David Cameron confirms military covenant 'law' plans

 
David Cameron on HMS Ark Royal in June 2010 David Cameron pledged to recognise the covenant in law during a visit to HMS Ark Royal last year

Related Stories

The government is planning to write into law for the first time the principles of the military covenant, the prime minister has confirmed.

In an article for the News of the World, David Cameron says the government must ensure that it is doing everything it can for the armed forces.

He said the military would get "the recognition it deserves".

Campaigners have long been calling for the nation's duty of care to personnel to be translated into firm pledges.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has been outlining the central principles of the covenant ahead of a full announcement on Monday.

He told BBC One's the Politics Show: "They are about accepting that the defence is the first duty of government, that those willing to lay down their lives for the country have a right to expect they will be dealt with properly."

But he said specific rights could not be set down in law for fear of the armed forces becoming "permanently embroiled with the European courts".

The BBC understands that other measures to improve soldiers' welfare in areas such as health, housing and education for forces' children will also be outlined on Monday.

Mr Cameron told the News of the World: "Our Armed Forces Bill will ensure Parliament holds the government to account on the central principle of the covenant that military personnel will not suffer any disadvantage as a result of their work.

What is the military covenant?

  • Britain's duty of care to its armed forces began as an unspoken pact between society and the military, possibly as far back as Henry VIII's reign
  • The pact, reinforced by custom and convention, was formally codified as a "covenant" in 2000 but not made law
  • It states soldiers will be called upon to make sacrifices - including the ultimate sacrifice. In return, they and their families can expect fair treatment and to be sustained and rewarded
  • The covenant only officially applies to the army, but its core principles are taken to extend to the air force and navy

"But in some areas we go further and make their needs a special case."

He added: "If we are asking our armed forces to do dangerous job in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to ensure we are doing all we can for them in return."

He said the "historic agreement" meant 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 current military covenant states soldiers will be called upon to make personal sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, and that they and their families should expect fair treatment and to be valued, respected and properly rewarded.

Mr Cameron set up a review on the covenant and, speaking on the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal last year, told personnel he wished to see it written into law.

But the Armed Forces Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, only proposed introducing an annual report on how the covenant was being honoured.

A campaign led by the Royal British Legion was backed by Labour and a Conservative backbencher and had raised the prospect of a damaging Commons revolt.

Amendments to the bill will now incorporate the principles of the covenant.

The Royal British Legion said the government's decision was a "historic breakthrough".

David Cameron: "They put their lives on the line for us and I think it's right we do whatever we can for them"

Its director general Chris Simpkins said: "For the first time, armed forces personnel and their families will see the principles of fair treatment there on the statute book...

"We are particularly pleased that the unique nature of service will now be acknowledged."

BBC political correspondent Ben Geoghegan said it was still not clear what the new measures would mean in practice and whether minimum standards would be guaranteed by legislation.

However, two former heads of the armed forces welcomed news of the proposals, with Col Richard Kemp, who led UK troops in Afghanistan, calling it a "huge morale boost", and General Lord Dannatt describing it "a positive move".

Conservative MP and former soldier Patrick Mercer told Sky News the move would mean the government might face legal action but that it was a price worth paying.

"In the past all we have had is moral pressure. Now we will have legal pressure as well," he said.

For Labour, shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said: "This is a retreat from an inevitable defeat in Parliament in the face of real anger from forces families and MPs.

"For months ministers have stuck their heads in the sand... I hope this marks the beginnings of a real reassessment of how the government is treating our armed forces."

 

More on This Story

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 30.

    I for the life of me couldn't understand how someone who claims to know that "the defence is the first duty of government," could choose to ring fence the budget for Foreign Aid but not the budget for Defence.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 29.

    Having served my country and medically discharged from the Army in 2001 Im still waiting to get help with psychological condition PTSD and was told that the Military Covernant will help me in Civi Street well it doesn't. OUT OF MIND OUT OF SIGHT. So take HEED that that this Covenant will be watered down and the local authorities and the NHS don't have the money to make this happen.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 28.

    As a serving senior Officer this sounds fine BUT we must not lock ourselves into a long outdated and hugely expensive model of accommodation. Measures to encourage home ownership good for our people and better for the country once the blokes leave the Army. Locking us into Married Quarters with all the expense of maintenance and largely unnecessary crown funded moves every 2 years is mad.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 27.

    It is very interesting to read all of these points of view.In opposition of the view that the Men and Women choose to sign up by their own choice,I would like to argue that being born into a service family meant I could not choose the situation that I was in.Moving every two years meant my education was ruined,I grew up with bomb threats and lived in fear of the IRA.Support should be given.

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 26.

    Great. While we're at it here's another idea.

    How about a covenant for the men, women and children of those foreign lands killed by these same soldiers, in the course of our periodic invasions of other people's countries?

 

Comments 5 of 30

 

More UK stories

RSS

Features

  • RihannaCloud caution

    After celebrity leaks, what can you do to safeguard your photos?


  • Cesc FabregasFair price?

    Have some football clubs overpaid for their new players?


  • Woman and hairdryerBlow back

    Would banning high-power appliances actually save energy?


  • Rack of lambFavourite feast

    Is the UK unusually fond of lamb and potatoes?


  • Members of staff at James Stevenson Flags hold a Union Jack and Saltire flag UK minus Scotland

    Does the rest of the UK care if the Scots become independent?


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.