Richard Kemp: Our courageous soldiers put their lives on the line for us.

The 2nd Battalion, with Territorial soldiers from the regiment's 4th Battalion, and many brave Yorkshiremen serving with other regiments, are today fighting in Afghanistan to protect the people of this country from an extremist menace.

When the Government commits to war, it deliberately and knowingly sends our fighting troops into harm's way. When those troops are wounded in action, the Government has no greater responsibility than to care for them.

All too often in past conflicts Governments have shirked this grave duty, with wounded servicemen consigned to begging in the street.

Even in recent years, we have heard stories of seriously wounded teenage soldiers left neglected in hard-pressed NHS wards.

And we have seen the unedifying spectacle of the Secretary of State for Defence – one of our elected servants – fighting our soldiers in the Court of Appeal to have their compensation payments reduced.

We must never again put up with this kind of shabby, penny-pinching mishandling of our wounded. Heroes who voluntarily go through the explosive-riddled hell of combat in the ditches, alleyways and deserts of Helmand in order to protect us.

We want the best possible healthcare for these exceptional people. We do not want them treated according to the same cost-constrained norms as any other public sector employees. We want them looked after with the respect and dignity they deserve, if necessary for the rest of their lives. Whatever it costs.

To its credit, the Government is now introducing improved compensation and recovery schemes promising adequate support for our wounded. For this I pay tribute to Kevan Jones, the Under Secretary of State for Armed Forces Personnel. He has invested enormous personal energy and commitment in his determination to do the best for our troops.

Improvements to the Armed Forces Compensation scheme increase guaranteed income payments by 35 per cent, reflecting the long-term needs of the most seriously wounded, their likely career progression, and later retirement ages.

But this compensation excludes service men and women wounded before April 2005, the date when the scheme came into law. Those wounded after April 2005 receive an immediate lump sum of 570,000 and guaranteed income payments; those wounded before get no immediate lump sum, a much smaller payment on discharge and significantly lower rates of income payment.

The Government correctly recognised existing arrangements – dating back to 1917 – were inadequate for 21st century warfare in Afghanistan and Iraq. But if those arrangements are not good enough for those wounded after April 2005, why are they good enough for those wounded before April 2005, in the same campaigns?

Soldiers such as Adam Douglas, from Seacroft, Leeds, horrifically wounded in Basra in 2003, are still left to struggle on a war pension, which amounts to just 150 a week. After 15 years serving with the Royal Dragoons Guards, followed by active service with the Territorial Army in Iraq, Adam has been forced to fight through the courts for his family to receive the benefits they need to survive. He and others like him deserve so much better.

A recent review of the scheme states: "Successive governments, across all public sector pension and compensation schemes, have held the general policy of making improvements prospectively with no

retrospective element."

This bureaucratic argument may make sense in every other walk of life, but is unrealistic and unsustainable in the context of an ongoing military campaign.

British forces have been deployed in the war on terror since 2001, a fact explicitly recognised by the government in its award of two Operational Service Medals for the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns. The medals start in 2001 and 2003 respectively. So too should the compensation arrangements.

Defending its fundamentally flawed stance, the Ministry of Defence's argument is based on non-combat injuries. In a statement responding to the Lives on the Line campaign, the MoD suggested: "It would be equally unfair to deny the improved compensation to those injured away from the battlefield, while training or playing sport."

It is right the scheme includes non-combat injuries. But, however serious, they must not take precedence over compensation for fighting men. This scheme was not primarily set up for soldiers unlucky enough to be injured on the football field, but for those wounded on the battlefield. Their interests above all must determine the scope of the compensation arrangements.

The Lives on the Line campaign, initiated by law firm Stewarts Law, and which I am proud to support, is calling on the Government to include all those wounded in the war on terror since 2001 in the new compensation scheme.

This would not unleash a torrent. According to government figures, only about 100 were wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2005, giving a rough total cost of 25m. Relatively little for the defence budget, but of incalculable value to wounded soldiers and their families.

Our fighting troops are the bravest and the best. They put their lives on the line for us, and we must now fight to achieve fairness for them.

Colonel Richard Kemp is a former Commander of British forces in Afghanistan and a leading figure in the Lives on the Line Campaign.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

n I urge you to sign our petition to the Prime Minister at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/livesontheline, join the Lives on the Line Facebook group: http://tinyurl.com/livesontheline facebook or follow us on Twitter @livesontheline.