Britain's Armed Forces are among the most visible and respected in the world. Since Nato's creation, they have formed, with US troops, its backbone. They have been deployed in combat operations and peacekeeping duties across the world, from Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq to Bosnia, Cyprus and Sierra Leone. Their long and testing deployment in Northern Ireland has given them an experience and political sensitivity in civil disturbances that few other armies can boast. Yet within their own country, Britain's soldiers are all but invisible. They do not often wear uniforms in public. They rarely appear on television or speak out. They are a dwindling presence in schools and universities. And, unlike most other democracies, they enjoy no special honours on a day dedicated to the Armed Forces.

Polls have shown repeatedly that, despite opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Services are held in high public esteem. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the iconoclasm of the 1960s and youthful opposition to militaristic stereotypes have barely dented the popularity of those who serve or the loyalty of cities and shires to local regiments. But despite the homecoming parades and frequent tributes to the military's effectiveness in natural disasters, the focus in Britain too often has been on the incidents of bad blood: the threats and abuse on the streets of Peterborough or the refusal by Harrods to serve military personnel wearing combat fatigues.

Such a refusal is to become a criminal offence, and anyone who attacks a serviceman or servicewoman in uniform will be charged with “aggravated offence”. More than 30 other measures are to be taken to ban discrimination, increase respect for the Armed Forces and give them greater visibility. These welcome steps follow acceptance of a report by Quentin Davies, a former Tory Shadow Defence Minister, who switched to Labour and was asked by Gordon Brown to look at ways of bolstering public respect.

Much of what he proposes is overdue. It is high time school pupils, for example, were taught the role of the military in defending liberal democracy. It is absurd that the anti-military message of student radicalism should be perpetuated in hostile stereotypes; worse still that the National Union of Teachers should attempt to ban the Army from schools. It should, instead, recognise the extraordinary training, leadership and skills opportunities offered, particularly to those from modest backgrounds, by the cadets. Across the country, there are 44,000 army cadets, 41,000 air and 15,000 sea cadets. The budgetary support from the Ministry of Defence is pitiful and further cuts are planned. Instead, it should be hugely expanded to fund one of the best ways of motivating and challenging young enthusiasm.

Yet the Davies report can achieve little if the Government itself fails to show the necessary respect by ensuring that Britain's troops have the equipment, the training and the essential back-up, such as accommodation, medical care and rehabilitation, to do their job. Mr Brown cannot be allowed to trumpet this call for uniforms and acclaim on Britain's streets to mask his refusal to fund the Armed Forces for the difficult and dangerous tasks they have been assigned. A proposal for an Armed Forces Day is hollow and unnecessary symbolism. Local parades, open days at barracks and on ships and a clearer commitment, by Whitehall and the Labour Party, to the Army, Royal Navy and RAF would do far more to rebuild the respect in which they should be held.