It's very difficult to make precise comparisons because the package of benefits is different. Broadly speaking, the arrangements aren't that different. For most injuries there is little difference, but the package of benefits is different. The war pension scheme only provides its money, broadly speaking, through an income stream that's payable for life. The armed forces compensation scheme, in volume terms for the majority of injuries, only pays out a lump sum, so there is no income stream. One provides almost exclusively an income stream, and the other provides mostly a lump sum.
It's quite difficult to make precise comparisons, but one of the changes we made last year in the command paper was in recognition that perhaps more should be made available by way of a lump sum for the most seriously injured. The changes we made last year doubled the lump sum available under AFCS at the very top of injuries, but it was a graduated scheme. The increase at tariff level 15 is only 10%, so instead of £1,000 it's £1,100. The top end was £285,000, and it's now £570,000. So there is a significant difference there, but when one looks over a lifetime for those in the most seriously injured categories, most of the value to them comes from the income stream. Even though we've doubled the lump sum at the top, the significant value is still in the income stream.
We introduced the lump-sum element and made it in-service to make it much closer to the point of injury. In the old scheme one might have suffered quite a serious injury, continued to serve for another 10 or 15 years, and then received some compensation for that injury. We made it much closer in time. The income stream for both schemes applies after you leave service.