all three
organisations involved in the Nimrod Safety Case to do their job, and the apparently inexorable deterioration in
the Safety and Airworthiness regime in the period 1998-2006, are particularly troubling aspects of the Nimrod
XV230 story. There has been a yawning gap between the appearance and reality of safety. The system has not
been fit for purpose.
1 In the reign of Elizabeth I, an Act for the Necessary Relief of Soldiers and Necessary Relief of Soldiers and Mariners was passed in 1593 which laid
down a law that each parish should contribute money to help sick and wounded veterans. A revised Act in 1601 provided: “And forasmuch as it is
found more needful that it was in the making of the said Acts, to provide the Relief and Maintenance of Soldiers and Marines that have lost their
limbs, and disabled their Bodies in the Defence and Service of her Majesty and the State, in respect the Number of the said Soldiers is so much the
greater, by how much her Majesty’s just and honourable defence Wars are increased. To the End therefore that the said Soldiers may reap the
fruits of their good Deservings and others may be encouraged to perform their like Endeavours. BE IT ENACTED... That from and after the said
Feast of Easter next, every Parish within this Realm of England and Wales shall be charged to pay a weekly Sum of Money towards the Relief of Sick,
Hurt and Maimed Soldiers and Mariners” (42 Elizabeth CAP III, 1601).
2 Chapter 1, MOD Army Doctrine Publication (2000) (the main author was Major-General Simon Roberts):
“Soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices – including the ultimate sacrifice – in the service of the Nation. In putting the needs of
the Nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces.
In return, British soldiers must always be able to expect fair treatment, to be valued and respected as individuals, and that they (and their families)
will be sustained and rewarded by commensurate terms and conditions of service.
In the same way the unique nature of military land operations means that the Army differs from all other institutions, and must be sustained and
provided for accordingly by the Nation.
This mutual obligation forms the Military Covenant between the Nation, the Army and each individual soldier; an unbreakable common bond of
identity, loyalty and responsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history.
It has perhaps its greatest manifestation in the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, when the Nation keeps covenant with those who have
made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in action.”
579