Fox to spell out how rights of forces will be enshrined in law

defence Secretary Liam Fox will today give details of the Government’s new Tri-Service Covenant which enshrines in law the state’s duty to look after the welfare of the armed forces and their families.

Putting the military covenant on a statutory footing for the first time, it will set out rights to services such as health, housing and education for forces’ children.

Amendments to the Armed Forces Bill will incorporate the principles of the covenant.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The legislation originally included only an annual review of how the informal agreement was met – leading to accusations the Prime Minister had broken a pre-election pledge to make it law.

A campaign led by the Royal British Legion was joined by Labour and a Tory backbencher had raised the prospect of a damaging Commons revolt by tabling his own bid for formal legal recognition.

Signalling the change of direction David Cameron said: “The high esteem we all have for our armed forces will soon be given the recognition it deserves – as part of the law of the land.”

Writing in a Sunday newspaper which has campaigned on the issue, he said: “I’m keeping my word. We owe them. If we are asking our armed forces to do dangerous jobs in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to ensure that we are doing everything we can for them in return.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The historic agreement we have reached means that, for the first time, the value we place on those brave men and women who put their lives on the line will be written down for all to see.”

The Bill will make clear that no-one should be disadvantaged because of their military service and special treatment could sometimes be justified.

Ministers have been wary of the prospect of facing court challenges over failures if the legitimate expectations were made explicit on the statute book. But the controversy has served to highlight concerns that military personnel are failing to be provided with the level of service they are entitled to in areas such as health, housing and pay.

Traditionally the covenant was an Army document, detailing the treatment soldiers could expect from the state, but it had effectively been extended to the other services over recent years.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The new document will formalise that comprehensive approach and include a wide range of areas with some rights expected to be more generous than at present.

An annual report on government compliance will be written by Dr Fox with “key stakeholders” and published alongside an independent expert review.

Dr Fox is expected to set out a number of enhanced services for the military, such as doubling the rate of council tax relief to 50 per cent for those serving overseas, a £3m boost for schools with high numbers of children from forces family and making it easier for seriously injured service personnel and veterans to access cut-price public transport.

Shops and public sector organisations will be encouraged to take part in a discount card scheme for veterans and action will be promised to improve military inquests and to provide those with genital injuries access to IVF treatment.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The Royal British Legion termed the move “an historic breakthrough” which would benefit servicemen and their families “for generations to come”.

Director general Chris Simpkins said: “This is an impressive package of support, but even more impressive is the irrevocable legacy of at last getting the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant written into law. This is a major step forward for the whole Armed Forces community.”

Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy branded the decision a retreat from an “inevitable defeat” in Parliament in the face of “real anger” from forces families and MPs.

Dr Fox promised the measures were “only a start” and specific rights – as opposed to the principles of the covenant – could not be set down in law for fear of the Armed Forces becoming “permanently embroiled with the European courts”.

The Defence Secretary said the publication and annual review of specific action would make the treatment of personnel “properly transparent” and denied the exercise was purely symbolic.