We have heard much about the covenant this week after the Government was dragged kicking and screaming into announcing that it would be enshrined in law, whatever that means.
A cynic might say that because the country is run by trendy PR men with no clue whatsoever about the real world, the new military covenant law will be more spin than substance, more hot air than tangible benefits and a load of watered down platitudes that mean precisely the square root of four fifths of nothing but surely it is a step in the right direction?
The 2 comprehensive documents that cover the proposals are here and here
I would urge readers to have a read of these documents and make their own minds up.
The simple thing is there shouldn’t really be the need for a law but this would seem to be a collection of wishy washy vague sentiment, things that every UK citizen would rightfully expect, a handful of things that cost very little or have already been implemented by the MoD or other organisations.
Plenty of icing but not much cake.
It will need extensive legal challenge and defence to define the boundaries and this is only going to be coming out of one budget, the MoD’s
It also smacks of giving with one hand and taking with the other so whilst the report talks of bus passes for the injured and extra money for schools with the children of service personnel this government has presided over a 2 year pay freeze, a rolling programme of redundancies for the next few years, changes in terms and conditions of service, reductions in pensions and many other measures that will put the value of a bus pass and discount card somewhat into the shade.
The MoD already runs a discount scheme., the Forces Pupil Premium was announced last year, all disabled people get bus passes regardless of the source of their injuries and the prioritisation of service personnel and veterans will always be subject to other priorities. Are we to believe that service veterans will be prioritised for medical treatment outside of normal clinical procedures or that a veteran will jump the housing queue when there are homeless families in an area, is this what we really want anyway?
This is the core problem, sound bites and platitude will very soon run into the brick wall of reality.
The last government was the master at making multiple announcements of the same thing and calling it a new package; seems this one has quickly mastered the art form as well.
A few simple questions that need answering when the usual spivs and spinners in the government talk about honouring the military covenant and our brave forces,
- Which measures have already been announced or implemented?
- How much per year will the NEW measures cost?
- Where will the money for these measures come from, existing budgets or new provision?
It would be nice if the military Covenant was regularised to include who was actually entitled to benefit. I note that RFA staff in theatre are regarded as Naval reserve personnel but after the ‘nasties’ are over return to civilian status.
The situation for RFA personnel is not so straightforward. Some, but not all (it’s voluntary for existing employees) are Sponsored Reservists, but in order to be actively a member of the Armed Forces, Sponsored Reservist status must be activated by the Secretary of State for Defence, which per the contract includes the payment of an activation bonus. No RFA personnel have ever been activated as Sponsored Reservists in the four or five years that the scheme has been running, despite operating “in theatre” in support of Ops Telic, Calash, (Ellamy?) etc.
My concern here is that vaguely worded legislation often ends up being applied in ways differently to the original intention,human rights laws being the classic example. The noble aims of preventing exploitation now are applied to allow overpaid celebrities to gag the press,to name but one topical example. So by attempting to avoidspecific constraints,more serious problems are created down the road. Does anyone aggressively red team these new ideas?
I must admit, I’m always uncomfortable about writing these things down, you always seem to end up with unexpected consequences that hurt the people you’re trying to protect, and writing it down means that everything you didn’t include officially goes out of the window.
This is a great article that puts down in black and white some of my fuzzy discomfort :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/8583424/Lawyers-should-never-come-between-a-nation-and-its-troops.html
I hadn’t realised that Joanna Lumley had gained so many concessions for the Ghurkhas that we’ll never want to employ another one….
the mortal peril of having faith that a sufficiently sophisticated legislative and regulatory regime will inevitably lead to better social outcomes. it is a left wing affliction that explains why we now have over 1000 primary and secondary mechanisms with which to force legal entry into an englishmans home.
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”
Does anyone believe this sentiment holds true today?
Re the Ghurkas; if i read the article correctly CM suggest that a new ghurka unit will never be raised again, not that we won’t maintain the ghurka units we already have.