Armed Forces Act 2011 s343A

Discussion in 'Finance, Property, Law' started by theylie, Mar 27, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Any lawyers or legal experts on here? If so how do you intrepret the above section posted here;

    (3)In preparing an armed forces covenant report the Secretary of State must have regard in particular to— .
    (a)the unique obligations of, and sacrifices made by, the armed forces; .
    (b)the principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from membership, or former membership, of the armed forces; and .
    (c)the principle that special provision for service people may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces.

    Speifically 3b - desireable to remove disadvantages arising for service people from former membership of the armed forces.

    I am specifically thinking in relation to the current welfare reforms, so say hypothetically a veteran medically discharged several years ago for an injury attributable to service, lets say back injury, claimed benefits in civvy street and has now failed the ATOS medical and is fit for work, despite being a medical discharge and in receipt of a pension.
    Do you think the above section is applicable to that subsequent appeals process or is out of context?
    I am thinking the veteran is suffering a disadvantage from their service and is therefore relevant.
  2. No expert, but I am willing to bet the word "desirable" will make it almost worthless....
  3. Cheers but can you see what I'm saying that in the context I've mentioned that there is disadvantage or am I reading it completely wrongly!
  4. I am reading as being "principle that it is desirable to remove disadvantages" ie setting a different "standard" for ex services personell, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged by thier service or subsequential issues arising from that

    Though thats not to say they would be any better off, just not worse off....

    But I am no expert...........
  5. Yeah thats a kinda given not to be any better off or advantaged, but certainly not disadvantaged!

    The point I'm trying to make, is veteran medically discharged, in receipt of a pension, on benefits in civvy street, goes for ATOS medical, scores 0 points and is deemed fit for work. Then goes through appeal process, would it be accurate or fair to throw this act and section into the appeal, as I am thinking he has been disadvantged by his service in this scenario!
  6. In that scenario I am guessing it would be down to comparing the original condition, the current state of the condition and the impact of the condition on carrying out Civilian work rather than Military - how that would end up who knows? But within the context of the legal mumbo jumbo, as I read it, he would not be deemed disadvantaged by military service but placed on an equal footing as a civie with the same condition if he was declated fit for work
  7. You need to look at the welfare reform legislation.

    A Bill cannot pass as an Act of Parliment if it contradicts legislation already in force (a Bill must also be compatible with EHCR and EU Legislation).

    The Welfare reforms are not there to decide if people are disabled or not, they are there to decide if your disability is such that you cannot undertake some form of work.

    Look at how the AFCS legislation is written especially with regards to the detailed description of the GIP tariffs, you will see more or less the same principles with regards to the welfare reforms.

    The context you have mentioned the Armed Forces act in relationship to the welfare reform act and those on WPS bares no disadvantage. How do you think you are being disadvantaged?
  8. Couple of points.

    1. While not wishing to put anyone off referring to the section for moral effect, the only legal duty it imposes is for the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report, having regard to various matters, and to lay a copy before Parliament.

    2. Having been introduced by AFA 2011 as an amendment to AFA 2006, Sections 342A and 343B are actually sections of the 2006 Act, not the 2011 one.
  9. Two examples of disadvantage as meant by the 2011 Act.

    A service family are assigned to a part of the Country, far removed from their previous assignment. On application to the local school they are refused places for thir children on the grounds they are not from that area - This would be seen as a disadvantage of service life.

    A Service family from the North of the Country spend the last ten years of service in the South of the Country. On discharge the family decide to settle in the South, but are refused local housing because they are not originally from the area. - again this would bet seen as a disadvantage of service life.
  10. I'm reading it that if injured in service and that impacts on you in civvy street, in the context I am giving, then is that not a disadvantage? ie your service has injured you and placed you at a disadvantage?
    Not saying I am. Just asking for views on this section?
  11. Your point one could be relevant ie theres no legal duty to this section other than the covenant reporting element, but is there a moral weight to it?
  12. Read the legislation and ask does your situation apply to the legislation.

    DO NOT try and make the legislation apply to your situation. Many a barrack room lawyer have come unstuck doing so.

    How? Are you disadvantaged?
  13. Moral weight accounts for **** all, otherwise political parties could be held to their election promises.