Draft Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Tuesday 17th July 2018 General Committees

[Mr Ellwood]

Thank you, Mr Bailey—I was waiting for the deluge of other Back Benchers leaping to their feet to participate in this important debate.

I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for his comments and his perspective on the resignation of the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb). We all wish my hon. Friend well and thank him for his service and what he did. The hon. Member for Caerphilly sought perhaps to make fun of the fact that he had resigned, but the Government are yet to match the more than 100 resignations we have seen in the Opposition. There is one Member sitting on the Opposition Back Benches now who resigned. If we want to compare notes on resignations, Labour should perhaps keep quiet.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

This had better be really good.

[Wayne David]

As the Minister specifically referred to me, I thank him for giving me a chance to reply. Yes, I did threaten to resign, but I actually did resign, unlike the Minister, who has threatened to resign but has not done so. Nothing has changed—he is all talk.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman says he resigned. As far as I can see, he is still on the Front Bench, so I do not know where his resignation took him. Obviously it did not have the impact he wished. Perhaps his services were desired again because so many others had resigned that the Opposition needed a chance to revisit some of them, saying, “Please come back, because we have got nobody else.” Before we go any further down that cul de sac, shall we return to the business at hand, Mr Bailey?

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Before wandering too far down that road, let me say that this is just too important for us to play a guessing game and try to thump out numbers of GDP advancement. Other Departments will just turn around and say, “Well, I want a bit more of that for my Department as well.” We must make the case; we must spell out exactly what the money would be spent on, what savings would be made and what efficiencies we can provide inside defence itself. Therefore, whether the figure is 4%, 3% or 2.5%, the purpose of the defence modernisation programme is to give us the detail on what we need to do for our air, land and sea; what we need to do to upgrade in all phases of war; what we need to do in the new areas of complex weapons, cyber-security and protection of space for fear of hollowing out our conventional capability.

In conclusion, this Government have a responsibility to obtain the right capabilities for our armed forces. However, as a customer, we must ensure that this represents value for money for the taxpayer. Competition is at the heart of our approach. Our shipbuilding strategy is a pathfinder and exemplifies many aspects of our approach, set out in the Government’s policy framework, which includes an ambition to transform the procurement of naval ships; the importance of making the UK’s maritime industry more competitive; investment in the Royal Navy fleet; a commitment to exports; and a plan to boost innovation, skills, jobs and productivity across the UK.

We are rightly proud of all those who serve our country. We have a duty to look after them and protect them. That includes procuring the best possible equipment, which allows us to remain a tier 1 nation, leverage our industrial capacity and produce cutting-edge equipment for us and for us to export.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the Minister was adamant that there had been a British bid for the MARS tanker contract. That was not the case, and I wonder whether he would like to correct the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Do you wish to speak, Minister?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a tough rationalisation programme going on. The MOD owns 2% of the UK, which is more land than we need, and there is a requirement for us to build housing on it as well. We are having to take some very tough decisions in certain areas that hon. Members will be concerned about. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his case one-to-one.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that the chuntering and the interruptions are indicative of the crass behaviour of the Ministry of Defence, which we are debating this afternoon.

I am not hopeful that Ministers will stand up for the armed forces, which they claim to support, not least because I understand that rather than fighting for more resources, the Secretary of State for Defence is considering scrapping the special allowance given to soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Will the Minister, in his response—I will give him time to respond—make a commitment not to cut the special service allowance?

As we approach Remembrance Sunday—several Members mentioned it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones)—it is surely imperative that the House unites in support of our armed forces. This afternoon, many contributions have strongly supported lifting the pay cap. I very much hope that all of us will support the motion, and call for a fair pay rise for our armed forces. Especially at this time of the year, our armed forces deserve nothing less. [Interruption.]

[Mr Ellwood]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I think that, overall, reserve numbers are up, but, again, I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail.

To move on—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He tests the patience of the House in rising to his feet after denying my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces I do not know how many times the opportunity to intervene.

The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), talked about the importance of Remembrance Day, which was also highlighted by other hon. Members, and about the importance of pay itself. She also talked about the role of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, whose recommendations will, I understand, come through in March.

The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) used the debate as an opportunity mostly to promote his views on Trident, which are not shared across the House. Indeed, this nation would become a lot weaker if we were to get rid of Trident. That would not be in anybody’s interest.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford produced a report highlighting some of the challenges we face, and I fully agree with him that we need to work on improving diversity. It is important that we attract the brightest and the best, and that includes recruitment moving up to 15% by 2020 for women, and up to 10% for BAME—black, Asian and minority ethnic. I am grateful to him for the work he did on that important report.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the black hole in defence finances. We came into government recognising that £38 billion was seemingly missing, because it had been stolen from future budgets, but let us take a step back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sweeney]

rose—

[Wayne David]

rose—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way. There is no steam on board the aircraft carriers. They are diesel; they are not powered by atomic energy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) denied being a Government lackey. I can confirm he is certainly not—

[Wayne David]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Defence Capability

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Thursday 19th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, Mr Bone. It is a real pleasure to be able to draw some thoughts and conclusions together on this important, interesting and timely debate. Like others, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), who has shown passion and a detailed understanding not only of what is going on his constituency, but of the wider picture of the defence capability. I congratulate him on bringing this debate to the fore. Looking around the Chamber, I recognise that there is an officers’ mess worth of experience, commitment and understanding of what the armed forces has done and is doing, and of where we want to go. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate.

I give hon. Members the apologies of the Procurement Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin)—who would otherwise be here. However, I take a personal interest in these matters, so I grabbed the opportunity to share some insight about what is going on. This has been a wide-ranging discussion and as I have said, if I am not able to answer some questions, I simply will not be, but I will write to hon. Members, as I have before.

All hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil, began by paying tribute to our brave and professional armed forces. As a former Regular Army officer, and indeed, a reservist, I stand with all in paying tribute to those who, when there are so many opportunities in the world today, choose to wear a uniform, to step forward and be counted, to stand and defend our country and to do the things we see, whether that is in the Caribbean or in the floods, or by going into harm’s way. We think about what it means to be British, what Britain is and what our reputation is, and that is shown in the professionalism that our armed forces display.

As a nation, we have an aspiration and the ability to shape the world around us and to play a role on the international stage, and that comes about because of what our armed forces can do. We are recognised as the world’s leading soft power because our professional armed forces are respected and revered not just by our allies, but by our adversaries. We follow a transparent agenda and in a changing, challenging world, leadership is needed on the international stage. I think we can all agree that we want our armed forces to continue to play that role in shaping this very challenging world.

We need to face some big questions, many of which have been raised today. I join right hon. and hon. Members in recognising the important economic value of our industrial base—not just in defence and aerospace, but in a wider context—in the economics of this country. However, we face a fiscal reality and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made the situation clear, taking us back in time to the legacy fiscal issues that we have inherited, which are still very real today. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil touched on the important wider duty of care that we have to our armed forces. I include the whole family—the partners, the wives, the husbands, the children, the cadets and the reserves. It is important that we look after them not only when they are in uniform, but further afield, when they finally move back into civilian life as our respected veterans.

Before I come on to the national security capability review, which is the core of our discussion, I will respond to a couple of points. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) spoke about the importance of the Type 31e. It is a simple design that is intended to have bespoke changes put on to it. It is designed for export. That is why it seems simplistic compared with the Type 26, the frigates, the destroyers and so on.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who made the future of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark clear. We should not forget the amphibious capabilities in the Bay class, as was illustrated in our response to the recent hurricanes in the Caribbean.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) spoke about our commitment to 2%, which I can confirm. I am pleased that other nations are catching up with us to meet that important commitment. We want that to continue and, as many hon. Members have said, we are increasing our budget by 0.5% above inflation. That is very important to recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) spoke about the importance of our footprint across the world. There is not only HMS Juffair, which I am pleased that hon. Members were able to see; we have a footprint right across the Gulf and in other places, including in a transitional or temporary mode. We are operating in and have exercises in 20 locations from Nigeria to the Balkans, to further afield in Poland with a resurgent Russia, to the Caribbean and not least, to the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) asked important questions about helicopters. If I may, I will ask the Procurement Minister to write to him in more detail.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) spoke about the number of platforms, and I agree with him. We have more than a dozen different helicopter platforms, if we count them all up, which is too many given all the procurement lines, software upgrades and training packages. That needs to be simplified.

On the national security capability review, we need to step back and remind ourselves that the SDSR 2015 was the blueprint for our security—for meeting terrorism, the growth of terrorism and extremism, state-based aggression and cyber, and responding to those who undermine the rules of international order—but there have been changes. We have had five terrorist attacks in this country, a resurgent Russia, the activities of North Korea and cyber-attacks on our health service, on companies and on Parliament itself. That is why the capability review is required. As I said, there has been much speculation, but the details will come through in the new year. I am sure that Parliament will be involved in the usual manner, including through the Select Committee.

The review will be Cabinet-led and have 12 strands, of which the defence aspect is simply one part. It is important, however, to recognise that any armed forces must adapt to and evolve with the times. We need to understand what the right balance of scale, readiness and reach is, and what our enablers to provide that support are. Where do we place those assets, not only so they are ready to be used but as a deterrent?

I will leave a minute for my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil to conclude, but I am sure that we can all join in saying that we are very proud of our—

[Wayne David]

Before the Minister sits down—

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He took far too much time—

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions then.

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have made that clear—

[Wayne David]

Answer some questions.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) is not in my good books at the moment. Yelling from a sedentary position is not acceptable.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Thursday 14th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe, and to respond to this debate. I declare an interest, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am ex-Army and a lieutenant colonel in the reserves. I pay tribute to the other coastal towns that have been represented in the debate by the hon. Members for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I represent Bournemouth. I think the only Members present who do not represent coastal towns are the spokesmen for the SNP and the Labour party, the hon. Members for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David). Nevertheless, the debate has been helpful in understanding and sharing concerns about public sector pay specific to the armed forces.

A number of Members have made perhaps a little bit of a political point, asking where the Conservative Members are in this important debate. I could say to the SNP spokesman that there are no SNP Back Benchers here either; he is his party’s sole representative. Many Members who would have been here today are participating in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That is why they are absent.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South for calling this debate. Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, he represents a historical city that has a connection with all services, but specifically the senior service. We need to place the debate in context and against the backdrop of the nation’s finances, which ultimately are the question mark hanging over the size of the coffers that the Treasury has to provide financial support not only to the Ministry of Defence, but to all armed forces. I will not go into the politics of the situation, but when we came into government in 2010 there was a significant deficit. That deficit has been reduced by three quarters and the economy is now growing. The low taxes we are seeing are creating growth in our economy. We have record lows in unemployment, which is a good thing.

However, let us be honest: the election result and the debates during the campaign showed a nation concerned about our public sector and the length of time that the pay freeze has affected them. That concern was shared not only by those individuals affected, but by those who support our teachers, nurses, doctors, fire service, police, ambulance service and armed forces. Our armed forces do not have the voice of the unions, as has been mentioned a number of times. Members will be aware that the Government have been continuing the difficult task of balancing the books, but we must recognise that that ultimately means a period of pay restraint that has affected all public sector workers, including the armed forces.

We are aware, as we bring fiscal discipline back to the public finances, that that restraint has had an impact on the salaries of our people, but looking forward, the Government’s recent announcement of greater flexibility where required in public sector pay means that the independent pay review bodies can now make their own judgments on future pay awards, which will mitigate the impact. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said on Tuesday, our public sector workers, including those in the armed forces, are among the most extraordinarily talented and hard-working people in our society. I would go further: our public services are one of the things that define Britain across the world, by which I mean not just our blue light services, but our armed forces in particular. I echo other contributors by saying that professionalism is what defines us and gives us our reputation across the globe. It is important that we look after the people using equipment in operations. They make their mark and step forward to make a contribution with allies as a force for good in this very difficult and challenging age. They, like everyone else, deserve to have fulfilling jobs that are fairly rewarded. We have to take a balanced approach to public spending, dealing with our debts to keep our economy strong while also ensuring that we invest in our public services.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I think there might be enough time for me to do so.

[Wayne David]

The Minister is hinting at something important, but I would like clarification. He talks about greater flexibility for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Is he suggesting that were that greater flexibility to produce a recommendation for a significant increase for the armed forces, the Government would accept that immediately, without question?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will not do what the Leader of the Opposition suggested when we came back to office after the general election, which was a knee-jerk removal of the 1% pay freeze. That was suggested in proposed amendments to the Queen’s Speech. I will work extremely hard to ensure that that ambition is fulfilled. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly recognises and reads what is happening this week, there is greater clarity to provide independence, to ensure that Departments are free to reflect what is required in this day and age.

The Government will continue to ensure that the overall package for public sector workers is fair to them and that we can deliver world-class public services that are affordable within the public finances and fair to taxpayers. The last spending review budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards, as has been mentioned a number of times, but that is in addition to progression pay for specific workforces, such as the armed forces, and that must not be forgotten. There will still be a need for pay discipline over the coming years to ensure the affordability of the public services and the sustainability of public sector employment. The Government recognise that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skill shortages—such as with engineers, as has been mentioned—more flexibility may be required to deliver those world-class public services, including in return for improvements to public sector productivity.

The detail of the 2018-19 remit for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body—I stress that they are both independent bodies that provide advice to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State on pay and remuneration for the armed forces—is still under consideration and will be agreed as part of the Budget process. Recommendations from the AFPRB and SSRB are expected in the new year.

The Government, as I have emphasised, fully recognise the invaluable work undertaken by our gallant members of the armed forces, often in dangerous and difficult circumstances. A good example is the response of our personnel to the recent events in the Caribbean and Hurricane Irma. That is a timely example of the professionalism of our armed forces in a crisis. More than 1,100 armed forces personnel have been deployed so far under Operation Ruman, to provide relief to the people of the devastated Caribbean islands. A further 600 are en route on board HMS Ocean, which was mentioned earlier. I am sure all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to the valuable work of our armed forces personnel.

The armed forces pay and wider remuneration package is designed to reward their unique service to our country and to support the recruitment and retention of personnel. The Government are of the view that the armed forces receive an attractive package of terms and conditions of service, which have not been mentioned so far and include a competitive salary with incremental pay scales. I stress that there are pay bands for privates, lieutenants and other ranks, such as captain. Each year they move up the band and their salary does not stay still. In fact, across the armed forces, the average individual pay rise has been about 1.5%.

[Wayne David]

As someone with a distinguished service record, does the Minister personally think that remuneration in the armed forces is adequate? What is his personal view?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am going to do everything I can to make sure that we do our best to have the remuneration package that our armed forces deserve, but we have to bear in mind the context and the backdrop, which I have spelled out. There has to be fiscal recognition of the place we are in, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should all work as hard as possible to make the case and ensure that personnel get the salary they deserve and need.

There is also a non-contributory pension scheme, subsidised accommodation and food, and access to free medical and dental care. Service personnel also have access to an allowance package that provides financial assistance towards additional costs incurred as a result of their service. Throughout the pay restraint period, many personnel in the armed forces have received an annual increase in pay of well above 1%.

During the period of pay restraint, armed forces pay has not stood still. In 2016 we introduced a major revision to armed forces pay in the form of the Pay 16 pay model, which was designed to simplify an individual’s pay journey, enabling them more accurately to predict their future career earnings. That has also rebalanced pay to reward armed forces personnel more effectively in line with their skills, while addressing many of the concerns raised by the AFPRB regarding the previous Pay 2000 structure.

We also employ remunerative measures to address issues of recruitment and retention, which have been mentioned, to ensure that our armed forces are manned to the required levels and with the requisite skills. Where there are particular issues in recruiting or retaining personnel, for which career management action by the services has had limited impact, we have the option of introducing targeted payments. Those payments can range from time-limited financial incentives, to longer-term recruitment and retention payments that recognise the particular challenges we face in retaining certain defence specialisms, such as military pilots or submariners.

Armed forces pay is subject to annual review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Body, which are independent bodies tasked with providing the Government with recommendations on armed forces pay and charges for all military personnel, including the reserves. Their terms of reference require them to give consideration to the need of the services to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people, taking account of the particular circumstances of service life.

As part of its review, the AFPRB undertakes a detailed and comprehensive programme of work each year, which consists of a package of both written and oral evidence from the Secretary of State for Defence, senior officials and service families federations, representatives of which I had the pleasure of meeting only yesterday. The AFPRB also undertakes a series of visits to military units to hear directly from service personnel about their views on pay. In 2017, the AFPRB met more than 2,300 service personnel and 154 spouses and partners during 186 discussion groups. It visited establishments both in the UK and overseas, including operational theatres and ships.

In addition to the evidence it receives from Government, the AFPRB also commissions its own independent analysis and research, including on the pay comparability of the armed forces within the wider UK economy. A programme of visits has just concluded and the Government look forward to receiving the AFPRB recommendations next year.

Turning to the 2017 report, which the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned, in January this year the AFPRB and SSRB recommended a 1% pay increase for service personnel, taking into account the evidence received and independent pay comparability data. Those recommendations took into account the need to recruit, retain and motivate high-calibre people; the Government’s policies on the public services; inflation targets and the public funds available for Defence. The AFPRB reported that it believed that a 1% increase in base pay would

“broadly maintain pay comparability with the civilian sector.”

We need to bear that in mind, because that is the competing area.

The Government accepted in full the recommendations of the AFPRB and SSRB. I take this opportunity to thank the members of both pay review bodies for their work; it is greatly respected.

Turning to future pay, on which we want to focus, as I stated previously the detail of the 2018-19 pay remit for the pay review bodies is still under consideration and will be agreed as part of the budget process. As the Secretary of State said this week at the Defence and Security Equipment International conference,

“we will have greater flexibility to respond to the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.”

I hope that answers directly the question posed by the hon. Member for Caerphilly. It is for the AFPRB to make its recommendations for 2018-19, and as I mentioned earlier its remit allows it to consider any specific recruitment and retention issues that may apply to the armed forces. I am sure it will consider some of the issues raised in this debate. Over the coming months, the Chief Secretary will write to all the pay review bodies setting out the Government’s pay policy. The Defence Secretary will submit formal evidence to the AFPRB, setting out any specific recruitment and retention issues.

The armed forces are among the most extraordinarily talented and hard-working people in our society. The Government are committed to ensuring that the overall package that they and other public sector workers receive reflects the value we place on their work. The last spending review budgeted for 1% average basic pay awards, but the Government recognise that in some parts of the public sector, particularly in areas of skills shortage, more flexibility may be required, as reflected in this week’s announcement. There does, however, need to be pay discipline over the coming years, to ensure the affordability of the public services and the sustainability of public sector employment.

I make a personal statement that I will do all I can, as Minister for Defence People and Veterans, to make sure that the remuneration package that our gallant armed forces personnel get is what they deserve.

Combat Compensation

Debate between Tobias Ellwood and Wayne David

Thursday 20th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

I will confirm that is the case. What I am saying is that we would not want any officer, commander or non-commissioned officer to be concerned about such a consideration. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.

We have suggested that in future, whenever a member of the armed forces is killed or injured in combat, compensation will be paid at the rate a court would have been likely to award if it had found the MOD to have been negligent, regardless of whether it has indeed been negligent. The amount will be assessed independently —that was a concern the hon. Gentleman had—by an experienced, qualified lawyer. For the claimant, that will mean that there will be no need to spend years engaged in complex legal battles, with no certainty of success, seeking to prove that the MOD has been negligent in law.

[Wayne David]

Rather than excluding claimants in their best interests, would it not be better for there to be a choice on whether to pursue the case through the route suggested, with the MOD, or to take independent legal advice?

[Mr Ellwood]

One of the purposes of the consultation is to simplify the system. We need a robust system that everybody is able to follow and that is clearcut for both sides.

For the Government, the new system will mean increased expenditure on compensation for death or injury sustained in the most challenging conditions. They will be paying higher sums in cases in which the MOD has not been negligent, but that will be offset to a large extent by a reduction in the costs of litigation. The Government would prefer to spend taxpayers’ money directly on compensation for the armed forces rather than on legal fees. I think everyone would agree with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ellwood]

I think there has to be some faith given to the fact that, when we make those appointments, we choose based on independence. I will look at that process and confirm that. I think we are getting into the weeds a little bit by talking about the confirmation of the independence of those who will make the decisions.

Finally, some suggested that, by removing such combat cases from the courts, an opportunity to prevent any recurrence would be lost. The Government disagree with that argument, because the adversarial nature of litigation makes it an unsatisfactory way of learning lessons. I think we would all agree with that. When a member of the UK armed forces has been killed in combat, a full inquest will always be held. When there has been a non-fatal injury of any significance, there will be a service inquiry. I believe that those non-adversarial inquiries will get to the heart of what happened far more quickly than any civil litigation.

The consultation confirmed the Government’s view that our proposals are fair and just, both for the taxpayer and for those who are killed or injured in combat and their loved ones. However, I must make it clear that we were disappointed that the Labour party’s manifesto expressed itself against the proposal, which, in the current political circumstances, is a matter of some significance.

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister take an intervention on that point?

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will be helpful and say that he might be reconsidering.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not think that interventions necessarily have to be helpful.

[Wayne David]

I am so pleased you said that, Mr Gapes. I was not going to introduce party politics into the debate, but as the Minister has done so, I want to make it absolutely clear that the Opposition want fairness and transparency, but that we also recognise that we live in a parliamentary democracy in which the rule of law is a cornerstone. I understand the operational necessities of conflict, but it is important that we always bear that in mind.

[Mr Ellwood]

I think it is probably too late to amend the armed forces Bill, which is passing through the House of Lords as we speak, but maybe if the hon. Gentleman and I have a quiet coffee, we will find there is some compromise to be had. I hope he would agree that the thrust of the consultation and the Government’s proposals make sense, but I am happy to discuss them with him in more detail if he is minded to do so. We certainly believe that the arguments for making these changes are compelling, and we will announce how we intend to proceed as soon as possible. Of course, we can do that even earlier if Labour Members are inclined to support the proposals.