Introduce better compensation for armed forces
Last updated: 02:28pm 1 January 2019
Conservative Party Manifesto 2017, p.41
We will introduce better compensation for injured armed forces personnel and the families of those killed in combat.
There are a number of different compensation schemes for armed forces veterans. The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) applies to those who were injured after 6 April 2005, and the War Pensions Scheme (WPS) applies to those who are no longer serving and whose injury was caused by serving before 6 April 2005.
Under this government, the Ministry of Defence published a ‘One Year On’ Report of its Quinquennial Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (QQR) in 2018. It announced that ministerial agreement had been given to amend the AFCS legislation from April 2018 to:
- Uplift of the top tariff level 1 award from £570,00 to £650,000
- Increase the cap on the cumulative lump sum for multiple awards from £570,000 to £650,000
- Uprate the other lump sum tariff awards for inflation in line with the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), announced in the Autumn Statement in November 2017
In the War Pensions Scheme, the payout has increased yearly in line with the CPI since 2015, except for 2016, as the CPI had fallen that year.
However, compensation has increased for the highest tariff bands (most severe injuries), which includes payments to families of deceased personnel. So if we agree that “better compensation” is “increased compensation”, we can say this policy is ‘done.’
Get the details
- Armed forces compensation: What you need to know – Gov.uk
- War Pension Scheme: what you need to know – Gov.uk
- The Quinquennial Review of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme ‘One Year On’ Report – Gov.uk
- The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review – Gov.uk
- UK Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Annual Statistics 6 April 2005 to 31 March 2018 – Gov.uk
There's always room for debate
We’re serious about providing clear, up-to-date, non-partisan information. We focus on being consistent and fair in how we reach our verdicts, and always explain our reasoning. But there is always room for debate. So if you see it differently, we’d love you to tell us why. Or even better, submit an edit.