Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Credit Unions
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role and future of credit unions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. At the outset of this debate, I wish to place formally on the record that I am a long-standing member of the NHS credit union, an organisation I first joined as it was my workplace credit union. It provided me the opportunity to save directly from my salary before I ever had the chance to spend it. When I received a pay rise, I would increase my contributions. I remain a proud member today, now paying in by direct debit. IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, has not got quite as far as doing payroll deduction for credit unions.
The NHS credit union is now one of the largest in Scotland, but it did not start that way. It began at the Southern General hospital in Glasgow, founded by Robert Rae, a Unison branch secretary and hospital porter, to help some of the lowest-paid NHS staff—the cleaners, porters and clerical workers—to access fair, affordable finance and build financial resilience through saving. The credit union has grown remarkably since then, with more than 24,000 members, including staff and their families across NHS Scotland and parts of the north of England. Its common bond extends down to Sheffield. It now employs 18 staff and is an inspiring example of how credit unions grow not only in scale, but in purpose, deepening their role in communities and the economy.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating many of the credit unions in my constituency, where the Southern General also sits, and indeed where I trained for many years? In addition to the NHS credit union, we have the Penilee credit union, the Levern credit union, the Greater Govan credit union and of course the Pollok credit union run by local legend Jim Garrity and his wife, who have given out £70 million of loans in that time.
Does my hon. Friend further agree about the imbalance between England and Scotland? In England, dormant assets from the Bank of England can be used as capital to fund credit unions, but that is not the case in Scotland. Is that an anomaly she wishes to see changed?
Katrina Murray
My hon. Friend is reading ahead in my speech about some of the things that the Government could do to extend and support the sector.
Before joining the NHS credit union, I was a regular visitor to my local community credit union—staffed entirely by volunteers—until I moved house and moved out of the common bond. For nearly 30 years, until it sadly folded in 2017, it was a source of savings and small loans for a community that was mostly cash based. It inhabited the premises that the Royal Bank of Scotland vacated when it closed the branch. Often, small community credit unions remain in places where commercial banks have pulled out. That closure reflects a wider challenge: some credit unions have scaled up and professionalised; others have struggled, in particular those volunteer-led credit unions serving working class and rural communities.
In that unique community-based role, credit unions can offer a vital partnership to support underserved or excluded communities, whether they are excluded by poverty or by geography. All too often, we have heard Members raise the swathes of local bank branch closures in their constituencies. Mine has been particularly affected, as commercial lending evolves and the local footprint of lenders diminishes. Credit unions have to be on both sides of that bridge: at the forefront of innovation but still able to provide traditional, accessible services in the community.
It is vital that we have an alternative to expensive credit, and credit unions have a strong role to play. When a household is financially vulnerable, one fault in their car or one failed fridge or freezer can be the difference between staying afloat and facing a downward spiral of increasingly costly credit. The resilience of having £1,000 in savings is the firewall that stops that spiral.
We have often discussed the positive impact of no-interest loans. Credit unions can play a vital part in the design and delivery of a no-interest loan offer, providing an alternative to financially vulnerable households who cannot rely on commercial lending. Pilots by Fair4All Finance show notable success when it comes to meeting emergency costs for white goods, such as a broken-down fridge, cooker or other essential household appliance. Over 70% of customers in the pilot were in the rented sector, either social housing or renting privately.
As the UK Government’s own materials acknowledge, credit unions offer basic savings and loan services, but increasingly they do much more. Large credit unions such as the Glasgow credit union, which grew out of the Glasgow city council credit union, offer mortgages. They offer financial inclusion, especially for people who may not feel served or welcome in the commercial banking sector. They are not for profit, member-owned and designed to be run with communities, not over them.
Despite all its strengths, the credit union sector faces significant headwinds. I will start with regulation. In recent conversations with the NHS credit union, a number of serious concerns were raised that are shared across the sector. Most notably, the Financial Ombudsman Service has begun applying the commercial lending standards known as the CONC—consumer credit sourcebook—rules to credit unions, despite the fact that they are exempt from those by law. The use of “good industry practice” by the ombudsman without transparency or a legislative basis has left credit unions exposed to a growing number of frivolous or opportunistic claims, often driven by predatory claims management companies.
When credit unions have challenged that with the Financial Conduct Authority, they have been referred back to the ombudsman, creating a regulatory echo chamber that shuts down scrutiny and ignores the fact that the CONC was never intended for mutuals. A superficial search of decisions of the ombudsman using “credit union” as a search term shows that it is the same credit union names that come up. For each case where a decision is listed, there are many more going through the process, with many cases being reopened, and it is an overwhelming burden for these small organisations to process them.
This matters, because it introduces risk and cost into organisations that exist to serve, not to profit. It creates uncertainty, stifles growth and undermines the Government’s ambition to support the co-operative and mutual sector. I urge the Minister to engage with those concerns and ensure regulatory clarity that supports, rather than stifles, credit unions.
Regulation is not the only challenge. Despite some growth, credit union penetration in Great Britain remains low. Just 4% of adults hold a credit union savings account, compared with 25% in Northern Ireland and 73% in the Republic of Ireland. While membership is rising, the number of credit unions continues to fall. To thrive, credit unions need to modernise. Many want to expand their digital offer, working with fintech providers to offer budgeting apps and even current accounts, but innovation costs money. Small unions—especially those still run by volunteers—lack the capacity to upgrade systems or train staff.
I welcome the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which gave unions more freedom to offer services such as hire purchase and insurance distribution, but more must follow. I support the proposals to allow investment in credit union service organisations, which could help unions to share IT, compliance and admin systems.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; many of us have been involved with credit unions for a number of years. She has spoken about the diversification of credit unions. Last night, the Chancellor said she is trying to encourage more people into market-based savings products. Does the hon. Lady agree that credit unions could embrace that concept, provided that they have the capacity and willingness to do it? That would allow everyone involved with credit unions to benefit over the longer term.
Katrina Murray
The Chancellor’s speech last night was very timely. Credit unions are particularly well placed to benefit thoroughly from that if they have support, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. We need to update the law in Northern Ireland so that the strength of the credit union movement there is able to match progress that has been made in GB.
The perception that credit unions are the poor man’s bank is a harmful stereotype that limits the sector’s growth. Credit unions are for everyone and should be seen as an act not only of charity but of good sense. They are member-owned, community-rooted and democratic. This is finance as it should be.
Credit unions are more than just lenders; they are educators, community builders and the agents of financial justice. But they are at risk from burdensome regulation, under-investment and a lack of understanding at the highest level of Government.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has mentioned financial burdens a couple of times. The average credit union has fewer than seven employees, and is run nearly entirely by volunteers. Smaller credit unions are under the same dual regulatory burden as larger ones, and have to report to both the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Does she think that there should be proportionality, and that lighter regulation for smaller credit unions would give them the capacity to innovate?
Katrina Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. We need a joined-up approach to our support for the sector’s unique role. We must particularly support small credit unions with few staff members who are predominantly volunteers, because when it gets too much, volunteers may move away and services may close. We need regulatory reform, but we also need practical backing so that credit unions can modernise, merge where appropriate and scale sustainably.
I repeat my call to the Minister: please investigate the regulatory ambiguity that credit unions face, and particularly the application of the CONC by the Financial Ombudsman Service. I ask him to please consider measures to strengthen, not weaken, one of the most community-focused financial tools that we have. Let us not allow credit unions to wither on the vine. Let us invest in their future and, by doing so, in a more inclusive, more resilient economy for all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend and thank my Gaelic cousin, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), for setting the scene so very well. It is also good to see the Minister in his place. He is certainly becoming a regular in Westminster Hall—he is here almost as much as me.
Jim Shannon
That was meant as a compliment, by the way. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), brings a wealth of knowledge to the debate from his previous employment. I know that the debate will be greatly enhanced by the contributions of all.
I have long been an advocate of credit unions, and I have been thinking about how long I have been involved with them. The credit union in Greyabbey was run by the Orange lodge, which was the instigator. It made its hall available and managed the credit union under the auspices of credit unions elsewhere as the governing body.
I became involved to support credit unions and to start an account for my three boys. Only last week, I realised that moneys in that account had been gathering for some time and had been sitting in the transfer, because the account was transferred from Greyabbey to Newtownards credit union. My three boys have a bonus coming, which I will let them know about one of these days. I hope they will not spend it on wasteful living, but whatever they do, they do.
The credit union instilled in my boys and in me from an early age the value of saving and of ensuring that the saver can afford to pay back loans. That is the great thing about the credit union; we can put money in and borrow money out, but it is controlled in a way that means someone can live and borrow at a rate they can repay. That is a lesson that I learned from my mum and dad—of course, as we all learn from our mums and dads—and that has stayed with me these many years.
It is said that every pound is a prisoner to a Scots woman or man, but I think it is equally a prisoner to some of us in Northern Ireland; we are no different. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, there has been substantial growth of credit unions in Northern Ireland, particularly in membership and assets. Membership has doubled in the past decade, with 34% of the population now saving with a credit union, which is a massive figure.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It was good to hear the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) mention Northern Ireland. I, too, am a member of the credit union, and I have a savings account for my little boy as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, where so many people bank with the credit union, the numbers could grow if the credit union were able to do more? The legislation in Northern Ireland is quite antiquated, and we are only able to bank with loans and savings. Does he agree that we should learn from what happens in GB and address it from there?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 34% growth of the credit union in Northern Ireland indicates its success. She is correct that there is certainly more it could do.
Total assets have passed £1.9 billion, having increased by 1.6% in the third quarter of 2022. Lending is also strong, with the loan book increasing by 8.3% year on year. Membership of credit unions in Northern Irelands stands at 571,000. To put that in context, Northern Ireland’s population is 1.96 million. That is a success story. It is lovely to tell everyone about what we are doing in Northern Ireland, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch was generous in her comments and acknowledged the good stuff we do.
The figures represent a 30% increase over the past 10 years. With the rise in membership comes the need to ensure that the institution is financially safe and sound, which is always important. I am thankful for the credit unions in my constituency; I can think of three straight away. The one in Kircubbin, which took over the premises of the Northern bank, or Danske bank, is an offshoot of the credit union in Portaferry, which I have supported the whole way through. There is also an active credit union in Newtownards that provides a wonderful service to get people on the road to financial stability. That is what credit unions do: they help people to save and ensure that they borrow and spend their money wisely.
There are over 2,200 credit unions providing ethical financial services to more than 1.5 million people, holding £2.71 billion in assets, £2.33 billion in savings and £1.83 billion in lending. Their differences mean that they can lend responsibly with good rates to those who are classified as excluded communities, with 31% of the community development credit union pathfinder members being “cash-strapped families”, and 21% falling into the “hard-up” or “challenging circumstances” categories. Credit unions are often the only fair option for such individuals and it is really good to have them on board.
Some 56% of credit unions offer payroll savings, and “save as you borrow” schemes turn 67% of previous non-savers into regular savers. Prize-linked savings also incentivise saving behaviour. I understand that in this day and age it is always that wee bit harder to save money. My mum and dad instilled in me a saving culture at an early age, and I remember saving from a very early age. Not everybody can buy their house today, as they perhaps would have whenever I was younger and houses were much cheaper. Credit unions like Serve and Protect offer dividends of 3.5% to 4.5%, returning £3 million to members, while for every £1 invested, the Clockwise credit union generates £11 to £19 in social value. Credit unions reduce financial leakage and build community wealth. I am sold on credit unions. I think they are great and I hope my speech has illustrated that. I think everybody else will say the same thing.
I will conclude, as I am conscious that others want to speak and that time will be limited. I am a strong advocate for credit unions simply because they work. Let us support and encourage them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, let us try to do more so that we can bring them along. I encourage reasonable regulation that allows the freedom to spend locally and not to be drawn into more centralised investment—if someone borrows from a credit union, they are more likely to spend their money in the local area of their credit union, and more likely to borrow or buy from the area where they live—and I know that the Government, and the Minister in particular, would like to advocate for and support that.
I wish my local credit unions every success as they continue to help people to learn financial principles and responsibilities while sowing deeply into the local economy. That can only be a good thing, so it is a pleasure to speak today about credit unions. I could wax lyrical until about 10.28 am, but you would not let me, Mr Twigg—others will do that for their own constituencies.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing this important debate about credit unions, as they play a crucial role in providing affordable financial services and promoting economic inclusion, particularly among those underserved by the traditional banks. As co-operative, member-owned institutions, credit unions focus on servicing their members’ needs rather than maximising profits.
In my constituency, we are fortunate to benefit from the Wolverhampton City credit union, which serves over 10,000 members, manages more than £4.1 million in savings and has issued over £3.7 million in loans. It provides vital support for working people, pensioners, young savers and those on all incomes, by offering accessible credit and encouraging responsible saving. This helps families to avoid the traps of high-cost lenders and builds financial security across Wolverhampton North East.
What truly sets Wolverhampton City credit union apart is its commitment to practical, member-focused initiatives. For example, its school uniform savings scheme is a simple but powerful way to help families to prepare for the financial pressure of each school year by encouraging parents to save small amounts regularly. The scheme ensures that they are not forced into debt when faced with the up-front cost of uniforms. That is just one of many community-driven initiatives that the credit union runs; others include budgeting advice, payroll savings partnerships with local employers, and junior saving clubs, all aimed at fostering long-term financial wellbeing.
Despite the great work of credit unions, including Wolverhampton City credit union and others across the country, the sector in the United Kingdom has not reached the scale seen in other countries such as the United States, Canada and Ireland, where credit unions are more mainstream and serve a much larger proportion of the population. For example, the US Navy Federal credit union alone serves over 14 million members, showing what is possible when credit unions are given the room to grow.
One structural barrier to growth is the common bond requirement, which restricts the potential membership base of credit unions. While the principle of shared connection, whether geographical or associational, is sensible, the current rules limit geographical common bonds to areas with up to 3 million potential members, making it impossible to operate a credit union that covers all of London or the midlands, for example.
I therefore welcome the Government’s current consultation on reforming the common bond rules, which could allow credit unions in Great Britain to serve wider geographies and expand sustainably. That reform, alongside investment in digital infrastructure and proportionate regulation, will certainly benefit credit unions so that they can fulfil their potential. Credit unions tackle financial exclusion, supporting working people and strengthening communities, so I call for practical reforms and tangible support.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing the debate and for her speech highlighting the importance of credit unions, both now and in the future.
As financial co-operative organisations, credit unions are a force for good in many communities and workplaces. They exist to support their members, not to maximise profit. They encourage savings and provide financial education and affordable loans, all the while circulating the money within their membership communities, which are bound together through a common bond, often based on a workplace or location. More than ever, it is vital for that type of organisation to be available in communities that are currently struggling with the cost of living crisis and are vulnerable to predatory credit and debt organisations. It is the place of responsible Government to support these organisations and their efforts to promote financial inclusion, wellbeing and stability.
As already mentioned, there is variety and diversity in credit unions. There are large credit unions, such as Scotwest credit union in my constituency, which is one of the largest in the UK. It has over 36,000 members and, as of September 2024, a loan book of £68.9 million. It describes its mission as being focused on broadening financial inclusion, supporting members’ financial wellbeing and security, and strengthening local communities, all while promoting environmental sustainability through responsible lending and consumption. There are also local, community-based credit unions, such as Ruchill credit union, which was set up in my constituency, and workplace and employment-based credit unions, such as the Transport credit union in my constituency.
The diverse range of credit unions offers responsible lending while promoting co-operative values. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch mentioned, it is concerning to hear reports that the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is responsible for resolving disputes between financial institutions and their consumers, is using commercial lending rules to make legally binding judgments on credit unions.
The sector has raised concerns that credit unions are now being held to the Financial Conduct Authority’s consumer credit sourcebook rules, even though they do not legally apply to credit unions. As our credit unions are already under pressure and often based in low-income communities, that weakens the legal certainty and operational viability of the sector at a time when it is more necessary than ever.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my close friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), on securing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made a powerful point about what happens in communities when credit unions go bust because they face huge regulatory burdens. My town, Redditch, has lost three credit unions over the last decade, meaning that because people cannot access financial support from the mainstream banks, they fall prey to speculative and very high-interest financial products from companies that should know better. Credit unions protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Martin Rhodes
I agree that although we need robust regulation, we need to ensure that it is supportive of credit unions, particularly at a time when many communities need them more than ever and the challenge of organisations that seek to exploit vulnerable communities is very much at the fore.
Credit unions as institutions act as important protections against pernicious credit and debt systems such as buy now, pay later schemes. Since 2020, the market for buy now, pay later has more than quadrupled. There are reports of many in the UK getting into unsustainable debt because of balancing multiple buy now, pay later services to pay for essential groceries and other supplies. Unlike the work of credit unions, buy now, pay later schemes can use the cost of living crisis to market aggressively, targeting vulnerable consumers. They are often debt traps for the worst off in society.
While I support the Government’s planned new rules, which will ensure that buy now, pay later users will gain stronger rights and clearer protections, we must also do more to promote positive alternatives such as credit unions. These not-for-profit organisations exist to support their members, not to extract profit. They are local financial institutions that provide responsible lending and financial health advice, and they are safely regulated. In a world with loan sharks preying on the vulnerable, and tech companies creating debt prisons through unregulated consumer debt, we must support credit unions. If we do not, not just individuals but our economy and society will be worse off without them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can keep their speeches to five or six minutes—we are doing okay—then everyone will get a chance to speak before the wind-ups.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing this important debate. I am delighted to join colleagues to speak about the essential and valuable role that credit unions play for many of my constituents in Glasgow North East.
Across Britain, non-profit credit unions provide financial services to their members, but they are much more than just financial institutions; they are community pillars. Historically associated with increasing access to banking facilities and supporting those who are excluded from other financial institutions, credit unions continue to adopt a community-first approach to the services they provide.
Multiple credit unions are accessed by my constituents, including New Easterhouse, Ruchill and Carntyne credit unions. All those unions have shown time and again how valuable they are. They provide affordable loans and savings options to families and individuals who might otherwise face challenges in accessing mainstream banking. They help individuals gain confidence in managing their money, building savings and accessing credit, often on much fairer terms than banks.
However, this is not just about money; credit unions are about dignity, empowerment and opportunity. One thing they are known for is loans. For many, they are a safe, ethical and affordable alternative to high-interest payday lenders and loan sharks. I know from stories that constituents have shared with me how those types of loans prey on poorer members of society and trap vulnerable people in a cycle of debt. Credit unions, on the other hand, operate on a simple but powerful principle: they are owned by and exist for their members. In the case of loans, that results in annual percentage rates being capped at fairer rates compared with the alternative. More generally, it means that every pound saved or borrowed stays within the community, helping people manage their money and improve their lives.
It is unsurprising that the number of credit union members has grown in the last decade. With that said, the sector is still much smaller than in countries such as Ireland, the USA and Canada. That presents an exciting opportunity for it to grow. It is by listening to voices in the sector that we can understand what can and should be done to support growth efforts.
I am supportive of the Association of British Credit Unions’ call to expand the common bond requirement so that more people can be served by a credit union. I am also interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the potential benefits of legislating for auto-enrolment payroll savings, which could be a great source of empowerment for people.
Credit unions are a force for good in our society. We should work with them to unlock financial opportunities for our constituents. Ultimately, supporting credit unions is about supporting people. I hope that together we can ensure that the credit unions in Glasgow North East and across the UK continue to be a beacon of hope and fairness for all our communities.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this important debate.
At a time when we are all looking for practical ways to support our communities, a simple but powerful action stands out to me in relation to credit unions: for public bodies to support credit unions not just by promoting them, but by banking with them. When I was leader of Stirling council, I saw at first hand how prudent financial management rightly led councils to place the bulk of their reserves with established banks and large institutions. That approach is, of course, sound and responsible, but allocating even a very small proportion of those funds—small by council standards—to a credit union could have a disproportionately positive impact on the credit union and the community it serves.
Credit unions are community-based, member-owned financial institutions that offer affordable loans, promote savings and provide an ethical alternative to high-cost lenders. I have seen their real-world impact in my constituency, where they help families to avoid exploitative borrowing, build resilience and stay afloat during hard times. However, many credit unions operate at the margins of the financial system and struggle to scale. Local authority deposits, even modest ones, would help with the stability and capital that credit unions need to grow, and would send a powerful signal to the public that credit unions are valued, supported and used by institutions. Depositing local authority funds in a credit union could also deliver modest returns while maintaining strong safeguards for public funds, because deposits are protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It would be a secure, responsible option that also delivered social value.
Every pound placed in a credit union is a pound that can be recycled into low-interest loans for local people and small businesses. The money does not disappear into a distant financial centre; it stays local and supports the very communities that we are elected to serve. This approach would align with many local authorities’ wider goals: it would help to tackle poverty, support inclusive economic development and contribute to building community wealth. It would also align with wider goals across the public sector, including in the UK Government.
I urge the Minister to consider what more central Government can do to overcome the barriers to this practice in the public sector and by local authorities, including through updated guidance, best practice examples and formal recognition of the social value that local authority deposits in credit unions can generate. We need to look at the barriers to public bodies placing money in credit unions without changing the broader scope of member ownership. Even very modest deposits in credit unions—modest by departmental or council standards—can work harder and go further when invested locally. By supporting credit unions, we invest in people’s lives, in communities and in the resilience of our local economies.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am excited to begin working with the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd on forming the new all-party parliamentary group on credit unions, which will meet for the first time in September.
We have heard a lot today about why we need credit unions. Now more than ever, it is important that people have access to affordable loans and do not get trapped by payday loans, expensive hire purchase or even predatory loan sharks. Credit unions are a fantastic example of people working together to make finance more accessible.
Many credit unions welcome volunteers. My very good friend Catriona Currie, along with Nancy, volunteered for the credit union in Stevenston, in my constituency, for many years—I think more than 20. Nancy was a founding member of the local credit union and was key in making sure that the service thrived and survived. Until covid, they provided a service every Saturday morning in Stevenston library. Catriona and Nancy knew most members who came in and made sure they had set up the account they needed, including Christmas savings, which many people relied on to get good toys and so on at Christmas time. They often helped with a range of other issues outwith the remit of the credit union. Savers knew and trusted the service provided in their community and very much relied on the credit union.
The Association of British Credit Unions describes its vision of credit unions becoming
“the primary source of affordable, high quality and ethical financial services for the people of Great Britain.”
As we know, many people on low incomes are often excluded from accessing a range of bank accounts. Credit unions can ensure that people can access a degree of financial freedom, allowing them greater control of their finances and a say in how the union is run. It is vital that we encourage membership and ensure that people are aware of this excellent local service.
The 1st Alliance community bank in Kilwinning, in my constituency, provides those excellent services to my constituents and the wider west of Scotland. It offers a range of much-needed facilities, including savings, low loan rates, standing orders and online services. I look forward to hearing from other Members and the Minister about what we can do to further support credit unions.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.
In my constituency we are lucky to be served by organisations such as the North Coatbridge credit union and the Newmains credit union. These are not distant financial giants; they are member-owned, community-run mutuals that put people before profit. For decades, they have quietly gone about their work, offering people a safe place to save, fair and affordable loans, and practical help with budgeting. They make a world of difference to someone who might otherwise be driven into the arms of high-cost lenders or high-cost credit cards. Credit unions are run by people who know your name, who listen, and who guide you through difficult times, whether by helping with a loan for urgent car repairs or assisting a family with a funeral grant in their time of grief.
More widely, credit unions circulate money locally. It is not siphoned off to faraway shareholders; it stays in the community, helping neighbours and strengthening the local economy. Credit unions are democratically run on a one member, one vote basis, so every decision is about what is best for the community, not what is best for a balance sheet. At a time when many face barriers to accessing mainstream banks, credit unions are a lifeline. They offer financial inclusion, ethical lending and real human support.
We must not take credit unions for granted. They need our support. They need us to raise awareness of them so more people know they exist. They need partnerships with local employers to set up payroll deduction schemes, helping workers save effortlessly each month. And they need help modernising their digital services, because in this day and age we should be able to access these great community services from our phones as easily as we can from a high street bank.
When credit unions succeed, they are not just about finances; they provide dignity, security and opportunity to people in Airdrie and Shotts and across North Lanarkshire. Let us celebrate them, talk about them and, most importantly, use them. Together, we will build a stronger, fairer community for all.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch East (Katrina Murray) for securing this very important debate.
I must give some credit to my friend, Councillor Beth Rowland, at Wokingham borough council for helping with some of the detail for this speech. Beth has worked in the credit union sector in Berkshire for over 20 years, and it is unlike any other job in finance. People like Beth do not go to work for credit unions to make big money—not for any company, and certainly not for themselves. Instead, it is about dedication to the local community, a desire to help people, and an uncompromising desire to be a force for good in the world for those who need a bit of extra support. That is what drives people like Beth who make a career out of working in this industry. That speaks to Liberal Democrat values instinctively. I thank Beth, not only for helping me with this speech but more importantly for her long record of public service.
In my constituency of Wokingham, we are lucky to be able to call upon the services of Boom community bank. When I was leader of the local council, we began a relationship with Boom. It provides non-profit finance and banking services to more than 12,000 members, not only across Berkshire but across west Sussex, Surrey, parts of Oxfordshire, Hampshire, London and Buckinghamshire. It is not traditional high street banking. For many of its 12,000 members, Boom provides a lifeline service. Credit unions certainly provide loans if people need one and a place to store savings safely, but their real value does not come from offering those financial basics. It comes from the continuous support that is on offer.
Members of credit unions are often in more vulnerable positions than the average high street banking customer. That could mean that they are simply more financially vulnerable and consequently unable to access more traditional forms of credit. However, it can also mean they are vulnerable in other ways. For example, they might, for whatever reason, struggle to navigate technical language and complex arrays of products, or need extra help to create the structure in their lives that allows them to put money away regularly for a rainy day. Access to a friendly face who is on their side, and not looking to make a profit from them but willing to talk about their needs and goals, is invaluable for such people. Frankly, it is the kind of community support that we are sadly losing in our society as it becomes more distant from us as individuals over time. The people I have described cannot afford to lose the service of a credit union.
One case study on Boom’s website refers to a man who was experiencing a debt crisis, with some of his loans imposing an eye-watering 1,295% annual interest burden. I am not sure how we as a society are supposed to read that as anything other than a profound failure. How did we ever allow that kind of exploitation to happen? The man that Boom refers to as John, although that is not his real name of course, could not refinance his debt on the traditional market; he was simply too high-risk. However, the credit union sector was there to help. John’s monthly costs were more than halved and within three years he was debt-free.
It is hard to imagine a version of John’s story that ends well without the support of a credit union and without its willingness to identify a person in genuine need, and to offer help, support and security. Traditional finance viewed John first as a target for high-profit, personally crushing credit and then as a risk—someone to be avoided, in case he could not swim in the choppy waters that it had stirred up for him. Instead, the credit union sector viewed him as a person. I do not know John, but I am certain that that was more valuable to him than just the money on offer.
We know that membership of credit unions is rising, having increased by a third between 2014 and 2024. Over the same period, however, the number of credit unions feel by about the same proportion. That can partly be explained by smaller credit unions—in 2023, the average credit union employed only seven people—seeking to merge and become larger organisations, in order to streamline their operations, but it must be a cause for alarm whenever we see demand rise and supply fall at the same time. What are we doing wrong on a policy level, such that this vital industry is not growing, even though people clearly value it? I ask the Minister to ponder that question carefully.
In bringing my remarks to a close, I make a plea to the Government: bring forward a fair banking Act, which is something we have been calling for for some time. Financial exclusion in the UK is worse than in most other comparable economies. High-cost lenders—or worse, loan sharks—prey on that to target some of the most vulnerable. In 2022, an estimated 1 million people turned to illegal lenders. When people need help, there is usually a credit union they can turn to, but too many people do not realise that. With better legislation, they need not be put in that position in the first place. A fair banking Act could improve the lives of millions and could also help ethical lenders such as credit unions to deliver vital support. Will the Minister say whether the Government might consider introducing such an Act?
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for nearly knocking you over on my bicycle first thing this morning.
Mark Garnier
Thank goodness I was called to speak after all.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this debate. It has been fascinating to listen to all the great words used to describe credit unions. We have heard them described as lifeline services, community builders and financial educators that help to get people on to the road to financial stability, and as engines of economic inclusion. There is no doubt about it: credit unions are truly remarkable institutions. At their heart, they represent, in its simplest form, how and why the financial sector drives growth. They are the first rung on the ladder in the financial system. They take the savings entrusted by members, brought together by a common bond, pool those funds and turn them into everything from very simple loans, to pay for school uniforms, as we have heard, all the way up to mortgages. Those loans often go to individuals and families who would otherwise find the doors to mainstream financial institutions closed. Credit unions’ commitment to financial inclusion and community values are an example that many parts of the wider financial sector could definitely learn from.
I am pleased to note that over the past decade, under the previous Government, credit unions have consolidated and grown. In Great Britain, the number of members rose by a third between 2014 and 2024. More than 2.3 million people are members, up from 1.5 million in 2014, so while the number of credit unions in operation has decreased, that reflects strategic mergers that have created larger, more resilient and more professional institutions. Their asset base has also expanded—it now totals nearly £5 billion in the UK—and their lending book stands at £1.83 billion as of the fourth quarter of 2024. The impact of credit unions stretches far beyond the balance sheet. Studies show that £1 invested into a credit union can translate to between £11 and £19 of value generated in the wider community, yet despite these strengths, it is clear that further growth is being held back.
A major barrier to growth is a geographical common bond, as we have heard one or two Members mention. That prevents credit unions from serving large city regions such as London, the west midlands or Greater Manchester as a single entity. I welcome the Government’s publication of a call for evidence last year on common bond reform. However, the call for evidence is unclear about the Government’s position on expanding the geographical common bond, so I would definitely welcome the Minister’s views on raising the cap from 3 million to at least 10 million people, as called for by the Building Societies Association and others. That would not only unblock the growth of credit unions in major urban areas, but allow for strategic mergers and expansions, helping the sector to respond to local need at scale.
From my own meetings with the credit union industry, I know that consolidation has improved professionalism, resilience and standards across the board. However, to truly unlock growth potential, we must enable greater investment into credit union service organisations. It is positive that the Prudential Regulation Authority recently clarified that credit unions can own these service organisations. However, further Government support, especially relaxing ownership and capital restrictions, could unleash digital transformation and help credit unions to modernise their services.
I note and appreciate that the Minister has also asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the PRA to publish a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of this year. That is a welcome intervention, but can the Minister confirm whether it will deliver a root and branch review of credit union legislation, and in particular the Credit Union Act 1979? As we have heard, credit unions in the USA, Ireland and Canada have flourished under a very different legal framework, which I hope the Government will scrutinise and learn from. I also hope the review can look at central facilities. By pooling liquidity through a central facility, credit unions could manage risk more effectively and provide an even stronger backbone for local lenders. Similarly, do the Government have appetite to allow credit unions to access Bank of England reserve accounts and the sterling monetary framework, bringing them into line with other financial institutions of a similar size?
I will draw my words to a close in a second, but first I gently remind the Minister that the Government were elected last year—quite wholeheartedly—on a pledge to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector. It is the morning after the night before, when members of the Treasury team are no doubt nursing hangovers from a fantastic dinner last night at the Mansion House. It is notable that during the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which I think was very much welcomed by the City of London, the co-operative and mutual sector was not mentioned. I would be grateful if the Minister put that wrong right by addressing these points.
All the evidence suggests that credit unions are a potential growth engine for communities. By introducing a modern legal framework, progressive common bond reform and investment into service organisations, we can help this sector to continue to flourish.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start obviously by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this important debate and speaking so powerfully about the role of credit unions. The interest in this topic, particularly on this side of the House and for some parts of the country, shows how important credit unions are in supporting individuals and communities. The same commitment and motivations underpin the Government’s strong support for credit unions and the mutuals sector more widely, as the Opposition spokesperson just mentioned.
As a country, we have a rich history of mutuality. In 1775, Richard Ketley founded the world’s first ever building society in Birmingham, and that continues in the west midlands today, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). The modern co-operative movement was also British-born, albeit slightly further north, in Rochdale.
Today we are here to discuss credit unions, which are deeply embedded in our local communities. Everyone in this Chamber passes on our thanks to Beth, who the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about so powerfully in his remarks. Before I turn to the important points that colleagues have raised specifically about credit unions, let me say a few words about the Government’s strong support for the mutual sector, as the Opposition spokesperson has raised it.
Mutuals have a footprint in high streets around the country and they provide jobs. They strengthen their communities, and they support people to build savings habits and access affordable credit and mortgages. Growth in the mutual sector means growth that touches all levels of society, aiding economic participation in the broadest possible sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) set out. That is why the Government have committed to doubling the size of the sector.
I am glad that the Opposition spokesperson has been paying attention to all the Government’s commitments and the change that we were elected to bring. In south Wales, building society branches are expanding in some areas, even as banks are stepping back. We have already begun to make our commitment a reality, not least when it comes to credit unions, whose lending is growing, even though, as several hon. Members have mentioned, the number of credit unions has fallen in recent years.
In her November Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced new measures to support the growth of credit unions and mutuals. The shadow Minister would be keen to have the Chancellor give an even longer speech at every Mansion House, but she cannot reiterate all her greatest hits at every single one. We did not let people away till after 10 o’clock last night as it was, and there is such a thing as decent human behaviour. The measures included publishing a call for evidence on the potential to reform common bonds for credit unions in Great Britain, asking the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of this year, which is now well under way, and welcoming the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative business council, which has a live workstream specifically exploring the role of the credit union sector.
The common bond is a unique feature of a credit union. It fosters trust and accountability among members. However, there has been a long-standing request from the sector that the Government review the common bond, and that was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East this morning. That is why we put out the call for evidence. I thank everyone who fed into that process, including individual credit unions, trade associations and some Members here today. We are now engaging with the sector and the regulators on those responses and are considering next steps. The Government and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will provide an update on that work in due course.
More widely, all Members who have spoken today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), recognise the role that credit unions play in achieving financial inclusion, more broadly considered. They provide access to financial services and products and allow people to participate in the economy.
The hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the long-standing calls for a fair banking Act. I gently note that there was little progress on that in the five years in which the Liberal Democrats were part of the UK Government. That tends to get slightly forgotten. When I spend time here in Westminster Hall—as was pointed out earlier, I do spend a lot of time here—I am told about long-standing Liberal Democrat policy in a whole range of areas.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that our focus is on taking forward a financial inclusion strategy under the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I know she will want to work with my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) in her new role—I congratulate her on it. That work is being supported by a committee of consumer groups and industry representatives, including Fair4All Finance, which has a key role in supporting the sector. That strategy will be published later this year and will seek to tackle a range of barriers facing individuals in accessing financial services, including banking and affordable credit. More importantly, it will consider what more the industry and the Government can do to address these issues.
The financial inclusion committee has recommended that the financial inclusion strategy focus on helping people build an emergency savings buffer—a pot of money that could help them replace a household appliance or repair a car. One area we are exploring is payroll saving schemes, which several Members have called for, which are offered by employers to staff. In my day job of dealing with the pensions landscape, people are talking about learning from the experience of automatic enrolment, and a number of credit unions already deliver such schemes. We talked about the role of a particular credit union earlier.
The Government are directly encouraging those on lower incomes to save via help to save, introduced under the previous Government. Although the scheme has been effective for those who use it, I think we would all say that take-up has been low. In April, eligibility was extended to all universal credit claimants in work, meaning that about 3 million people will be able to benefit from the scheme.
More widely, we are continuing to monitor the availability of affordable credit as part of that financial inclusion strategy work. The Treasury engages regularly to understand the current barriers faced by the mutual sector and credit unions specifically, and to identify opportunities for growth. There have been several discussions about credit union service organisations. That is an important development. The PRA is consulting on how we can facilitate that, given its role in the growth of the sector.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about growth. He is obviously well aware that the policy area is devolved to Northern Ireland, but he can see the legislation that is being progressed here. We are always happy to engage with our opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we do indeed do so. I join him in celebrating the growth in Northern Ireland. He might not like the progress on the legislative side, but on actual lending and members’ engagement, those of us in other parts of the United Kingdom have a lot to learn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) asked wider questions about bank finance regulation—not least about buy now, pay later. I hope he is happy that the legislation that has long been promised was introduced just a few weeks ago. A few Members who are taking part in this morning’s debate were present in that Committee.
More widely, hon. Members rightly said that credit unions have a different regime from mainstream providers when it comes to regulation. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch that we are really clear about the differential requirements, including capital requirements and exemptions from consumer credit regulations. We maintain those different regimes for good reasons: we want a proportionate system for different parts of our financial sector.
My hon. Friend has consistently raised concerns about the Financial Ombudsman Service’s approach to handling certain complaints against credit unions, and about the volume of complaints more generally. Although they are a very small part of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s work, I appreciate that is not how it feels for the credit unions wrestling with them. We have heard those complaints, and we recognise the risk of a chilling effect on credit union lending. That is why we have acted. In the March regulation action plan, the Government announced that the Economic Secretary would lead a review of the FOS to examine whether it is delivering on its role.
Today’s debate is well timed. Yesterday the Chancellor launched a consultation on a significant package of policy proposals. That will run until October and I encourage all Members to engage with it. As the Chancellor set out at the Mansion House, the Financial Ombudsman Service will be returned to its original role as a simple, impartial dispute-resolution service, which quickly and effectively deals with complaints. Directly addressing the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, the Government propose to reform the legislative framework that the FOS operates in to stop it acting as a quasi-regulator. We will take steps to provide greater regulatory coherence with the FCA. Consumers and industry will benefit from a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment, and I encourage my hon. Friend and credit unions with recent exposure to and experience of the ombudsman to feed into the consultation over the summer.
In conclusion, the Government recognise the important role that credit unions play in our economy: helping individuals, strengthening communities, and as a major player in any attempt to make our society and economy genuinely financially inclusive. I see that in Swansea, not least in the work of the Celtic credit union. We remain absolutely committed to supporting the growth of the credit union sector now and into the future. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s important debate.
Katrina Murray
I feel honoured to wind up the debate. I thank all colleagues who have contributed to a thoughtful and constructive debate.
We heard that credit unions are not just financial institutions; they are community institutions. They offer dignity, access and inclusion where commercial lenders often do not and, as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) reminded us, credit unions step in when commercial-led banks step out. From local volunteer-run unions to large workplace models, such as the NHS credit union, their role in tackling financial exclusion, supporting resilience and anchoring community finance cannot be overstated.
As we have discussed—I very much welcome the Minister’s comments—we might be in a place to remove the burden of over-regulation and inappropriate regulation arising from outdated perceptions. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) for reminding us that credit unions will take the risk to lend to people, to their members, because they know them. They know the financial situation that those people are in. That does not necessarily meet an affordability question from a spreadsheet. The importance of the role of small, local organisations is that money will stay in the community. A risk that might have been seen as too big a risk by a wider organisation is not, because everything is done locally.
On the devolved nature of Northern Ireland, I am sure that all the parties there are on the same page on credit unions. I hope that, now we realise that something has been missed and that we need to make that reform, we will be in a good place for it to happen.
Let us ensure that the sector not only survives but thrives. We have all talked about the absolute benefit of mutuals and the credit union sector, and how we want to increase their numbers. I hope that the sector continues to serve those who need it the most.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role and future of credit unions.
Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the relocation of the Information Commissioner’s Office on Tatton constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Information Commissioner’s Office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public’s information rights. The ICO is headed by a commissioner. It is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, that is tasked with promoting openness from public bodies and ensuring data privacy for individuals. Those are principles rooted in transparency and openness, yet those principles have in recent months been somewhat absent from the ICO itself. That is why I called for this debate.
Last month, I was surprised to learn that the ICO’s head office, which has been based in Wilmslow for 40 years, will be relocating to the new Circle Square development on Oxford Road, Manchester, in autumn 2026, following the expiry of a current lease at Wycliffe House. I read this in a newspaper article and did not receive any official notice. It came as a shock not only to me but to the whole community.
Let me explain the history. The ICO first moved to Springfield House in Wilmslow in 1985. It then had just 10 employees. That figure rose to 80 by the end of the year, and the ICO now employs more than 1,000 individuals across the UK, the vast majority of whom are based in Wilmslow. The ICO is a significant employer in the town. The organisation is staffed by skilled professionals, from investigators and policy experts to technologists, lawyers and frontline support staff. All have played a critical role in delivering data protection. On top of that, this year, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 celebrates 20 years since the Act came into force, and the ICO is central to delivering that service to hold public authorities to account.
Like any well-established organisation that is rooted in a community, the ICO has become part of Wilmslow’s identity over the decades. Some 800 staff are based there. Many multi-generational families who have built their lives around the town have worked there and contributed to the ICO’s success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady. The word is used often, but she is a champion for her constituents, who will today be impressed and proud of what she has done. On those 800 jobs, does she share my concern that there been no consultation about the impact on the local economy and the community? That is incredible. How can that happen without Government having some oversight and say in what happens?
Esther McVey
The hon. Member gets to the nub of the issue. The impact of the removal on the local community is huge, and the fact that a quango seems to be unaccountable to a sponsoring Department is incredible.
For the people I have mentioned, the decision to relocate is not a minor disruption. It affects livelihoods, housing, community patterns and personal finances. Wilmslow, the town that helped to build up the organisation and helped it to flourish, will suddenly and inexplicably have it removed, depleting the area of jobs and local trade for local businesses.
Despite the scale of the relocation’s impact, there have been no explanations or answers about it, and the questions that I have put to the Minister about the specific details of the move remain unanswered. Can you believe it, Mr Twigg? I have been reduced to submitting freedom of information requests about the ICO, the body that oversees freedom of information requests when an organisation does not answer questions—the irony. Therein lies the major issue with quangos—their unaccountability—for no answers have come forth from the Minister or the ICO, the public body tasked with upholding information rights.
I am now attempting again to get answers in Westminster Hall. First, residents want assurances that the decision was thoroughly considered and that there was a full assessment of the impact of moving the ICO out of Wilmslow. They want information about the consultation, if one was carried out at all, in the local area with local businesses. The Minister advised, however, that that is not required by the commissioner, but I want to ask: why is it not required? He did confirm that the commissioner carried out a consultation with its employees, but I want to know what sort of consultation and what was its outcome. What were the questions asked? What were the responses? What were the percentages?
Surely, in making its decision to uproot and leave Wilmslow for Manchester, the ICO must have done some impact assessments. I know that the Government do not like impact assessments, but quangos should be doing them. The ICO should have drawn up the costs and made some calculations about the move. If those calculations have been done, where are they?
Interestingly, the Minister explained that the move was based on “access to…skills” and the “age and diversity” of the workforce in Manchester, but those answers are nonsense. What was the problem with the skills, diversity and age of the people and staff in Wilmslow? What are the Minister and the ICO saying about Wilmslow and Cheshire in those comments? Let us remember that it was Wilmslow where the organisation grew from 10 employees to 1,000 employees, hundreds of them from in and around the Wilmslow area.
What exactly do the Minister and the commissioner mean when they say the “diversity” of the workforce? That sounds discriminatory to me against the people of Cheshire, Wilmslow and Tatton. In fact, I have heard that the Government are trying to include a socioeconomic duty into the Equality Act 2010, basically discriminating against the UK’s middle classes. I would say that this is a case in point. If not, can the Minister explain why it is not? I am hoping that the Minister has some information today about the staff who will remain in Wilmslow after the move. In response to my written question, the Government said that “76 desks” will remain there until 2030—not people, desks. Is that how they view the staff of Wilmslow and Cheshire? How many staff is that, what roles will they be covering and how long will they remain in Wilmslow?
What we do know is that the office in Manchester will be smaller, so people will be working from home. That is another question. On the day after it was exposed that an extraordinary Ministry of Defence data breach led to the Afghanistan relocation, surely tighter controls must be brought in to prevent such calamitous data breaches. If that is the case, why are staff at the ICO going to be working from home at all?
The new Manchester office is smaller, and it will house approximately 250 people. Do not be shocked, Mr Twigg, but you should know that there are smaller offices in Wilmslow, in the Wilmslow area and in Cheshire too. Let us look at the cost implications of the move, just for the office space. The average cost of an office on Water Lane, where the ICO is currently based, ranges from £15 to £25 a square foot. An office in Manchester’s new Circle Square development is between £30 and £45 per square foot, plus a service charge of £7.50 per square foot. For 250 employees, each needing about 100 square feet, the expected cost in Wilmslow would have been anywhere between £375,000 and £625,000, yet in Manchester, with the added service charge, we can expect the office to cost somewhere between £937,000 and £1,312,000. That is an increase in cost ranging between £562,000 and £687,000, which is a large discrepancy. Manchester is more expensive than Wilmslow. Although the commissioner and the Minister might not care about wasting taxpayers’ money, I do, my constituents do and the taxpayer picking up the bill does.
Those questions matter to staff and the local area but getting answers has been an uphill battle. Since the Minister confirmed limited details to me late last week, it appears that he has changed his mind. In a separate reply, he advised me that his Department has “no formal role” in the relocation, and that questions should be put to the ICO directly. Does he now think that the process was sped through, and is he distancing himself from that process?
The Minister says that the move was decided by the ICO, in line with the Treasury’s Green Book principles—really? Because one of those principles is value for money, which we know has just had a hole blown through it. It seems the move was approved by the Cabinet Office, but as the sponsoring Department knows nothing about the decisions, and as the ICO has not provided a basis for the move, how on earth did the Cabinet Office sign it off, and know what it was signing off?
The claim that it is not the responsibility of DSIT simply does not pass the test. The Department is responsible for the ICO’s strategic direction and financial management. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why so many people feel frustrated about buck-passing, which Departments so often do, and which simply avoids answering legitimate questions. What is the point of a sponsoring Department if it claims no role in such a significant strategic move? If the Minister overseeing the ICO cannot provide answers, who can?
The Minister advised in his answer to written questions to take queries “directly to the ICO”, but that ignores the role of the sponsoring Department as the link between Parliament and the ICO. There are no specific avenues for a Back-Bench MP to take questions to the ICO on behalf of constituents. The Information Commissioner appears before the Select Committee as and when, with the last appearance in 2023 on promoting and enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and looking at the backlog and complaints.
There is no requirement for the commissioner to reply to MPs’ correspondence or to meet set response deadlines. In essence, there is no clear or guaranteed route for a parliamentarian to scrutinise an ICO decision. That is further complicated by the structure of the ICO, which operates as a corporation sole, meaning that the commissioner holds the office individually rather than through a board.
I understand that the ICO is going through a governance reform and has appointed an interim chief executive officer, meaning that the commissioner will become the chair of the new information commission. Those reforms must come with improved mechanisms for scrutiny. If there is such confidence in the decision to relocate, why is no evidence being produced for that move? Equally, for an institution grounded in accountability and transparency, why is there no direct access for parliamentarians to question the ICO? I have to ask: why the secrecy?
Questions about the organisation’s operational moves are not limited to the office relocation. There have been growing concerns about financial stewardship. The ICO’s expenditure grew by 15% in 2023-24, and the organisation faced a deficit that was only recently alleviated by a change in fee structure. People had to pay more because the ICO was spending more—again, where is the accountability? Put together, these concerns paint a picture of a public body lacking clear financial constraint—or restraint—and public accountability.
Here lies a problem we see all too often in our political system: arm’s length bodies that receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money going without proper regulation or oversight. The ICO is just one of more than 300 arm’s length bodies in the UK, collectively employing around 397,000 staff. These organisations carry significant public responsibility and receive billions of pounds in taxpayer funding, yet they operate without adequate transparency and, unlike ministerial Departments, are not uniformly regulated.
The Public Bodies Act 2011 requires a management agreement between a body and its sponsoring Department, but the exact terms are left for them to decide. I understand that DSIT became the ICO’s sponsoring Department in 2023, and that a new management agreement is currently being finalised. Can the Minister provide an update on that process and confirm whether it will include stronger provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency?
The concerns I bring to the House are not complex ones about the move and accountability, nor are they unreasonable. The simple fact that these questions go unanswered undermines public trust in these organisations and brings into question the control and oversight of these bodies. Residents of Wilmslow and the ICO’s employees deserve to know this information and the reasons for the move.
We must not forget that, when decisions of this scale are made, they will not go unnoticed. It comes back to the very simple principles that the ICO was founded on and continues to serve: transparency, openness and upholding trust in our public institutions. It is not good enough merely to talk about those issues; they deserve decisive action.
I am putting all these questions on the record. I fully understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all of them today, and I will accept as many answers as he can give. But what I would appreciate—no, I will go further: what I expect following this debate is a letter with all those answers. I see the Minister’s civil servants seated behind him, so I should be assured that that can and will be delivered, as everyone who needs to be here for those answers is present.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
As usual, it is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I warmly commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for doing something perhaps intrinsic to our political system—because, unlike in many other systems around the world, we have a constituency model—and standing up for her constituents. I laud her for doing so.
I think the right hon. Lady over-egged the pudding a bit and emphasised rather too much; she was creating some conspiracy theories in there about the supposed secrecy around the ICO. She said that there are some governance changes going on at the ICO; I gently say to her that there was a Bill that went through the House of Commons in this Session, and also in the previous Parliament, when her party was in government. A large chunk of that Bill was specifically devoted to the structure of the ICO, and I do not remember her taking part in the debates at any point, although she could have done. She could have tabled an amendment if she wanted to make the ICO more accountable to Parliament, but I note that she did not choose to do so. That may be because she trusted that the system was perfectly adequate—
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the right hon. Lady for a moment, because she has posed quite a lot of questions that I need to answer.
The right hon. Lady asked about funding. A statutory instrument was laid to change the ICO’s funding arrangements, because successive Governments have loaded it up with more and more work, and there are more and more freedom of information requests, which has inevitably led to a larger body of work for the organisation. That is why we consulted prior to increasing the fees, leading to the statutory instrument—which of course could have been prayed against, although I am not aware that anybody chose to do so—that brought in the increase in fees. I do not think that the ICO is deliberately trying, as she seemed to suggest, to increase its remit or to do unnecessary work: we have given it a job of work.
The right hon. Lady also asked about the ICO’s accountability to Parliament. She is quite right that it would be perfectly legitimate for the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to invite the Information Commissioner to give evidence, and for that matter, of course, the Public Accounts Committee has a responsibility to scrutinise the ICO.
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady now.
Esther McVey
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. I would recommend that he did not shoot from the hip with his answers. I said that I would allow him to write to me, because some of these matters were complex. Trying to suggest that this is a conspiracy theory adds another layer to the cover-up that I have not have responses from him or from the ICO about. Also, he should not question what I did or did not know, or do, when I was in my previous role, because I did not have oversight of this issue in my role in the Cabinet Office. Again, I say to him, “Don’t shoot from the hip.” I would prefer a written reply; in fact, it would only be right for me and the residents of Wilmslow to have a proper, considered reply.
Chris Bryant
It would be easier for me to respond to a lot of the right hon. Lady’s questions if she was not attacking me quite so much. The point I am making is that this is a body based in her constituency, and for the whole of the past year we have been debating the Data (Use and Access) Bill, now an Act, which refers specifically to the ICO, and I do not remember her taking part in those debates at all.
The other point I would make is that the independence of the ICO is really important—it is vital. I am not making that point to pass the buck; I am making a point about how important it is that we have an independent person adjudicating on freedom of information requests. I am sure that when the right hon. Lady was a Minister, such requests would come across her desk, and it is important that people have trust in the independence of the Information Commissioner.
Basically, what has happened is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has decided what is the best value and the best place for it to be based. I will come on to give the precise numbers, which I think will answer most of the questions that the right hon. Lady has put to me.
Since its establishment in 1984, the ICO has grown significantly in size and importance, and alongside reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 the regulator is delivering a transformation programme to enable it to continue to perform as an agile and forward-looking regulator. It is crucial that the ICO has the right expertise and skills within the organisation to make this transformational change a success.
In addition, the ICO is retaining a presence in Wilmslow, as the right hon. Lady said, until at least 2030, and staff were consulted as part of the process. I note the point she made about wanting to know more about that consultation; I am quite happy to write to her about how it was engaged in.
The ICO continues to offer its staff flexibility in where they work and internal surveys showed that relocating to Manchester city centre would not negatively affect staff attendance in the office. Economic analysis commissioned by the ICO also showed that average commuting costs across all modes of public transport to and from a Manchester city centre location were lower than travelling to and from the current Wilmslow office location. That is one of the reasons why I think the right hon. Lady is on the wrong side of the economic argument here, and why I support what the ICO has done.
In response to this debate, the ICO has also told me that the decision to relocate to Manchester will provide it with a strong talent pipeline for the future, which will continue to diversify its workforce and provide technological skills for its long-term success. The right hon. Lady asked about diversity—I think that she is on some kind of Trump line here—but the point is a simple one: 8.2% of the ICO’s workforce is at or approaching retirement age. That is one of the issues that it must consider in making sure it has a pipeline of people into the future. The Oxford Road corridor will support that pipeline through its concentration of universities, research institutions and businesses in the health, technology and creative sectors. That will give the ICO access to the workforce of one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in Europe, and that access will be better in Manchester than in Wilmslow.
In undertaking its own analysis, the ICO reviewed a range of locations, including remaining within Wilmslow—that option was considered. Locations were assessed against objectives such as access to skills, demographics, proximity to existing stakeholders, cultural diversity and proximity to transport hubs. The ICO’s economists developed a locations option tool, underpinned by the Treasury’s Green Book principles, which used Office for National Statistics data to support an evidence-based decision. Using that tool, Manchester city centre was evaluated as the top-scoring location and Wilmslow was ranked second.
There was no role for DSIT in the ICO’s decision to relocate. I was not asked, and we did not take part in that decision. The ICO involved the necessary Cabinet Office approval processes and engaged early with the Government Property Agency and the Office of Government Property, allowing scrutiny and challenge of the business case. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree that that is an important part of making sure we are getting value for money for the taxpayer.
Both Manchester city centre and Wilmslow were considered, with Manchester city centre identified as the top-ranking location. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s figures, which are imaginary, are not accurate and therefore cannot be relied upon. The 3 Circle Square office location in Manchester was chosen over Wycliffe House in Wilmslow due to its alignment with strategic objectives and its value for money. Importantly, the lifecycle costs for Circle Square stood at £19.1 million, compared with £21.5 million for Wycliffe House, based on Green Book principles.
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment. I throw this point back at the right hon. Lady; I am sure she would not want to waste taxpayers’ money.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind the right hon. Lady that interventions should be short.
Esther McVey
I made it clear that the office size was shrinking, so I gave the Minister the cost per square foot. Those are the raw data and information that we need. It would have been much cheaper to stay in Wilmslow per square foot and reduce the headcount down from 800 to 250. That is the difference, and we do not have the raw data for that.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid it would cost £2.4 million more to stay in Wilmslow than it would to move. All the right hon. Lady’s statistics are purely imaginary and speculative, and therefore cannot be relied on. That is why we have to go through a proper process and not simply put things together on the back of a fag packet.
Additional benefits include improved sustainability credentials, moving from an energy performance certificate C-rated building to an A-rated one, which importantly reduces energy costs. Through the approval process, the main challenge from the Office of Government Property centred on the utilisation of wider public estate options, notably in Salford, where the council has a lease. However, that option was dismissed due to accessibility concerns over the existing staff commuting to Salford—I am sure the right hon. Lady would agree with that decision at least.
According to the ICO, Manchester city centre also offered future lease commitments that provided best value for money, and it did not leave unoccupied or underutilised space. Shared space facilities at 3 Circle Square enable a reduction in contracted floor space, further enhancing the cost efficiencies. Yet again, I make the point to the right hon. Lady that this is a matter of us saving money, not wasting taxpayers’ money, which is a key injunction that she herself was making. The ICO carried out the necessary consultation and analysis conditions as required by the Cabinet Office, and received approval on 7 May. The ICO needs to maintain its position as a world-class regulator. To address that, we encouraged it to seek out the best talent and technological expertise while providing value for money to the taxpayer, and we recognise that location is an important part of that process.
The right hon. Lady asked me one other question, right at the beginning of her speech, about whether this matter was thoroughly considered, and the answer is very firmly yes. The ICO went through a rigorous process internally—
Chris Bryant
The ICO went through a thorough process. It had to gain approval at the end of that process, although it had been speaking to the Cabinet Office from the very beginning. That is why I believe it has come up with the best solution to ensure it has the talent it needs into the future, bearing in mind that nearly 10% of its staff are near retirement age. It is also the best value for the Government and therefore for the taxpayer—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Victory in the battle of Britain means we are having this debate in this place in English, but how was that aerial triumph secured? Of course, it had much to do with the pilots of the RAF—Churchill’s famous “few”—who risked all at long odds to blunt the Luftwaffe’s talons. Key, too, was the workhorse Hawker Hurricane, which bagged most of the kills. There was also the show pony Supermarine Spitfire, which grabbed most of the glory, to the extent that German pilots would lie about being brought down by a Spit and not the deadly but less elegant Hurricane.
I would contend that the unsung hero is the world’s first organised radar early warning system, code-named Chain Home and strung like pearls around the British coast, with particular emphasis on the English south and south-east. It meant Britain could see the enemy coming and marshal our meagre fighter resources to best effect. Radar allowed us to vector our squadrons against the bomber streams and their escorts for, had we to rely on the “mark 1 eyeball”, as RAF pilots call it even today, or imprecise Royal Observer Corps listening devices that were more great war than great efficiency, suffice it to say the world would be a different and much worse place.
Soon radar was miniaturised and put aboard aircraft, and aerial combat was transformed, so that today it is less Biggles battling the Hun in the sun and more BVR—beyond visual range—spotting our enemy long before they spot us and taking them out at a remarkable distance. Airborne radar and comms are today’s air war essentials, as vital to modern air forces as the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines that powered both our Spitfires and Hurricanes in the second world war. But the RAF has a problem: a capability gap—and for capability gap read “credibility gap”—because it cannot offer the complete integral mission package.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate on the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme. A fortnight ago, our Defence Committee raised concerns about the E-7 programme with the Secretary of State and is looking to carry out further scrutiny. As the hon. Member just mentioned, there have been perennial procurement issues. It is wholly inadequate that there is a capability gap in the airborne early warning and control coverage, and there was a lamentable decision to reduce the fleet by 40% to save just 12% on the cost. Does he agree that somebody needs to get a grip on this programme, close the capability gap and finally deliver the capability that our fleet forces deserve?
John Cooper
As the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member is very knowledgeable about this subject, and I hope that we will tease out today much of what he raised—we may actually get some of the answers we seek.
As I was saying, the RAF has a problem: it cannot offer a complete package, and we could be reliant on NATO allies to give us extra cover. That is because the venerable E-3D Sentry aircraft has retired, so we entirely lack an airborne early warning command and control aircraft providing situational awareness of the battlespace—that is the real-time 360° view of what is out there, so that our top guns know who to salute and who to shoot.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On the matter of top guns, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Air Marshal Harv Smyth on today being appointed as the new Chief of the Air Staff designate? He is what the Americans would call a warfighter. He and the new Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Rich Knighton, will provide a powerful team in the defence—including the air defence—of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend welcome both appointments, as I do?
John Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I do indeed welcome the fact that, given the situation we are in, we are welcoming warfighters into these senior positions. It is worth reflecting, yet again, that the military likes a TLA—three-letter acronym.
The replacement for the Sentry, the E-7 Wedgetail, is already combat-proven with the Royal Australian Air Force, but it is still not in service with the RAF; indeed, it is already two years late. I hope that the Minister can give the House some assurance that it is not the Ajax of the skies, because that unhappy armoured fighting vehicle programme has become a byword for ruinously expensive waste.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the positive economic benefits of the E-7 programme, particularly for constituencies such as mine, where Thales has been charged with developing the threat warning system for the platform? As a fellow Scottish MP, will he celebrate the contribution of Scottish firms to the defence of our realm and our increasingly vital defence industry across the United Kingdom?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my near-constituency neighbour, for that intervention. There is something of a hostile environment for defence companies in Scotland, because the SNP Government refuse to put money into what they call “munitions”, which is scarcely credible in the current circumstances. Most recently, Rolls-Royce wanted to build a welding centre of excellence on the banks of the Clyde, close to where Thales is based, but incredibly the Scottish Government will not put money into it. To their credit, the UK Government have said they will back it to the hilt, which has to be good news, but it is very strange that the Scottish Government are taking an almost fifth-columnist view of the defence of the realm; indeed, it is quite remarkable.
As I understand it, the delays to the E-7 Wedgetail programme are not costing the taxpayer more money because the contract with Boeing insulates the taxpayer from price surges; I hope the Minister can confirm that. Although one Wedgetail—complete with plug-ugly but lethally effective MESA, which is the multi-role electronically scanned array, perched atop what is basically a Boeing 737 airliner—is due to fly in the Royal International Air Tattoo this week, none of the three RAF orders is fully certified for military aviation.
There are also worries that passion for Wedgetail is waning in the United States, where the Sentry aircraft are also designed to be gate guardians. US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said that the “gold-plated” Wedgetail is:
“not survivable in the modern battlefield.”
The White House is said to be anticipating the arrival of intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition constellation satellites, which are expected by the mid-2030s at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is looking at the venerable E-2D Hawkeye to fill the potentially decade-long gap until interlinked satellites, like Chain Home in the heavens, actually arrive overhead.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is indeed my near-neighbour—we are just divided by a bit of water—and I have very much appreciated his friendship and support over the years.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Wedgetail is the most technologically advanced system available and will provide UK defence with eyes in the sky for at least the next 20 years, to see far beyond what ground-based systems and fighter aircraft sensors can see. However, does he agree that future-proofing—in other words, the vision, which I think is what he is talking about—is an essential tool? Will he join me in pressing the Ministry of Defence to continue its innovation drive, for example with Thales in Belfast but with other companies as well, to make sure that we are advanced in such a way that we can defend and protect?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for that point. He is absolutely correct and he also referred to the fact that he, too, has Thales in his constituency, or close to it. That is the thing about the defence industry—it is intertwined with so many constituencies. In fact, I do not think that there is a single constituency that does not have some defence involvement. In my constituency, rural Dumfries and Galloway, we make the helmets for the F-35 Lightning II jets. Wherever anyone goes in the country, there is some defence involvement and we must back that to the hilt. We must also look forward, which is critical; I think that much of this debate is about looking forward, rather than looking backwards and raking over old coals.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend’s speech is obviously provoking a great deal of interest in the Chamber. Can he confirm that in the defence appropriations Bill that the Pentagon put forward in late June, which asks Congress for money for equipment in the next financial year, the Wedgetail programme for the United States air force was deleted?
John Cooper
My right hon. Friend is correct, but I believe that a bit of a fightback is coming. There is a discussion going on, partly because fans of the space-based solution have to answer for the reality that it is some years away. That gap is difficult, and that is where Hawkeye comes in. Quite how this naval veteran—the prototype Hawkeye first flew in 1960, and Biggles would recognise its propellers, if not its frisbee-style radar disc—is more survivable behind the onion layers of modern air defences than Wedgetail is perhaps not for us in this debate.
How did we get here? Perhaps the Minister can give us some clue about any engineering or integration problems experienced by Boeing at its Birmingham facility—that is Birmingham, west midlands, not Birmingham, Alabama. He will certainly refer to the decision, as we have already heard, by the previous Government in 2021 to cut the RAF Wedgetail fleet from five airframes to three. The then Defence Committee, as we have also heard, called that an “absolute folly”, which traded a 40% cut in capability for a 12% cut in acquisition costs. But that was then, and this is now. Smoke billows over the battlefields of Ukraine. The restive Russian bear may next turn its eyes west. The Chinese dragon flexes in the South China sea. North Korea has nuclear weapons; Iran wants nuclear weapons.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The hon. Member mentions the battlefields of Ukraine, which are key because the RAF has a large fleet of aircraft that covers all the fundamental air power roles, but our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability is particularly important to NATO. Does he recognise as I do that this gap is therefore particularly acute?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that, and for his service with the RAF. He is absolutely correct. In this country, our forces are highly prized for our superb technical abilities, as well as our warfighting capabilities. That gap is very serious: it has an impact on the RAF and on our allies. The lesson learned from Ukraine is that one of the great difficulties for the Russians—and hallelujah!—is that they have been unable to achieve air superiority. That shows how important air superiority is to this day, even in what is widely thought of as a ground war.
The Government appear committed to Wedgetail. Their strategic defence review recommended that further E-7s be purchased. Although heavily caveated by “when funding allows”—and that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting, let us be honest—that recommendation has been accepted. The SDR further dangles the prospect of potentially offsetting Wedgetail costs in conjunction with NATO allies. That is a good idea, but what discussions have we had with alliance partners on that? Will Boeing commit to Birmingham and the jobs there if we join with other NATO air forces to get meaningful orders for Wedgetail on its books?
UK Wedgetails directly support 190 high-skills jobs across the country, and Boeing is looking to expand to meet possible further demand, with perhaps another 150 jobs. There are 32 UK firms in the supply chain, stretching from Luton to Glasgow, providing everything from interior structures to threat warning and defensive aids. When Wedgetail does enter service, there will be ongoing jobs in sustainment and maintenance.
Separately, what discussions have we had with our closest ally, the United States? Would the Americans share information when and if satellites do finally fill the intelligence gap? Could we even buy their venerable Hawkeye at the eleventh hour? Perhaps the Minister might consider a meeting of interested hon. Members—and we can see the cross-party interest in this debate—to discuss the Wedgetail programme.
Our pilots remain at the cutting edge. The British-built Typhoon jet is a potent dogfighter, and the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter a peerless stealth weapon, yet both are nothing if our eyes in the sky—as vital to guiding and warning them as was Chain Home in the imminent peril of 1940—are myopic at best, or non-existent as now. The safety and security of these islands rest on the brave men—and increasingly, brave women—in our armed forces, but I am not alone in arguing that we need to throw our defence industrial infrastructure into high gear to equip those amazing people with the tools for the job.
“At pace” is the mantra of the machinery of government, but it cannot be a mere slogan; it must mean something. We need ordnance, complex war machines—such as submarines and frigates—drones, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armoured fighting vehicles, and innovative technology, such as laser and energy weapons. We also need to know what lurks over the horizon—what is on the reverse slope of that hill or beyond that cloud bank? We need all that at night and in all weathers.
The procurement gap is yawning as threats mount. Our commissioning and purchasing system is changing, but we may be marching to war, so bimbling along as we did when the cold war thawed, or when we were fighting gendarmerie actions, will not cut it. The scramble bell has been rung. We need, as Churchill had it, “Action this day”. Wedgetail ought to be more than just on the radar of the new national armaments director; it ought to be at the centre of their gunsight reticle—is it, Minister?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate and on his well-informed speech. There were some fantastic world war two metaphors and terminology in it, which I will not be able to emulate.
I welcome the chance to debate the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme, as it is such an important capability—and not just for the RAF, because it will serve all our armed forces when it comes into service. This is not about three aircraft—or, preferably, five; it is about a force multiplier that will have a huge impact on the ability of all our other military capabilities, across air, land and sea, to dominate the modern battlespace.
Wedgetail scans the battlefield using advanced radar and sensors. I am a bit perturbed by the idea that the venerable Hawkeye could somehow step into that; whatever the capabilities of the airframe, it has an older radar and does not have the kind of space inside it for command and control facilities that Wedgetail does. Wedgetail processes vast amounts of information to allow commanders to make informed and speedy decisions about where to deploy their assets. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, it is a proven technology that has been successfully used in combat in the middle east by Australia.
The only production line for Wedgetail globally is here in the UK, at Meriden, between Birmingham and Coventry. The number of jobs involved is not huge—it is 190 across the UK, perhaps rising above 300 next year—but they are highly skilled. There is also export potential, whether or not the US sticks with its order, as NATO has selected the E-7 to replace its shared E-3 Sentry fleet. As many as 100 jobs could be created at RAF Lossiemouth for the sustainment contract.
Everyone in this room—because we are all people who take a slightly geeky interest in this program—is aware that Wedgetail has been hit by a series of strange, unexpected problems, from the impact of covid to a hurricane hitting the site where the radar is produced. Most significantly, the 10-year gap between the order for the previous batch of Wedgetails by South Korea and their construction meant that some parts were no longer in production and had to be recreated from scratch. The production schedule was therefore wildly over-optimistic.
It is commendable, given its fixed-fee contract, that Boeing, the prime contractor, has stuck with the programme even though it is making a loss on it because it is not the off-the-shelf product that the contract envisaged. That commitment has been recognised by Andy Start, the interim national armaments director, who told the Public Accounts Committee in April that Boeing
“has leaned in with serious amounts of resource and stuck with that programme to make sure it is delivered.”
Sadly, some of the issues with the programme were self-inflicted by the previous Conservative Government. I am reluctant to be too partisan, because one of the better things about debating defence policy is that there tends to be quite a bit of bipartisan consensus, but the belief in 2019 that the previous Government could rush through the original contract process in just nine months, when it would normally take two or three years, was naive to say the least, and meant that many assumptions made during the planning of the programme were incorrect.
Mr Francois
I should declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, so I contributed to that report, which was critical of the decision to cut the number from five to three. I do not deny that, and I still would prefer that we had stayed with five. I thought that, to be transparent, I should put that on the record.
Luke Akehurst
I welcome the right hon. Member’s making that point. From my reading of the timelines of who was in office and when, I am very clear that this decision came after his time as a Minister and during the time in which he was scrutinising decisions by other Conservative Ministers.
The extraordinary, destructive and irrational decision, I believe by Ben Wallace, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, to cut the order from five aircraft to three, came in 2021. I do not understand how that is supposed to work. Five aircraft were required for a reason: one to be in deep maintenance and repair, one for training and then at least two to sustain a single operation 24/7. Obviously, an aircraft cannot stay airborne permanently; they have to land to refuel and presumably to give the crew some kind of rest. How does that work with only three aircraft?
It was not even a sensible cost saving, as has previously been referenced. The axing of 40% of the fleet delivered only a 12% saving on the cost of the programme. The Defence Committee’s 2023 report, in which I assume the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was involved, described that as “perverse” and an “absolute folly”. The United Kingdom had already procured not three but five sets of extremely expensive advanced radar from Northrop Grumman, so there are now two really expensive sets of radar sat around as spares for airframes that do not exist.
The decision to cut the order from five to three meant that the contract needed to be renegotiated and led to a further delay of six months, all the while leaving the huge capability gap that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about in our airborne early warning and control due to the retirement of the E-3D Sentry—a gap described by the Defence Committee, as its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned, as
“a serious threat to the UK’s warfighting ability.”
Really, this essential programme was vandalised by the previous Government. It is a stunning example of poor decision making. I therefore welcome the strategic defence review’s recommendation that further Wedgetails
“should be procured when funding allows”.
Cameron Thomas
The reduction in the number of Wedgetails, which seems to have been a mistake, feels very reminiscent of the coalition Government’s cutting of the Nimrod programme despite having already spent billions of pounds on it. That left us without a maritime patrol aircraft, and we had to go cap in hand to the French and the Americans for our—
Cameron Thomas
I thank the right hon. Member. It left us with a gap in our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. I accept that that was a coalition issue, but I am glad to hear that there is consensus in this room on the importance of ISR capability.
Luke Akehurst
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and agree with him about the importance of ISR capability.
Mr Dhesi
The recent US proposal to scale back the funding for its E-7 Wedgetail programme raises serious concerns about the long-term viability of the programme. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence to show the House that its defence procurement strategy is robust, independent and in line with the recommendations set out in the strategic defence review?
Luke Akehurst
I agree to some extent with the points that the Chair of the Select Committee makes. Given that the production line is in Birmingham, west midlands rather than Birmingham, Alabama, I do not think we are dependent on the US going ahead with its order. There are other international customers: from memory, the Koreans, the Australians and the Turks already use Wedgetail, and NATO is likely to go for it as well. It would be helpful in terms of economies of scale and leveraging American technological advances if the US went with the programme, but that is not, to my mind, a deal breaker.
I will now reach the conclusion that I was about reach before the very kind intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. I encourage the Minister to prioritise this programme and I would welcome any information he can give us today about when funding might allow the very sensible restoration, recommended in the SDR, of the programme to its proper scale. Will he also address the upgrade that I understand Australia is planning to its Wedgetails and, given that the programme has been delayed over the years, whether that means we are already looking at a technology upgrade for the fleet we are procuring? Finally, to echo what the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, there is a small number of hon. Members who take a close interest in this programme, so will the Minister consider convening an informal group of parliamentarians to update us and consult us on its progress?
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing the debate. He spoke incredibly eloquently not just about the programme, but about why it is so important. I will pull him up slightly, because he talked about Birmingham. The facility is in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East, and Solihull is very different from Birmingham, as any Silhillian will tell us, but I welcome the case that he made.
I am very proud that these planes are being built in my constituency. I have had the privilege of going to see them at various phases of construction and, as they are Boeing 737s that are being restructured and refitted, seeing them in the different states of fitting, not least during various liftings of lockdowns, when I was able to do so. I went there with a lot of pride because, as has been alluded to and I know all the Members in the Chamber will agree, our paramount and first duty as Members of Parliament is defence of the realm. Across the world, whether it is in Ukraine or in the brief conflict between Pakistan and India recently, we see a real need for credible technology that is capable of dealing with modern warfare in the 21st century. For me, the E-7 Wedgetail is essential to that because, as my hon. Friend said, it provides a 360° capability with advance warning and strategic capacity to deal with movements in the battlefield way beyond our enemies’ visibility. It would, should and ought to secure air superiority, so it is very important.
I thank STS Aviation Services, which is fitting out the plane alongside Boeing. I think we can all agree that we want this done. I would like to see the Wedgetail project, or at least the two planes, completed. I am happy to work cross-party to make sure that we work with Boeing and STS to deliver that, not least because of the importance of the defence of our realm and the need to be ready. In this age of autocrats, when we see technological advancement from the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and even the Iranians, we need to be ready for what might come our way.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) chided the last Government for a number of their decisions, but what an excellent decision it was to have a fixed-price contract. That means that, despite the delays, there should not be an additional cost to the taxpayer. Once the project is completed, I hope it will be seen as value for money.
As has already been said, but I will put it on the record not least because some of my constituents will see this, Wedgetail will be, when completed, one of the most advanced strategic analytical planes to be built and to hopefully serve in our armed forces. It will be able to co-ordinate with joint forces and of course, most essentially in the 21st century, provide high-quality data. As I have already said, it will operate beyond visual range and secure strategic superiority and dominance. It should be stressed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, overcoming the capability and credibility gap is absolutely essential if we are to be an air force capable of holding its own in the 21st century, with the challenges that will come our way.
As was mentioned earlier, the Wedgetail programme is also essential given advancements in space and space defence technology, about which there is clearly concern. I would like Wedgetail to be part of the multifaceted platform needed to make sure that those who would do us harm by taking advantage of space technology cannot do so. Wedgetail will be really important in that.
What is important for me is that Wedgetail creates really high value, highly skilled jobs. It caters for about 150 jobs at the moment, and that figure is predicted to double. Sadly, as a layperson, I was not able to convince the people responsible to give the maintenance contract to Birmingham airport, but I believe that Wedgetail is a product of great capability, including export capability. That means further jobs for my constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. I should say that in my part of the world, we have Jaguar Land Rover and the old factories that helped to build Spitfire. We have a great tradition and great heritage. My constituents are incredibly patriotic and will be proud that Wedgetail is being built there.
I have some questions for the Minister. Will he share his assessment of the export capability of this product? Where does he see the opportunities and value? He has already been challenged, so will he enlighten us on how he is working to ensure its faster delivery? Who is he working with and what conversations is he having in that regard? The offer to meet interested stakeholders has been put out there, and I would like to be part of that. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be an important person to have around that table in that conversation. More broadly, what work are the Government doing to ensure that our defence products are exported across the world? Technological advancement in warfare has often separated the victor from the defeated. That is a really important part of the conversation, and I hope it will go beyond the strategic defence review.
Mr Dhesi
Given the retirement of the E-3 Sentry and the delays to the E-7 Wedgetail and Crowsnest programmes, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Ministry of Defence must ensure that the capability gaps in the airborne early warning and control coverage must be urgently addressed in our defence procurement? Otherwise, it will lead to long-term issues for the defence and security of our country.
Saqib Bhatti
Of course I agree with the hon. Member—anyone in the Chamber would agree that the capability and credibility gap has to be overcome. We know where the threats are coming from, or at least the visible threats. To quote a former US politician, there are lots of unknown knowns, known knowns and known unknowns—I am sure I have messed that up, but hon. Members know what I mean. We have to be capable of delivering on that. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) said that there had to be focused delivery of this product; I echo and double down on that.
In conclusion, the issue is about jobs, which matter, and our security, which matters too. It is absolutely essential.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois): the Liberal Democrats also welcome Air Marshal Harv Smyth to his new appointment as Chief of the Air Staff—congratulations to him. He will be a fine leader.
The E-7A Wedgetail represents a major update to the UK’s airborne warning and control capability. Future-proofing our armed forces is something that the Liberal Democrats strongly support. Wedgetail’s predecessor, E-3D Sentry, first entered service in the Royal Air Force around the same time as I entered the Royal Air Force, but fortunately it stayed at the cutting edge for a good deal longer. Indeed, the aircraft was still flying operational sorties and keeping the UK safe right up until it was decommissioned in August 2021.
Although Sentry has since made some extra flights over home soil, the UK has officially been without an airborne warning and control capability for several years. That is just one example of how the last Government allowed our armed forces to be hollowed out over time.
Cameron Thomas
To their credit, the Conservatives have been quite open in lamenting the drawdown of the Wedgetail project, but will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government how committed they are to the Wedgetail programme and to the initial order of five?
Ian Roome
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Minister will reply.
Unfortunately, Sentry’s intended replacement, the Wedgetail programme, has already been through some major turbulence during its early years, from questions over the fairness of the MOD’s procurement decision in 2018 to a two-year production delay and an order reduction from five airframes to three under the last Government’s integrated defence review—a move that Boeing says slowed down the project, and a decision described as an “absolute folly” even by the then Defence Committee.
We now read news reports that the Trump Administration are seeking to cancel Wedgetail orders for the US air force over claims that it would be too vulnerable in contested airspace, casting doubt over the programme’s future interoperability and cost. I am sure that many hon. Members will also have seen the recent letter signed by 19 retired US four-star generals criticising that decision. The United States aspires to a fully space-based replacement, but that is still many years away. With hindsight, knowing what we know about Russian aggression in eastern European airspace, the timing of all this could hardly be more perilous.
Just a few weeks ago, my colleagues on the Defence Committee and I visited Allied Air Command in Ramstein, Germany. The UK is committed to a 24/7 NATO air policing mission, and the strategic defence review states that the UK’s defensive posture should be firmly “NATO first”. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK should work as closely as possible with our European allies on our shared defence, and that our military should complement our allies’ capabilities.
In addition to raising the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% and beyond, it is essential that we co-ordinate our allied air forces in Europe, especially those of our Nordic and Baltic partners, to give more bang for buck. In the European airspace, this airborne capability is very specialised. Various NATO forces still operate old E-3 aircraft, including Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Norway. France and some Scandinavian air forces also operate similar aircraft from rival manufacturers such as Saab and Northrop Grumman.
However, as has been pointed out before the US Senate Committee on Armed Services, the cost of repairs to the old E-3 fleet keeps increasing, and their availability to fly keeps decreasing. Australia, South Korea and our European allies in NATO, faced with the same choice as the UK, are choosing to replace their E-3 fleets with Wedgetail.
Next month, Australian Wedgetails will be deployed to Poland as part of efforts to support Ukraine. European Wedgetails are not expected to enter service until 2031. That may be six years of expensive repairs to ageing aircraft—six years during which UK Wedgetails could play an outsized role in European air defence, but only if the current Government work to rebuild our armed forces capacity, and only if our aircraft are ready to fly.
As the Public Accounts Committee keeps highlighting, large overspends are unacceptable. Long delays that leave this country’s Air Force without an essential capability are a sign of a procurement system that is badly broken. The strategic defence review recommends more Wedgetails for round-the-clock airborne surveillance, and says there may even be cost-sharing opportunities with NATO allies.
I put these questions to the Minister. First, do the Government plan to meet our defence commitments this way, either by ordering additional Wedgetails, in lockstep with our allies, or even seeking an alternative? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to improve the Ministry of Defence track record on this kind of aircraft procurement, so that our defence of NATO airspace is never put in doubt again?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher, as we examine the progress—or rather the sheer lack of it—of the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on introducing the debate in such an articulate manner, with a touch of humour to boot. As a battle of Britain buff, I enjoyed his historical analogies with that epic conflict in 1940 and the critical importance of radar and early warning. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in whose constituency the valuable work of converting Boeing 737s into the Wedgetail variant is under way.
A couple of years ago, when I served on the Defence Committee—it is great to see the Chairman of the Committee in his place—I had the privilege of visiting the facility in Meriden where the work was being conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East has been an assiduous constituency MP in standing up for the highly skilled workforce undertaking the conversion. I do have a number of serious concerns about the status of the Wedgetail programme, however, as he is about to hear.
I state for the record that none of this is aimed at the workforce in Meriden, but much more at the senior management of Boeing, a company now facing massive reputational issues in both civilian and defence areas. I would like to have congratulated the Reform MP who contributed to this debate but, as ever, they are not here because Reform don’t do defence.
We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The head of the British Army stated almost a year ago that we need to prepare for the possibility of a peer-on-peer conflict with Russia by 2027. If that is so, having a modern airborne early warning control aircraft, such as Wedgetail, in operational service would be vital. Moreover, if there were to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, Ministers have told us several times that it might involve not just boots on the ground but jets in the air. They also need eyes in the sky to protect them from a potential Russian threat. In short, we do not currently have any.
Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to elicit from the Government when E-7 Wedgetail will finally enter operational service with the RAF. That really matters. Experience in Ukraine shows the heavy propensity of Russia to attack targets with long-range cruise missiles. In the event of a peer conflict with Russia, it is highly likely that most of our fixed RAF radar stations would fall victim to cruise missile attacks within the early few days, or even hours, of such a conflict. At present, we can supplement those with a limited number of mobile radars. It is also unclear whether in wartime other airborne warning assets, such as via satellite and other overseas facilities, would also remain available for long.
In such a scenario—one which, as the international sky continues to darken, we are increasingly forced to contemplate—having mobile airborne early-warning such as Wedgetail would be critical to maintain the integrity of the UK’s air defences, plus covering RAF aircraft abroad. That brings me to the current sorry state of the Wedgetail programme, which is running years late and has now unfortunately been rated red by the Infrastructure Projects Authority. To remind hon. Members, a red rating is defined as a project that
“reflects serious concerns about the project’s ability to meet its objectives. Immediate corrective actions are needed to address fundamental issues, as the project is unlikely to succeed without significant changes or interventions.”
So, where are we today? Three 737 airframes are being converted at Meriden, including retrofitting them with the MESA radar. One of those aircraft has been completed, while the other two are still in work. However, according to a freedom of information request answered on 12 June, the first aircraft has flown only three times—two of them to get painted—and MESA, which is the whole point of the aircraft, has not even been turned on yet in flight. Why?
Moreover, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a member of the Defence Committee, revealed at a meeting of that Committee two weeks ago, the lead aircraft is struggling to achieve certification. He said:
“We were going to buy five, and then three, E-7s. They are horrendously late and overpriced. We have got one in with a special clearance, meaning that there is something that we do not know about that, which means that it cannot have a normal clearance.”
I appreciate that the Minister is likely to say that the previous Conservative Government should have made greater progress on Wedgetail, and I accept that we are not without blame in this field. Nevertheless, the new Government have now had a year to sort it out. The MOD and Boeing have been locked in complex negotiations over the so-called full business case that would allow Wedgetail to enter service, but those negotiations have still not been brought to a fruitful conclusion. Indeed, whereas the original concept was to service and maintain the Wedgetail aircraft in the United Kingdom, there are some media reports that it will now take place in the US instead. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if it is—I hope it is not—will he say what the additional cost will be? To be clear, we need E-7 Wedgetail in RAF service, but we need it now, not in several years’ time.
The US, which also has to replace a large number of its ageing E-3 aircraft, was planning to do that with E-7, but the programme is likely to be cancelled. As a stopgap, the US is now apparently even considering buying several dozen E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, which, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) said, originally entered service in the ’60s. They were famously featured in “Top Gun: Maverick”, guiding the attacking F-18s into the target. What exactly has gone wrong with the programme in the United States? Why is the Department of Defence apparently going to junk Wedgetail in favour of Hawkeye, and later, space-based systems? If it does, what are the implications for the RAF Wedgetail programme?
Apparently, Boeing is now claiming that what was originally an off-the-shelf purchase of E-7 for the RAF is now turning into a development programme. Can the Minister explain exactly what that means? Can he reassure the House that if the US does withdraw, we are not going to ask the Royal Air Force to pay a vast amount of money to develop E-7, when the United States has refused to do so?
The Government have been running a competition for a national armaments director—the NAD. If media reports are to be believed, they have now narrowed it down to two remaining candidates. As the NAD will have to deal with the problem of Wedgetail, can the Minister update the House on exactly where we are on the appointment? Who are the two remaining candidates? Is it true that one of them is holding out for more money? When can we expect a definitive announcement on the appointment? It would appear that, despite extended tortuous negotiations between the RAF and Boeing, the matter has still not been brought to a conclusion. It may mean that the incoming NAD has to knock heads together to finally achieve some progress, which the 12,500 employees at Defence Equipment and Support do not appear to have managed to do. If it were me, I would start as I mean to go on. I would tell Boeing that it will not be granted any further contracts with the Ministry of Defence, be it for more helicopters or advanced jet trainers, unless and until it has introduced its project—its product, E-7 Wedgetail—successfully into operational service.
On 25 June, when the House debated the new NAD role, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), raised Wedgetail as a specific programme requiring more scrutiny. So concerned have I become while researching for this debate, and having considered the matter overnight, I asked this morning for a meeting with the Chair of the PAC, who wanted to be here this afternoon but unavoidably has to be elsewhere. He too was concerned, and he has authorised me to say that he is minded to write to the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to ask what on earth is going on—his words—regarding Wedgetail, and to request a meeting about the programme.
In summary, as someone who served on the Defence Committee for seven years and was consistently highly critical of the Army’s Ajax programme—which I note in passing has still not entered operational service—I am afraid to say that, put bluntly, Wedgetail has now turned into the RAF’s very own Ajax. Here we are with another example of a highly complex, exquisite programme that, like Ajax, has not run massively over budget, but which is nevertheless years late, and there is still no guarantee that it even works properly in RAF service. This is threatening to become a £2 billion white elephant in the room.
May I conclude by asking the Minister three direct questions? I hope he can provide clear and ambiguous answers, given that he is covering for the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry this afternoon, while the Minister for Veterans and People remains on resignation watch. Question one: what is the exact status of the flight trials programme of the E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, and when will active trials of the MESA radar commence and conclude? Question two: what is the issue regarding certification of the airframe? What is meant by “limited certification”, and when are the aircraft expected to be fully certified by the Military Aviation Authority? Question three: when is E-7 Wedgetail finally expected to enter operational service with the RAF, and when are the second and third aircraft anticipated, to provide full operational capability? All experience suggests that if we are to maintain one aircraft consistently on task for any length of time, we would need all three aircraft in operational service in order to guarantee it.
I say again: when we were in government, we should perhaps have done more to accelerate the progress of this programme. But now that Labour is running the show, and has been for over a year, we need to know what the Labour Government are going to do about it. We cannot contemplate the possibility of war with Russia in which we would be virtually blinded within the opening hours. Wedgetail is now absolutely critical to the defence of the UK, so when, oh when are the RAF and Boeing going to get their collective house in order and bring this absolutely vital capability into service?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Minister, you have 35 minutes in which to respond.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate. I have to warn him that he is sounding like a very good shadow Minister Padawan on these matters, so I expect him to be forceful in pursuing this type of stuff.
As hon. Members will have spotted, I am not the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry—I am the slighter camper version—but I hope to be able to answer some of the questions raised in the debate about what is a very important programme for the Royal Air Force. I will first give a little background and history, which a number of Members have raised, and then turn to a number of the questions and points that hon. Members have also raised.
May I, too, place on record my congratulations to Harv Smyth on becoming the new Chief of the Air Staff? Having worked with Harv for the past year, I know that the RAF will be in very good hands. With Sir Rich Knighton becoming the new Chief of the Defence Staff, we have an incredibly capable team, with very good RAF experience. Just to ensure a full house, I also welcome General Gwyn Jenkins as First Sea Lord—as a Navy brat, it would be remiss of me not to mention the senior service.
Ian Roome
Will the Minister also join the Worshipful Company of Engineers in congratulating Sir Rich Knighton on being the first engineer to become the chief of the Royal Air Force? Being ex-RAF, it is nice to have an engineer who has never been a pilot as the chief of the Royal Air Force.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is worth noting, because to succeed we need people at the point of the spear and we need people who are the spear. All too often in our debates, we neglect those who support, who engineer, and who are the backbone of our military. Having Sir Rich in the new role as CDS will be a good encouragement to all those who find a career in our armed forces: there is a bright future ahead of them if they work hard and succeed.
At a time of increasing threats to our security and rapid developments in technology, it is essential that we upgrade our airborne early warning and control capabilities. Members have mentioned it, but when we say, whether from the Dispatch Box as a Government or when we were in opposition, that the last Government hollowed out and underfunded our military, it is precisely such capability gaps that we are talking about. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, described it as not just a capability gap, but a credibility gap, and those are precisely the kinds of gaps that we so critiqued in opposition. They are also the gaps that we have to fill, now that we are in government.
The UK’s E-7 Wedgetail programme will provide the significantly improved performance that we are looking for, offering greater speed, range, endurance and crew capacity. By improving detection, it provides earlier warning of more challenging threats at greater distances than before, increasing the time available for offensive and defensive action, and so boosting the lethality, survivability and resilience of the joint force. Wedgetail is not only the most capable and effective airborne early warning and control platform in operation today; it also has the growth path to match the expected threat over the next 20 years and beyond. We will continue to fully prepare for the introduction of E-7 Wedgetail to the RAF fleet.
To support the introduction of E-7, a joint operational conversion unit, 42 Squadron, has been re-formed at RAF Lossiemouth. The squadron will train all aircrew and engineers to operate the Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the Wedgetail airborne early warning and surveillance aircraft. The Lossiemouth development programme is delivering vital infrastructure, including a new engineering building, accommodation and squadron facilities, and the UK has been helped by Australia to prepare for Wedgetail. I put on record my thanks to the Royal Australian Air Force. Since its inception in 2018, 30 RAF personnel have undergone training on the E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, which is already in operation with the Royal Australian Air Force. We are extremely grateful to our Australian friends for their support.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) could put on record the difference between Birmingham and Solihull. As a Plymouth MP, I am forever making the distinction between Devon and Cornwall, although we are the best of friends at the same time. The hon. Member made the argument about the economic contribution that Wedgetail makes to his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the wider nationwide supply chain. That contribution is vital.
Wedgetail is already bringing economic benefits to the UK. Three Boeing 737 aircraft are currently being modified at STS Aviation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, where around 100 skilled jobs have been created, in addition to 200 jobs supporting infrastructure at RAF Lossiemouth. He is right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham did, that these are high-skilled jobs. They are precisely what his constituency needed supporting after the collapse of Monarch Airlines. It has meant that so many people could transfer into new roles at STS.
The work at STS, supplemented by Boeing and Northrop Grumman personnel who have worked on previous E-7 conversion programmes, is important. Boeing Defence UK expects a further 70 to 100 jobs to be added to support the aircraft in service at Lossiemouth. The Government’s longer-term aim is to grow the UK industrial base in support of Wedgetail, including potentially to support NATO and other global customers as they commit to E-7 in future years. Members will know that the strategic defence review was clear that defence is an engine for growth, and we need to continue to support our allies in looking to E-7 Wedgetail to provide some of their long-range surveillance opportunities.
The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked about exports. It is a priority for this Government to procure systems that are not only better value for money for the UK armed forces, but built in such a way that we do not make them so Gucci that they are available only for the Brits. That has been a flaw of previous procurements, and we are clear, in rebuilding and recapitalising our armed forces and many of their capabilities—including filling capability gaps that we inherited from the previous Government—that we have to ensure that those platforms are exportable, that there is a work share for British companies, and that defence can be a real engine for growth. He will be aware of the high-level ambition set out in the strategic defence review to deliver that.
Members will also know that we hope to publish the defence industrial strategy in due course and, towards the end of the year, the defence investment plan. That will set out what we are spending, not just on kit and equipment, as previous iterations of the equipment plan did, but on infrastructure and people. Those are what the MOD wishes to spend the increased amounts of defence funding on. Exports will be a key part of that, and I encourage the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East to continue to make that case.
However, disappointingly, the E-7 Wedgetail programme has experienced delays. These are due, first, to wider challenges faced by the entire global aviation industry—such as shortages of materials, parts and skilled labour—and, secondly, to more specific programme issues, including complex certification work that Boeing has had to undertake to meet assurance requirements.
The Ministry of Defence is working closely with Boeing to minimise the impact of these issues, and the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry has regular conversations with Boeing to emphasise the importance of delivering this capability.
As a result, E-7 Wedgetail is scheduled to enter service with the Royal Air Force in 2026. The RAF’s mission system has been significantly upgraded, making our Wedgetail aircraft distinct from those of other nations. That has required substantial certification and safety checks to ensure the system meets the standards required. We are working flat out to get a fully compliant aircraft into service as fast as possible, and we are holding suppliers to account for their part in that. Since concluding previous flights in October 2024, the aircraft has continued its mission systems installation.
E-7 Wedgetail completed its fourth test flight last week and will perform a fly-past at the royal international air tattoo at RAF Fairford, which the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will attend—I believe other hon. Members may be visiting as well. Test and evaluation will take place across multiple sites in the UK, with the next phase starting this month. This is a detailed process to demonstrate that each system operates as designed. Subsequent phases will be running through to 2026.
Luke Pollard
I have lots of points to cover, but I will happily come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course. I have other hon. Members’ questions to address first, and I will not be spoken over—thank you.
Luke Pollard
The level of politeness that we saw in the rest of the debate has not been reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Turning to the costs, the original outlined business case approved the acquisition of five Wedgetail Mk 1 aircraft. Due to the wider fiscal challenges faced by the Department, the programme was reduced in scope by the last Government. That is what the officials have written for me, and I share much of the concern that hon. Members have expressed about the reduction of capabilities. Once again, the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces have led to capability gaps, not just in the early retirement of platforms but in the lack of procurement. It is precisely for that reason that the SDR sought to look at that.
The integrated review endorsed the reduction to three aircraft in 2021, and the fleet was then incorporated with the P-8A Poseidons at RAF Lossiemouth. The three new E-7 Wedgetails will still enable the UK to meet our key user requirements and honour both our domestic and international commitments, including our contribution to NATO—as outlined in the strategic defence review on page 115, recommendation 47. We have re-examined this decision and made a commitment to reassess the number of E-7s we have when funding allows. I encourage hon. Members who raised the ambition to procure more E-7s to consider how that case can be made in future spending decisions, and that could build on the defence industrial strategy.
To the point raised by a number of hon. Members—including the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway and for Meriden and Solihull East, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—I know that the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would welcome the opportunity to bring together a group of interested parliamentarians to discuss not only how we deploy E-7s into active duty, but how we can build on export opportunities and support their full introduction. We will take that as an action, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister being able to invite colleagues into the MOD for further discussions on that issue.
We have been working with Boeing to achieve the best value for money across the programme. There will be no additional cost as a result of the delays, as Boeing is committed to delivering the three aircraft under a firm-price contract. That means the MOD will have no inflation risk in the aircraft modification programme. The programme is also benefiting from the use of common 737 spares with Poseidon, as well as shared support services with Boeing. This allows us to leverage efficiencies in spares procurement, repair, overhaul, maintenance costs and the training of engineering personnel to work on both sets of aircraft at Lossiemouth. The intent is to expand co-operative support across Wedgetail and Poseidon in future, to drive down costs further.
A number of Members, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned the US position. E-7 Wedgetail is in operation with the air forces of Australia, Türkiye and the Republic of Korea. Additionally, NATO has selected E-7A as its replacement for the NATO E-3A aircraft that are currently flying. I understand that there may be some concern about the US plans due to media reports last month, but the MOD will continue with its procurement of Wedgetail to meet our national and NATO requirements for airborne early warning and control that is interoperable with allies. Procurement decisions by any other NATO nation are a matter for that nation, but they will not affect UK procurement of Wedgetail.
There have been some comments during this debate, and in the wider debate out there, about whether the UK should consider using E-2 Hawkeye instead. I stress again that Wedgetail has superior speed, range, persistence and crew capacity compared with alternative platforms. Furthermore, it has a powerful radar with increased detection capability, which will give us a significant operational advantage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, for the tone of his speech. It is certainly right that we talk about this issue. Having previously sat on the Opposition Benches, I recognise some of his critiques of the previous Government. Indeed, I entirely agree that “bimbling along” will not cut it. That is precisely why we have seen a new energy and increased defence spending under this Government. There is more to do, but hopefully he will see that in the ambition set out in the SDR to do more and to fill capability gaps in this area.
A number of Members referred to the Select Committee report on procurement in the previous Parliament. It was absolutely right to look at the procurement system. We described it as broken when we were in opposition, and in government we are taking steps to fix it. The recruitment of the new national armaments director, being led by the Secretary of State, is a key part of that process. I do not have an update now, but I am certain that a parliamentary question on that subject will shortly be coming the way of the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry.
The new NAD will operate as part of a new empowered quad, leading the Ministry of Defence to make faster procurement decisions. We certainly need to make better procurement decisions than those we have seen in the past. The delays in contracting are a key part of cost escalation across a number of programmes, albeit not with Wedgetail because of the fixed-price contract. It is absolutely right that we make better procurement decisions.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway on the need to invest in laser weapons. The SDR talked about rolling out the DragonFire directed-energy weapon system. The ambition of the last Government was to install DragonFire on one Royal Navy destroyer, as an uncosted programme. The SDR set out a costed proposal to install it on four Royal Navy destroyers, setting a date for when that will happen. Creating a structured, layered and integrated air and missile defence system will, in part, depend on looking at directed-energy weapons and similar novel technologies across a range of spectrums, in order to provide the air defence we require to secure homeland defence and operational defence for our allies abroad.
The picture painted by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), of what might happen in the event of a conflict means that not only air defence missiles would have a role in such a conflict, and this new technology might well play a part. I am grateful for the way he introduced the debate in that respect.
The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East invited me to talk about space, which is one of my nerdy passions. The term “defence geeks” was used earlier, and I am certainly a space nerd. Space is a huge opportunity for improving not only ISR capabilities but defence capabilities. However, we need to be realistic that if we are to move to a fully integrated approach, which is the intent of the SDR with an all-domain warfare approach, we need to invest in the right capabilities.
For the Royal Air Force, Wedgetail is absolutely part of that joined-up and integrated approach, which is why we will continue with it. Given the workforce in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I hope he will strongly support the 2026 delivery timetable for the first aircraft in operation. And on defence exports, he will know that one recommendation of the SDR was to move an element of exports for defence from the Department for Business and Trade into the Ministry of Defence.
That work is under way at the moment, so that we can better align the opportunities of defence exports, because we believe there is a huge opportunity for British business to sell our technologies to allies around the world. That has the advantage of being an engine for growth, as well as making us stronger by making our allies stronger at the same time.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his work, and indeed for his praise for our friends from Australia. The Defence Committee report that he cited needs to be front and centre when we look at Wedgetail procurement so that we learn the lessons and make it work. As the last Government’s procurement of five sets of radar for three aircraft shows, the procurement system was neither working properly nor delivering value for money.
My hon. Friend asked about the Australian upgrades. Australia and the USA are working collaboratively on what is called the next-gen Wedgetail with improved radar, which they think will enter service in 2035. The UK is part of the trilateral group, but we are not pursuing the advanced sensor at this time because we are focused on delivering the current capability without any further delay, as Members on both sides of the House have urged. As part of the trilateral agreement, we have the opportunity to upgrade in the future should we wish to do so. Doing so may be more cost-effective in the long term.
Luke Akehurst
Does the Minister agree that upgrading this fleet of aircraft would be easier if there were five airframes? That would allow one of the five to be taken out of service for an upgrade. It is logistically more difficult if we stick with three airframes.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a strong argument. I support the wording of the strategic defence review, which talks of possibly buying more E-7 Wedgetails when the economic conditions allow. Of course, thanks to the decisions taken by the Prime Minister, we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% by 2035. For the first time in a very long time, there will be a rising defence budget in the next decade.
I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will continue to make the case for increased defence spending, which will mean more jobs directed at British companies—and Boeing, which is based and works in Britain, is precisely such a company, as are UK primes and small and medium-sized enterprises, which could benefit from that. His description of the programme as having been vandalised by the last Government is powerful, but I recognise that we now need to deliver the capabilities and make sure they work.
I will briefly respond to some of the interventions before addressing the Front-Bench contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is, in his customary way, absolutely right that it is important that the programme is delivered and that we learn the lessons to improve procurement. That is the intention of the defence industrial strategy and will be the intention of the defence investment plan. The first of the RAF’s Wedgetail aircraft will be introduced next year, which is a moment to make sure that the second and third aircraft can be delivered in the expected timeline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praised the supply chain and mentioned Thales in Belfast and Glasgow. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the importance of defence businesses in Scotland, which has a proud tradition of investing in brilliant defence businesses. Some of our cutting-edge capabilities are developed and built in Scotland, and we have a Government in Westminster who are proud of Scottish defence workers and of the supply chain there. It is just a shame that we do not have a Scottish Government who can be equally proud of the exceptional work to support our national defence that takes place not just in the shipyards and factories, but in the workshops and laboratories across Scotland. I am certain that there will be further opportunities for that case to be made forcefully.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who reiterated the need for ISR capabilities. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) spoke with real passion about the need to work with more of our EU allies. That is precisely why the Prime Minister initiated the EU reset. We now have an agreement with our EU friends that opens the door to participation in more joint programmes and joint working. We have, in any case, cleared the air and improved the relationship with our European friends that might have existed under the last Government. They are our friends, and our NATO allies. We stand with them when we face a common threat, such as the threat from Russia, and it is absolutely right that we do so. The hon. Member for North Devon is also right to point out the gaps in procurement that we need to fill, and the retirement of the previous aircraft. I am grateful for his service, even if it was some time ago, at the same time as the Sentry was introduced.
I will turn to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. In the 2025 NISTA report, the Wedgetail programme is rated amber, not red, but I think his critique is that the programme has been beset by delays for quite some time. I share the general concern about the procurement system. It must be a curious position for the right hon. Member, having been such a fantastic scrutineer of the last Government’s woeful procurement system, to now be the Front-Bench spokesperson for his party. I am grateful that he did not fall into the trap of simply defending the last Government, and was honest about those failings. That is to his credit.
The Minister for Veterans and People is at Windsor collecting his Distinguished Service Order. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am sure that the whole House, instead of taking cheap shots at him, welcomes and thanks him for his service. Having someone with that much bravery and courage in the office next door to mine is a firm reminder to sit up straight in my seat every time we are in meetings together.
I have spoken about how we are going to get to Wedgetail’s introduction in service, and briefly mentioned the NAD recruitment; that is being led by the Secretary of State so the question is for him, but I am expecting a parliamentary question on that. I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford says that the last Government were not without blame. I wish that we were able in 12 months to fix every problem that we inherited from the Conservatives but, as he knows, some of those problems are long-rooted and will take a lot of time to resolve. I am hopeful that the Wedgetail programme will start delivering aircraft next year, as planned; that is the commitment that Boeing has given. That will make substantial progress on a programme that has taken too long to deliver.
Mr Francois
For the record, I was not quoting the NISTA report; I was quoting the IPA report. I asked the Minister three very specific questions, and he has 12 minutes left. I fear he is denial about the problems in this programme. To prove me wrong, with his 12 remaining minutes will he answer unambiguously the three very direct questions that I asked about the status of the programme?
Luke Pollard
I shall also deal with the earlier comment about where the aircraft will be maintained. I am happy to confirm that they will be maintained in the UK. I did not get all of the right hon. Member’s questions down in detail. I do not want to give an incorrect answer, especially as I am standing in for the Minister for Veterans and People and out of my swimming lane, so I commit to ask my hon. Friend to write to the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that he gets the correct answers.
Mr Francois
That is unacceptable. The reason for this debate—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing it—is that both Boeing and the MOD have been stonewalling on this issue for nearly a year. The Minister cannot just say, “I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.” He is in Parliament; he has had plenty of time to prepare and he has lots of civil servants to advise him. He must not fob me off with a letter, or fob off the Chairman of the PAC, who now wants to see the permanent secretary about it. The Minister has had plenty of time; he must answer now, in Parliament, the three very direct questions about the status of the programme. If he does not, the world will conclude that he has something to hide.
Luke Pollard
I know the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be aggressive and angry, but I do not want to give the wrong answer when I am standing in for another Minister. I am happy to ensure that a letter is written and shared with colleagues here so that the answers are given properly. I have been very clear about—
Luke Pollard
If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts each sentence, I will not get the full sentence out. I appreciate that he has a style that he has to maintain, but this is not helpful and not in the spirit or the tone in which the debate has been conducted. I will conclude briefly, so that my exchanges with him do not lower the tone.
We need to ensure this programme is delivered. It is important for the RAF and our national security. It has been beset by delays and the procurement system used to deliver it was not acceptable. The Conservative Government’s decision to cut the number of Wedgetails from five to three has correctly been criticised by Members on both sides of the House, including by members of the House of Commons Defence Committee.
As a new Government coming in, we committed to look at purchasing new E-7 Wedgetails, as part of the recommendation in the SDR, when the economic conditions allow. That is a vote of confidence in the platform, and it is part of our ambition to improve defence procurement. Boeing and the partners in the supply chain should be in no doubt that we expect the aircraft we ordered to be delivered, to be operational, and to make a valid contribution to filling the gap that the last Government created when they axed the previous aircraft providing this capability. I am happy to ensure that a copy of the detailed notes are shared with the House, so that answers to the questions put to me are properly provided.
John Cooper
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. There is obviously a great deal of interest in this very important programme. I also thank the Minister for stepping in; we realise that this is not his brief. We welcome his generous offer to talk to interested parties. That is quite an unusual approach, and I welcome it.
The hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made adroit interventions. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) talked about our geeky interest. Those who are only geeks also serve, and we do what we can here to help with the defence of the realm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) reminded us that accuracy is important in matters military. I apologise for my lack of geography of the area. He made a very important point when he said that we agree that we all want this done. That sums up the situation: we want to see this done because this aircraft is absolutely critical.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) set this issue in the context of the wider picture. This is the west standing up for itself. It is important that we do that. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is doing great work with the Defence Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is unfortunately not in his place, talked about defence in Scotland, and the Minister referred to that too. It is worth emphasising that under the SNP Government there is a hostile environment wherein young apprentices are denied access to Holyrood, and we are seeing defence structures and buildings under attack in Scotland. It is absolutely incredible and deeply, deeply worrying.
It is worth reflecting that the motto of the RAF is “Per ardua ad astra”—through difficulties to the stars. This aircraft is probably in the “ardua” section of that. It is going through some difficulties; there is no doubt about that, but—fingers crossed—it will spread its wings and eventually take its place in the RAF arsenal.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme.
Further Education Institutions
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for further education institutions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Up and down the country, further education institutions are educating and training 1.6 million people, providing them with the skills they need. These colleges are the lifeblood of the British economy, serving as a vital bridge between compulsory schooling and higher education and employment. However, further education was cut to the bone under the previous Conservative Government, and colleges are crying out for more support. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spending on adult skills and apprenticeships was 23% lower in 2024-25 than it was back in 2009-10. That is a huge cause for concern.
Many of us in this room have seen the great work that these colleges do at first hand, and I am sure we will hear that from colleagues during the debate. I pay tribute to Shipley college in my constituency, and I hope to draw attention to some of the challenges that it and others face, as well as their tremendous contributions. Shipley college is the local lead on health training, and has built a strong relationship with Bradford Royal Infirmary. They have developed a T-level cadetship programme, giving local 16 to 17-year-olds invaluable experience on hospital wards.
I recently visited Shipley college and met students and staff who were training on life-like robots with AI-generated voices to mimic a conversation with a patient. That was clearly giving the students confidence, and preparing them much better than traditional teaching methods. Government funding has enabled the college to invest in such amazing resources as Gaumard human simulators, Anatomage tables for learning anatomy and physiology, and an immersive classroom where students get to prepare to deliver skills in a real-life situation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who has made a reputation for herself in the Chamber by asking all the questions. I understand this is her first Westminster Hall debate, and I congratulate her on it and wish her well. Last year there were almost 19,000 UCAS applicants who self-identified as young adult carers. That is around 4% of all applicants. I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate; does she agree that more support must be offered in further education settings to those who have caring responsibilities—from caring for a parent or being a parent themselves—so they can achieve educational standards?
Anna Dixon
I agree that we must open up access to education for all, including carers. Further education colleges require significant investment to upgrade and maintain their buildings and ensure that they can provide a modern learning environment and access to up-to-date technology. However, staff tell me that their ambitions for further capital investment are limited. Since colleges were brought back into public ownership, their ability to borrow money and invest in capital projects has been removed, and they must now seek permission from the Department for Education to borrow money, which is a slow process. I would appreciate the Minister outlining what the Government are doing to address the capital funding needs of further education colleges.
I would like to move on to some issues around skills training. Every year, 3.8 million people aged 19 and over access skills education in England. That is a critical part of our education system, enabling people to build rewarding careers and fulfil their dreams. Yet, across the country, businesses do not have the right skills available to deliver the services they want and we need. According to the Learning and Work Institute, the UK could face a £120 billion loss by 2030, with a projected shortfall of 2.5 million highly skilled workers.
In Saltaire in my constituency, businesses tell me that they are struggling to recruit people with digital and tech skills locally. Is that any wonder when the Conservatives cut FE funding so significantly? With the right support, FE colleges can drive productivity gains across key sectors, such as engineering, healthcare, digital technology and construction. They can supply skilled technicians and specialists, enabling businesses to expand, innovate and compete.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Regional colleges such as the North West regional college and the Northern regional college in my constituency do exactly what the hon. Lady outlines. Particularly, the likes of apprenticeships are the future for many young people, especially those from disadvantaged communities. We should encourage and support that.
Anna Dixon
I entirely agree that the FE college apprenticeships—these other routes—are important for disadvantaged children. I will expand on that in a moment.
I am delighted that this Labour Government are committed to equipping the workforce with the skills they need to rebuild Britain, including through the establishment of Skills England. I hope that Skills England will encourage and facilitate strong partnerships between colleges and employers. Perhaps the Minister might like to say whether we could go further in empowering local areas and colleges to tailor their provision to local labour market needs and community demands.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Institutes of Technology can play a valuable role in setting forward the workforce, especially in defence, which the country needs, and will she join me in wishing Darran Marks the best in his next career endeavours?
Anna Dixon
I am certainly happy to commend the leader of my hon. Friend’s local IOT. I recognise the contribution that IOTs make to training the next generation in all sorts of careers; they prepare them for the demands of some highly skilled roles in defence.
FE colleges are not just about supporting our young people; they also give older adults opportunities to gain skills and retrain to access and retain good work. It will be vital, for example, to upskill and retrain people transitioning into jobs in the clean energy sector. I was disappointed to learn of the cuts to the adult skills fund, and a number of constituents wrote to me about it. I understand that the public purse is under huge strain and there are many competing demands, but further education colleges provide an excellent education, and given the real-terms funding reductions that they have experienced over two decades under the Conservatives, I do hope that in future they will receive more sustained, multi-year funding that accounts for inflation and rising student numbers.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Beaumont college in my constituency provides excellent specialist education for young people transitioning from a specialist school into adulthood. Does my hon. Friend believe that part of that funding must be available for colleges such as Beaumont so that we can support young people with special educational needs and disabilities?
Anna Dixon
Indeed, and I note that FE colleges, on average, have a higher number of SEND pupils than others. They give really good opportunities for children with additional needs to thrive and to go on and educate, so I commend the work of her local college.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. One of the first things that I had to do after the general election was to ensure a funding guarantee of more than £20 million for a rebuild of Harrogate college. Due to the local authority dropping the ball, the planning expired and the funding period elapsed. I was grateful to work with the Labour Government to secure that funding. I do worry, though, about the £90,000 cut to Harrogate college’s adult skills funding. The response that I got from the Government said that that is now devolved to the Labour mayor. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more funding for our devolved mayors to ensure that we keep up adult skills funding?
Anna Dixon
I am pleased to hear that the Labour Government have secured the future of Harrogate college. I also agree that it is vital that, as the workplace changes, people keep their skills up to date with lifelong learning, so it is essential that we protect and maintain adult education funding. I would like to hear from the Minister on that. Will she outline the Government’s plans to ensure sustainable funding for FE colleges, as well as the ongoing support for adult education as mentioned?
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for this excellent debate. Does she agree that colleges like mine in Shrewsbury have achieved their “outstanding” status because of the breadth of training and qualifications that they offer across a wide rural area? Do the Minister and the Department need to recognise those twin challenges? One challenge is offering qualifications from supported internships right up to level 4 degree qualifications, and there is a massive rural challenge as well. Those twin challenges must be considered.
Anna Dixon
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her area and for rural communities. I agree that there are particular challenges for colleges seeking to deliver such a breadth of education and many different sorts of qualifications, and I know that the Government are looking at review and reform of that.
Let me turn to T-levels.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Anna Dixon
I want to make some progress. There have been recent innovations in further education with the introduction of T-levels. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I contributed to the inquiry that found that T-levels are a great option for many students, and it would be great to see them rolled out further, but that there are significant teething problems. T-level students attend three full days at college and, generally, two full days in placement. It is, in my view, far more demanding than three A-levels. However, finding suitable work placements can be challenging. While colleges welcome the greater flexibility that is given in where and how these requirements are fulfilled, there is a clear need for employers to be incentivised to offer such work placements to students.
Teacher shortages are also a huge problem for colleges, particularly when trying to attract people from the high-priority skill sectors that we have mentioned, such as digital and construction. The Public Accounts Committee also looked at teacher numbers and concluded that further education teacher shortages put the achievement of the Government’s missions for opportunity and growth at risk.
Anna Dixon
I will give way first to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello).
Edward Morello
The hon. Member mentioned two points relating to staffing that are extremely important. Often, further education colleges, such as Kingston Maurward college in my constituency, also provide higher education qualifications, but pay for staff, especially specialist staff, tends to be higher in higher education institutions than in further education, which makes it difficult for them to recruit. Does the hon. Member think the Government need to address that pay disparity?
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point—I was about to come on to the pay gap between teachers in schools and those in further education colleges. Teachers in further education colleges earn an average of £8,000 a year less than schoolteachers. I was not aware of the gap with higher education, but it is clearly important that there is a level playing field so that they can attract and retain teachers.
Adrian Ramsay
The hon. Lady has now pre-empted my intervention. I wanted to highlight that further education leaders I have spoken to, such as those from Suffolk New college, who run the Halesworth campus in my constituency, have highlighted that £8,000 to £10,000 gap in pay between FE lecturers and secondary education teachers teaching the same subjects. Does the hon. Lady agree that this needs to be addressed in order to tackle the challenge of retaining and recruiting staff?
Anna Dixon
I agree. Closing the gap in pay will be vital, particularly if we look at vocational areas where industry salaries are higher. In construction, engineering and digital, FE teachers earn around 11% less on average than their peers who work in industry. Even when colleges do manage to recruit, they are quickly enticed back to industry, so it is not enough to just ask employers to release their staff to support the teaching of these in-demand skills. How does the Government intend to address the teacher shortages in further education, attract people and offer incentives for businesses to release people?
The final point I will touch on is social mobility.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
My constituency is one of 15 in the whole of England that does not have a sixth-form college or a further education college. That has huge repercussions for local young people and their potential. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and sharing her point on the impact on social mobility. I have been campaigning for a sixth-form college at the Bolsover school site since I was elected, after the last Government offered the sixth form but left no funds to pay for it. Does my hon. Friend agree that areas such as mine must be the priority for Government support for a sixth form?
Anna Dixon
I commend my hon. Friend for being such a champion for Bolsover and wanting to secure opportunities for her constituents to get the education that they deserve. I am sure that the Minister heard her words.
By improving education across the board, including further education, we can increase social mobility and address the stark regional disparities across the UK. Social mobility is a core Labour value.
Anna Dixon
I will take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) first.
Leigh Ingham
I thank my hon. Friend for calling the debate. I am proud to represent the best FE college in the country—I am sorry to everyone else—because I have Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group in my constituency. The work that it is doing to increase social mobility is incredibly important, but by the end of this decade it is facing a shortfall of 30% of places to allocate to my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that investment is given to colleges—not just revenue for lecturers’ wages, but capital to build the spaces we need?
Anna Dixon
Absolutely; it is vital that we get more capital as well as more revenue funding into FE.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I want to mention Haywards Heath college, which closed but was then able to reopen in 2020, thanks to the work of Mid Sussex district council and the previous MP. Does the hon. Lady agree that extending the pupil premium into further education colleges would make their financial sustainability more secure?
Anna Dixon
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It is important that the general funding available in education for those taking on disadvantaged students is reflected in things such as the pupil premium. FE certainly plays a huge role in widening participation of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as by offering flexible schedules, part-time study and tailored support services that lower barriers to education. For many, further education represents the most affordable and practical route to upskilling and career advancement, or progression to university. College students are more likely to be from diverse ethnic backgrounds and to have special educational needs and disabilities.
Colleges are already supporting both the most deprived learners and those from most deprived areas. For example, 30% of college enrolments are students from the most deprived postcodes. Sadly, in 2023 only 39% of those who finished level 3 courses at FE colleges, which are equivalent to A-levels, went on to higher education. The equivalent rate in state school sixth forms was as high as 60%, so it is critical that the Government increase opportunities for those in further education and open up degree-level apprenticeships.
I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined the Government’s plans to support new routes for disadvantaged children to go into higher skilled work and the role of further education colleges in helping to achieve that ambition. I will conclude in a moment, but I believe that further education colleges are a vital part of the UK’s educational landscape.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time. Fife college in my area does hugely important work, but it has had its budget slashed by 20% over the last three years by the SNP Scottish Government, who are actively moving funding out of my area and into Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Does she agree that such a cut is unacceptable, and that people in my area deserve the same opportunities to learn new skills as those in every other part of Scotland?
Anna Dixon
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, pointing out some of the cuts that her constituents are experiencing at the hands of the SNP Government in Scotland. It is incumbent on them to ensure that all children and adults have the opportunities to learn and continue to update their skills.
In conclusion, I believe that further education colleges are vital to those skills; they provide vocational training, apprenticeships and essential skills for young people and adults who want to upskill and reskill. They play a crucial role in addressing skills gaps, boosting productivity and promoting social mobility. However, as we have heard, the sector is facing significant challenges, including real-terms funding cuts, workforce shortages and complex funding structures. In her response, can the Minister set out how this Labour Government are increasing both day-to-day funding and capital funding for further education? How do they plan to address teacher shortages in FE? How are they ensuring that those in further education have the same opportunities to progress?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) wishes to participate in this debate, I should say that there are only 10 minutes or so for the Minister to respond to the mass of points that have been made. I hope she will be brief.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I will be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this important debate and for her excellent speech.
To improve living standards, we need to generate economic growth; to generate economic growth, businesses must have the skilled workforces they need to thrive. Further education institutions play a vital role in training the workforce we need for the jobs of the future. In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, we have some brilliant further education institutions that play a critical role in training young people with the skills they need, such as Scarborough university technical college.
Just last week, Scarborough UTC hosted Jürgen Maier—the chief executive officer of publicly owned clean energy company GB Energy—on a visit to its new Mainprize suite. The suite, named after a local service vessel company, will link employers with students to support them in their studies by providing valuable real-world knowledge and expertise to prepare them for careers in the renewables sector.
Offshore wind is a huge opportunity for Scarborough, and Scarborough UTC is a great example of how further education colleges can tap into opportunities to drive local economic growth, as well as provide career pathways. However, we need to ensure that young people in our most deprived communities have access to these new educational opportunities. Scarborough is the most deprived borough in North Yorkshire, and is rated in the lowest 30% of lower-tier local authorities in England, with three LSOAs—lower layer super output areas—within the most deprived 1% in the country.
Further education colleges in my constituency need the support of this Government to ensure that disadvantaged students can access good careers, and I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how the Government plan to work with local authorities and further education institutions to support pathways for disadvantaged students into high-skilled work.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this incredibly important debate on further education colleges. Their importance and the passion for them have been clearly demonstrated by the number of interventions that she has skilfully taken, while also allowing for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).
It is a real honour to be representing my colleagues from the Department for Education; the Minister for Skills and the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing speak on these issues in the House. Further education really is vital to our plans to develop the skilled workforce needed for all pillars of the plan for change, and for providing people with the skills that they need to thrive in their life and work. It is key to unlocking their living standards and opportunities and to breaking down barriers to opportunity right across the country.
Let us not forget—all hon. Members have reminded us clearly of this today—that colleges are a unique part of the education landscape. They deliver such a wide range of provision at all levels and to all learners of all ages. From foundation-level qualifications to master’s-level provision, they really do it all. We ask an awful lot of the sector, but we also know that it can deliver: it has shown that, and it delivers really well. As of 31 May this year, 86% of colleges were rated good or outstanding in their Ofsted reports. That really is a fantastic achievement, demonstrating consistently high quality across the sector.
I know that the sector is dealing with a whole range of challenges, not least those set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley in her opening speech. That is why we are continuing to invest and to provide support. We are really focused on delivering that where it is most needed.
My hon. Friend first raised a question relating to capital investment, because excellent further education colleges, with good quality buildings and facilities, are really foundational to the Government’s opportunity and growth missions. In 2025-26, the Government are investing £6.7 billion of capital funding for education. That is a 19% real-terms increase from 2024-25, and includes £950 million for skills. The 2025 spending review announced continued capital investment to support further education providers’ capacity to deliver high quality training, ensuring that learners have access to the facilities and equipment that they need along all their training routes. From 2026-27 to 2029-30, the investment will include £200 million for the new skills mission fund, to strengthen technical education and tackle those sector-specific shortages of skills that we know are right across England, including through targeted investment in technical education colleges, which I will come on to shortly.
Building on the £80 million of capital commitment in construction made at the spring statement, there will also be £1.7 billion of capital funding to help colleges maintain the condition of their estates, which will be risen in line with inflation, in terms of their annual allocation, and £375 million to support post-16 capacity to accommodate the increasing student numbers, which, of course, we welcome and are happy to support. More broadly, more than £7.5 billion of the 16 to 19 programme funding will be invested during this academic year, ensuring there is a place in educational training for every 16 to 18-year-old who wants one. That funds further education colleges and other institutions to provide study programmes or T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. Many Members raised how valuable access to T-levels is for young people. We used the 16 to 19 funding formula to calculate the allocation based on each institution, each academic year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley expressed significant interest in the adult skills fund, which fully funds or co-funds courses for eligible adults aged 19 or over from pre-entry to level 3. A number of other Members understandably have a huge interest in those opportunities. The Department will provide approximately £1.4 billion in funding for the adult skills fund in the coming academic year, ensuring that adult learners can access education and training that they need to progress in their employment and work. The funding will be used by colleges, local authority adult education providers and independent training providers.
I want to be clear that the reduction to the adult skills fund for the 2025-26 academic year in no way diminishes our commitment as a Government to investing in education and skills training for adults over the life of this Parliament. We want to work collaboratively with the further education sector to make sure that these difficult decisions can be taken while still delivering in the way that the country requires. On sustainable funding, which I know many Members have an interest in, the Government are committed to ensuring that the further education sector is supported to achieve continuous improvement and, most of all, excellent outcomes for learners.
The Department has in place a really strong accountability system alongside college oversight, which holds colleges to account and encourages continuous improvement. We really want to see improved outcomes for learners. That involves both the Department for Education and the Further Education Commissioner. We have place-based teams with an overarching responsibility for maintaining these relationships. The system ensures accountability, quality and finance oversight; that we are monitoring performance, support and intervention; and that we work collaboratively with local stakeholders to deliver on the outcomes we need to see. That means we can hold colleges to account, but also support them when they need intervention to ensure that they are delivering.
Any organisation is only as good as its workforce. FE teachers and staff play such a vital role in colleges to break down barriers for learners and teach skills vital to economic growth. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) mention learners with special educational needs and disabilities, and ensuring that opportunities exist for them too. That is why the Government are committed to recruiting 6,500 additional teachers across both schools and colleges, to raising the quality and prestige of FE teaching as a career, and to offering effective training and professional development.
Catherine McKinnell
I am really sorry, but I do not think I will have time if I am to respond to all the issues that have been raised; I do not think I will manage even that.
We are offering targeted retention incentive payments to FE teachers, particularly in key science, technology, engineering and mathematics and technical shortage subjects. We have a national recruitment campaign called “Teach in Further Education”, which we cannot shout about enough, to help raise awareness and increase consideration for FE teaching among industry professionals. We are also ensuring our initial teacher education system is setting high standards for new FE teachers, ensuring they have access to quality training, that we have bursaries to attract more than 2,300 trainees, that they are achieving the level 5 or higher FE teaching qualification, and that we are promoting the role in industry associates. Industry practitioners can teach part-time in FE and help to spread construction skills and exchange of industry practice, to make sure we can pass that on to the next set of learners who will work in our industries.
I was going to talk about technical excellence colleges, but I am running out of time, so I want to say thank you again to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley for securing the debate. I thank all Members who have taken part. I think I have demonstrated excellently our passion and support for further education colleges. We know how important they are to employers, businesses and the country as a whole, and I share that passion. Our colleges are crucial to the education system, equipping young people with the skills they need to get on in life and giving some people the second chance that they might not otherwise have had. Our plans and investments will help to support, develop and transform our excellent FE system.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Blue Badge Eligibility
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.
The issue that brings us here today was brought to my attention by Elli Hodgson, a local journalist with the Kent Messenger newspaper. Her paper recognised that cancer patients and others with life-altering conditions were being denied the vital accessibility afforded by the current blue badge scheme, because they do not fall within the eligibility criteria—namely, having an enduring and substantial disability, typically defined as likely to last at least three years.
Cancer treatment such as surgery and radio and chemotherapy can have significant side effects, including extreme fatigue, pain and mobility restrictions. Mental health can also be undermined by the fact that patients are often in a personal battle with life and death. Sometimes those impediments might not last for three years, but they can still reduce access to essential services during treatment and recovery. In many situations, the effects of the disease and treatment last longer than three years. Indeed, under the Equality Act 2010, the Government rightly recognise cancer as a disability from the point of diagnosis for the remainder of a person’s life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand about issue, which comes up regularly in my constituency office, so I commend her for securing this debate. Does she not agree that certain illnesses should have an automatic blue badge entitlement? Saying that someone has nine months to live rather than six months because of cancer or a terminal illness does not take into account the havoc that is also caused when someone has fatigue and breathing problems. The current system is much too stringent and puts pressure on GPs to write in support of something that really is a no-brainer and should not be necessary at all.
Helen Grant
As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree with him that certain illnesses should have an automatic entitlement, because at the end of the day we should be making it easier for people who are going through hell, rather than harder and more complicated.
It is not just the three-year rule that is out of step for people with shorter-term conditions. Blue badge applications take 12 to 15 weeks to be processed, which is far too long in terms of cancer timelines, and rejected applicants cannot reapply for six months. Again, that is incompatible with cancer treatments, where debilitating physical effects can quickly arise. So today I speak on behalf of the many thousands of cancer patients and people with life-altering conditions whose lives could be made so much easier if they had access to a fairer blue badge system.
The issue came to the Kent Messenger’s attention through the experience of an employee, a lady called Sandy Burr, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. Sandy was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2024. She applied for a blue badge when she found out that her toe needed to be amputated. Not long after the operation, she was rushed back into hospital with breathing difficulties. Doctors found blood clots in her lungs, causing embolisms. She is now undergoing immunotherapy, which has additional debilitating side effects. All those issues further impact how far Sandy can walk with her crutches. Sandy’s blue badge application has been refused by Kent county council, and she told me that the rejection felt like a kick in the teeth. She said that her mindset was focused on being brave and trying to stay alive, and she did not feel she had any extra fight in her to deal with the rejection or to appeal.
Another lady, Bev Evans, also shared her story with me and the Kent Messenger. Bev fell downstairs and broke her neck in 2020. She now suffers permanent injury and has extreme mobility issues. She, too, has been rejected for a blue badge by Kent county council on two separate occasions. No reasonable explanation was given. Applications are made online, and in Bev’s case the computer just said no, because it thought she might get better within three years. It did not say why it thought that. Bev cannot walk without crutches and has no realistic prospect of a full recovery.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She raised the problem of applying for blue badges online. When the condition is unnamed or unrecognised, that receives an automatic no. The brother of my brilliant parliamentary researcher is in full receipt of accessibility benefit. He represents England as a visually impaired cricketer, yet because his condition has no name he is automatically denied a blue badge. When he speaks to someone, he can change that, but with an online system it is an automatic no. Does the hon. Lady think that is right?
Helen Grant
No, and the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We can, and must, do better in these important processes.
Following strong public reaction to the stories about Sandy and Bev, the KM approached me, because I am a local Kent MP and because I am a recent cancer survivor. In 2023, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Later that year, I underwent the first of three surgical operations to remove the cancer and reconstruct my body. The first eight-hour operation was extremely invasive; I could hardly move, let alone walk, for several weeks. By the time I was able to walk, it was in a hunched fashion, due to the nature of the surgery. Extreme tiredness was also a significant factor for many months post surgery, while my body used much of its energy to mend me from the inside.
During all that time, I was very lucky to have the support of my family to access the goods and services I needed, but not everyone is so fortunate. On 19 March this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport explaining the position. I requested that the eligibility criteria for a blue badge be broadened to include cancer patients and those with life-altering conditions, with the badge issued for a shorter term and with more frequent reviews, or that a separate but similar badge scheme be introduced for those with cancer and other life-altering conditions.
Disappointingly, when the Minister responded on 9 April, she confirmed that the Government want only one class of blue badge and that there is no plan to legislate to change the current system, but that local authorities have powers to promote locally determined parking concessions in their respective areas. Accordingly, on 19 June this year, I am proud to say that all 18 Kent MPs and the shadow Transport Secretary signed a letter to the leader of Kent county council, with further correspondence going to the leader of Medway council.
We asked both leaders to consider the introduction of a locally determined concessionary scheme for residents with short-term impairments. We await full responses, but the leader of Medway council has offered a meeting, and we hope perhaps to see him next week.
We still believe that there is a strong case for a national scheme, which would require only secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister, having heard all our representations today, will reconsider the position. A national scheme would avoid an inevitably unfair postcode lottery situation, with different local authorities having different local policies on the matter.
We need a fairer and faster approach to blue badge eligibility, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless application processes are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect. I am grateful to all my Kent colleagues, and to the Kent Messenger newspaper for bringing the issue to our attention and helping to drive this important campaign forward. I am also grateful, of course, to Sandy, Bev and others who have bravely shared their stories.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my colleague, friend and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for securing this critical debate, and Kent colleagues of all parties—Liberal, Labour and Conservative—who have come together to support this initiative. There are colleagues in the Chamber from other areas where this problem is manifest. It is a concern across the country.
I also thank residents who have stepped forward to articulate their position. Going to a newspaper and putting their names out there is a brave thing to do, and they are setting in train something that could change the rules for millions of other people in this country. I say to them, “Believe you me, the work that you have done is making those changes. You are sitting in the Public Gallery today because of your efforts and your diligence.” I thank Bev, Sandy and all the others who have written to us and are getting involved in the campaign.
This campaign is personal to me. Like, I suspect, many others in the room, I have had a life-changing health issue. At 38, I had what became a pulmonary embolism due to a heart attack, at a very young age, and was completely unexpectedly taken into hospital. The post-recovery period lasted 12 weeks, for six of which I was almost unable to move without support and help—at the age of 38. It was a traumatising and scary personal experience, and there are many such stories around the country from people who have broken limbs, suffered trauma or had cancer treatment. We need a scheme that takes into account the different scenarios of people’s everyday lives. The scheme needs to change.
As a Labour Government, we have a proud legacy on this issue, because it was Labour that introduced the scheme and a Labour Government that modernised it to support people who face serious barriers in their daily mobility. It allows them to park closer to essential services, to visit GPs to get treatment, or simply to collect shopping—to many, that would seem a simple act, but to those with these disabilities it is extremely frustrating and difficult.
I respect the Department for Transport but, like others, I have had quite formulaic responses from it, saying that people need to demonstrate an enduring, substantial disability. I know from colleagues that it is difficult to do that in a written piece of correspondence and without an in-person interview. The Department’s response does not take into account the fact that people have different levels of fluency in English, might not have medical knowledge and might be unable to articulate their exact position.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I have constituents who are helping to support their children through cancer treatment. They applied for a blue badge; only after the child’s treatment was, thankfully, successful did the application come back with a no or yes. The focus should be on getting well, not battling a system. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for securing this debate.
Tristan Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we all have to work within systems, but this one seems heartless and a bit cold. I think that is the general experience of many, that it seems to take a “computer says no” approach if someone does not have one of those specific physical mobility issues.
I fully accept that we need a system, otherwise there might be people who choose to exploit the scheme. However, there must also be a point where we accept that people’s health is not linear. It is not a case of someone having something life-altering and therefore they can get the badge, and no other conditions exist, because most people’s health will change.
In recent years, there have been changes to extend the scheme to non-visible conditions, so we have made concessions previously—autism and mental health challenges can be taken into account. However, those with debilitating illnesses and temporary conditions are the focus this afternoon. We know from the media that this issue is not just confined to Kent. The excellent work of Kent Online is helping to highlight this case, but it is happening across the country.
In other places, we have seen cases where people experiencing side effects from cancer have been refused, and where people in severe pain—who can prove that they are in severe pain—have been refused access because they are told their condition is not enduring enough. That is unacceptable. If someone can prove that their condition exists and that they are engaged in medical treatment, anyone would think that that was enough evidence.
People may concurrently suffer from mental health issues, fatigue and other challenges as a result of not securing this support. Some are recovering from major surgery that leaves them barely able to walk, yet they are refused this service, which seems completely counterintuitive.
I can tell hon. Members from experience, as others can, that a six-month recovery, when someone knows that they will recover, which I fortunately had, is still an uphill struggle, because it involves dealing with the consequences. I ask that any scheme, especially this one, be a mechanism rather than an obstacle course. It feels as if we are on an obstacle course and, certainly in residents’ views, that is the case.
I thank Kent Online and residents for raising this campaign, and I hope that, with the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling and others, we can bring this issue into the public domain on a cross-party basis. As a relatively inexperienced MP, I have learned many lessons about how to run campaigns properly, and I salute the work of the hon. Member across the aisle on this—because we can genuinely get some positive change.
This is also a sign of local leadership. I am pleased that the council in Medway has stepped up and is open to having this conversation. I hope that we can work to get Kent county council in the room, because it covers the large majority of constituents across Kent. I believe the work we are doing can lead to change and I am passionate about the outcomes.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, is there positive work going on in the Department to review the blue badge scheme? Could that conclude that we can extend eligibility? Secondly, has any guidance been provided to local councils about local schemes—using best practice from, say, some of the London councils—and could we extend that principle? There is a bit of inconsistency between councils in terms of examples of where this works well in practice.
Thirdly, I understand that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting the NHS through extra investment in our hospitals and frontline services—that is extremely welcome. Could cross-departmental work be done with the Department of Health and Social Care to facilitate blue badges for those leaving hospital as part of their discharge regimen? Could they get an automatic letter that can be submitted to a public body, allowing for a seamless service, rather than having to go through a regimented application process? We could use a bit of common sense across Departments so that people do not have to go through a bureaucratic process to apply for a blue badge. I am quietly confident that we can see change, working with campaigners on a cross-party basis. I thank everyone for coming this afternoon.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for bringing forward this debate today. It is lovely to see cross-party working on such a serious issue.
I am not from Kent—I am from Norfolk—but from listening to the debate, there are some clear similarities. We are a rural county in Norfolk, similar to Kent. We have a significant coastline, an older population and similar issues with accessing blue badges. I am halfway through my summer tour of the 72 villages in South West Norfolk, and I do not think I have been to a single village yet where somebody has not come forward to say, “I’ve got a real issue trying to get hold of a blue badge.” It is coming up time and again, and there are dozens of cases locally. For example, I have a constituent who had been diagnosed with and undergone treatment for breast cancer. She is in her 70s. She is profoundly deaf and has a hearing dog. She has been rejected three times for a blue badge. As a result, she is reluctant to leave her village, and there is a real issue with isolation from that.
Another constituent was at the end stage of kidney failure. He is in the early part of having had a transplant, but there are post-surgery complications, anxiety and a whole number of other health issues. His application was turned down because it was considered that his mobility was only bad during flare-ups, rather than “more often than not”, his anxiety was not regarded as being bad enough, and toileting issues do not form part of the national guidance.
There is a real issue about cost, too. I am fortunate that at our local hospital, which is about an hour away, people can still get free car parking if they have a blue badge. Those in a rural community often do not have any public transport enabling them to get to hospital. They have to drive or rely on other people to drive them there. If they are having routine treatment for cancer, for example, the cost of car parking alone soon stacks up, as it does for any other regular hospital or medical appointments. There is a real cost aspect to this.
What arrangements are in place for monitoring councils on the time taken to process blue badge applications? Norfolk county council seems to spend an incredible amount of time processing applications, and there is an element of local criteria. I have not done the work yet, but I think there is a significant policy difference in Norfolk, where it is incredibly difficult for a whole range of reasons to be eligible for a blue badge. Clearly, people who would benefit from and need a blue badge are not receiving one. Can the Minister comment on what oversight and assessment there is of local councils amending their own criteria, making things difficult and ultimately denying people eligibility for blue badges?
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this debate, and her constituent, Sandy, on bravely campaigning on this issue. It is people like her who make a real difference to this world—thank you.
A cancer diagnosis does not simply change someone’s medical needs; it changes the course of their life. Even the most basic tasks can become physically painful and emotionally draining. It may be a short-term issue during recovery or represent a permanent shift. In these circumstances, a blue badge can offer crucial support, making it easier to access vital services and maintain a degree of independence. The blue badge scheme provides essential parking concessions to help people with significant mobility challenges to park close to their destination, whether they are the driver or passenger.
Cancer treatment side effects, such as fatigue from chemotherapy, chronic pain or nerve damage, can all severely limit mobility. However, despite the profound and often sudden impact of such conditions, many people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses, as we have already heard today, find they do not automatically qualify for a blue badge. The cost of travelling to medical appointments is already high, and for those undergoing frequent treatments and tests, it quickly adds up. Research shows that 93% of young cancer patients and their families travel to hospital by car and need a place to park. Furthermore, 71% say they struggle to afford travel costs, with parking charges contributing to an extra £250 a month. Many also report that parking arrangements at hospitals are inadequate. The charity Young Lives vs Cancer cited one parent who described hospital parking as a lottery:
“I can probably win the lottery better than I can get a parking space.”
In my constituency, a resident contacted me about her 83-year-old husband, who has blood cancer and neuropathy, uses a wheelchair, and cannot walk. Despite that, Labour’s Merton council lost his blue badge application, forcing his wife to resubmit it. That is unacceptable, and it highlights the pressing need for the more seamless blue badge process that we are advocating.
In other cases, the criteria for blue badge eligibility fail to map neatly on to fluctuating conditions such as cancer. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for the blue badge scheme, as is everyone in the Chamber, I think. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), we want it to be more responsive to real-world need, more compassionate in its interpretation of eligibility and more efficient in delivery.
We also urge the Government to take advantage of their ambition for a single patient record. Much of the infrastructure exists already, particularly in cancer care. It is entirely feasible to implement an automatic offer of a blue badge where clinical records show clear mobility changes, as so eloquently argued for by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Chatham and Aylesford.
Smaller but important changes we could make include amending blue badge signage, which we support, to clarify that not all disabilities are visible. That would help to reduce stigma and the misunderstanding faced by many users of the scheme. We are also pushing to ban discriminatory practices by taxis and private hire vehicles with a clear national standard for what an accessible city should be.
We remain firmly committed to improving accessibility across society. Public transport in particular must work for everyone, and we are campaigning for train stations around the country to meet essential accessibility standards, such as step-free access, safer and more inclusive platform designs, and level boarding wherever possible. Things such as that and blue badge accessibility are crucial to a society that cares for everyone and has an inclusive approach to how we live our lives.
Ultimately, we need a system that is fairer, simpler and more humane, one that recognises the challenges posed by cancer and chronic illness, even when those challenges do not fit neatly into a tick-box form or an online mechanism. A blue badge can mean being able to go to work, to reach a hospital, to attend a support group, or simply to visit a friend. It is about dignity, independence and inclusion. The very least we can do is to ensure that the system works as it should. Cancer and serious illness take so much from individuals and their families, access to parking should not be another burden that they are forced to carry.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on not just securing the debate and championing her constituents so well in her speech, but bravely telling her own story as part of it, just as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) did.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond for His Majesty’s Opposition on an issue that cuts to the heart of how we treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society, not least those facing the life-changing impact of cancer treatment. The blue badge scheme has long been a vital way in which we support people with severe and permanent mobility difficulties to live independent lives, to stay connected to work, community and family, and to access essential goods and services.
Under the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000, local authorities are tasked with issuing badges in line with clear national eligibility rules. Those rules, rightly, focus on the practical impact of a person’s condition on their day-to-day mobility, not simply on their diagnosis. The principle is sound, but in practice, there is, as we have heard, a glaring gap.
People undergoing aggressive cancer treatment, for example, can suffer debilitating side effects that severely restrict mobility. Nerve damage, fatigue, pain and weakness can make walking even short distances impossible, yet because those impacts are deemed to be temporary, the people involved often do not qualify for a blue badge, as the impediments might not last three years. This is not a small oversight. It means that people who are in the fight of their life are too often forced to fight an additional battle just to park near a hospital, their local shops or community services.
Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local councils have powers to create local traffic regulation orders that allow temporary parking concessions for residents with short-term impairments. However, we know, and I am confident the Government must know, that in practice that is patchy and inconsistent. Some councils offer short-term medical parking permits; many do not. Some cancer patients are fortunate enough to find clear guidance and a fair process; too many others are left to navigate an opaque local system at the very moment when they are least able to cope with yet more paperwork, forms and stress. It is simply wrong that whether a cancer patient can access parking support depends on where they live and whether their local council happens to operate a discretionary scheme or chooses not to.
The previous Government rightly reminded local authorities of their powers to provide the concessions, but that was never intended to be the long-term answer. We need a fair, unified solution that does not depend on a postcode lottery of local good will. I hope that the Minister will correct this impression when she responds to the debate, but under this Government there seems to be no commitment to update the outdated 2000 regulations in order to recognise the reality facing thousands of cancer patients and others every single year. Nor is there any progress on national guidance to make short-term exemptions consistent, automatic and easy to access. It is not good enough to say, as the Government still seem to say, that councils can just sort it out locally. The evidence is clear: the local patchwork approach has failed. Cancer does not care about council boundaries.
We need a simple, nationally recognised exemption for cancer patients whose treatment has a severe short-term impact, or potentially long-term impact, on their mobility. That could mean a standardised temporary permit supported by NHS trusts, so that patients do not have to fight for evidence or explain themselves twice. This is not about changing the core principle of the blue badge scheme. It is about bringing it up to date with the real-world experience of people who urgently need that help. It is about accommodating patients living with cancer, which the Government already classify as a disability from diagnosis and as long as people live with its effects.
I urge the Minister and this Government to listen to charities, to NHS professionals and to patients themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling gave the powerful examples of Sandy Burr and Bev Evans, constituents living with severe, agonising mobility challenges because of this disease and because of injury, yet still falling outside the national blue badge criteria. Now is the time to work on a cross-party basis to close the gap once and for all. Our country prides itself on compassion. It is now time for the Government to show that in practice. That can happen by ensuring that nobody in the fight of their life is forced to fight for a parking space too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
As ever, Sir Christopher, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this important debate and on sharing her personal experience and the experiences of her constituents. I also pay tribute to Kent residents Sandy Burr, Bev Evans and others whose personal stories have led to this campaign and to today’s debate; I thank the hon. Lady for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke with passion and conviction in support of his constituents and those who face serious health concerns that give rise to some of the most difficult moments in our constituents’ lives. I recognise the need for a system that is fair and consistent. It should never be heartless or cold, and it should not feel like an obstacle course. I am committed to listening and to considering carefully the points that have been made today. I will come to my hon. Friend’s questions in just a moment.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his contribution to the debate and for highlighting the examples from his own constituency. He asked what arrangements there are for monitoring councils’ processing times. The Department for Transport does not monitor councils’ processing times; that is a matter for councils themselves. We recommend that they should process blue badge applications within 12 weeks, but of course that will vary according to the local authority and the resources that it chooses to put into its blue badge team. These are decisions for local authorities, which are elected by local residents and are responsible and accountable to local residents. I absolutely recognise that when we allow local authorities to make local decisions, they will make different decisions, which sometimes leads to inconsistency between them.
The Department for Transport sets the legislation around blue badges and provides non-statutory guidance to local authorities, but it is local authorities themselves that are responsible for administering the scheme. I recognise the issue that hon. Members from across the House have raised about the potential that that creates for inconsistency; it is one that I have reflected on over the period in which I have been a Minister, and I have dealt with numerous pieces of correspondence about it from MPs on behalf of their constituents. It has caused me concern and I have discussed it regularly with my officials in the blue badge team. Today’s debate is timely in making me consider again what more we can do to address the concerns that are being raised.
Let me come back to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. He asked whether work is ongoing to review the scheme. We constantly consider the scheme and look to improve it. I felt that it was somewhat rude of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), to refer to things that were last changed in 2000 and then suggest that within my first year of being a Minister I should have conducted a review and made major changes; the last 14 years might have provided an opportunity to address some of those issues. Nevertheless, it is timely to think about the scheme and look at whether there is a need for review and further refinement. As I have said, there is guidance for local councils on best practice, and I know that local authority blue badge officers come together to talk about their experiences of administering the system and to share notes and best practice. I met a number of them when they last got together in Runcorn, which is where the blue badges are issued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford also asked about the potential for cross-departmental work with colleagues in the national health service and the Department for Health and Social Care. I would be happy to explore that further with colleagues in those Departments; I hope that that will have the support of everyone who has spoken today.
It may be helpful to step back for a moment to talk a bit about the scheme as it was intended and to reaffirm its purpose. As has been acknowledged, the scheme was introduced in 1971 and has served the UK public for over five decades. It provides vital support for people with severe mobility difficulties, whether those difficulties are visible or non-visible—so-called hidden disabilities.
The scheme enables individuals to access goods and services by allowing them to park closer to their destination, whether they are driving or travelling as a passenger. The blue badge provides national on-street parking concessions, including the ability to park without charge or time limit in otherwise restricted areas and to park on yellow lines for up to three hours where loading restrictions do not apply, but it is important to note that the scheme applies only to on-street parking. Concessions in private or council-owned car parks are not guaranteed and may vary depending on the operator.
All car parking providers are required to provide disabled parking spaces, and quite rightly so. In local authority car parks it is very likely, but not necessary, that the council will not charge those who are using disabled spaces, but in private sector car parks that might or might not be the case. I think that that also applies to hospitals. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), spoke about hospital car parks; they are outside the remit of my Department, but would be a useful part of the conversation.
Although we recognise the changing landscape of local infrastructure and council-owned car parks—perhaps there are fewer of them, and more private car parks—we have to continue to ensure that the scheme remains effective and accessible for on-street parking. Each year, over 1 million blue badges are issued across England. The day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme rests with local authorities, which are responsible for assessing applications and for ensuring that badges are issued only to those who meet the eligibility criteria set out in legislation.
I would like to take a moment to recognise the efforts of the local authority teams who deliver the service. I hope I can assure hon. Members that I know at first hand the passion and dedication that many local authority blue badge teams have in helping those who need access to parking. I have spoken to many of them, and I know how committed they are to supporting those in need.
My first ask to colleagues today is that they encourage their constituents to provide as much detailed and high-quality information as possible when applying. I appreciate the points that have been made about how some people applying for a blue badge are doing so at a really difficult, traumatic and stressful time. However, providing detail helps local authorities to make informed and fair decisions in line with the guidance set out on the Government website. The Department provides non-statutory guidance to assist local authorities in implementing fair and consistent assessment and enforcement practices, but this is a matter for local authorities. We cannot intervene in individual cases, but we are committed to helping to support local authorities in delivering the scheme effectively.
I really understand the concerns raised in this debate about eligibility for people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses. They are serious and heartfelt concerns raised in response to constituents facing difficult and distressing circumstances, but before I come back to those issues it is important that I set out the rationale behind the current structure of the scheme. The eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that the blue badge is reserved for those with severe mobility impairments, whether physical or non-visible, that significantly impact their ability to access services.
I know that the shift from the term “permanent and substantial disability” to “enduring and substantial disability” was a very deliberate change. It recognised that some conditions, particularly those affecting cognitive or mental function, might fluctuate or respond to treatment but still endure over time. I think the change was designed to allow for greater flexibility to recognise a broader range of disabilities, including those that might not be immediately visible. It also ensures that the scheme remains focused on mobility and the ability to access places and services safely and independently. Ultimately, a blue badge may therefore be awarded to an individual with a disability that is expected to endure in some way for the three-year blue badge issue period.
Local authorities invest considerable time and care in assessing applications from individuals who do not automatically qualify in line with the legislation. Many authorities—including Kent county council, which is one of the largest issuers, if not the largest, of blue badges in England—work hard to ensure that their decisions are fair and evidence-based. In 2024 alone, Kent issued more than 33,000 badges, supporting more than 83,000 of its residents.
I have to be honest about the kind of structural change that people are calling for today; it would represent a significant departure from the scheme’s current purpose. That is not to say that it is not a legitimate question to raise, but it would place additional pressure on a system that is already under strain. Many local authorities report that they are operating the scheme at a financial loss, with the current £10 fee no longer covering the cost of administration. Expanding eligibility without providing additional resources could compromise the integrity of the scheme and reduce the availability of disabled parking spaces for those who rely on them the most.
I note that, in reaction to the recent campaign, many have understandably expressed support, but others have raised concerns about the potential impact on parking availability and enforcement, including those who are current badge holders. Nevertheless, the cases highlighted by the Kent Messenger campaign and taken up by Members today cannot be ignored. These are real people, facing real challenges, and the response requires both compassion and the determination to look for solutions.
There is already plenty of room for local innovation; local authorities already have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to introduce locally determined parking concessions, which can include temporary permits or designated bays for individuals recovering from surgery or undergoing intensive treatment, such as chemotherapy. In 2012, the Department published an advice note encouraging local authorities to consider such schemes, and while they are voluntary and locally led, they offer a flexible way to respond to specific community needs, without altering the national framework of the blue badge scheme. Of course, local authorities may wish to explore options for hospital parking concessions for patients who require frequent access to treatment, which is a matter for discussion with local NHS trusts, but I recognise that such measures can make a meaningful difference to people who are navigating serious illness.
In response to points raised today, I will ask my officials to review and update our existing advice note to provide clearer, more practical guidance on how local authorities can use those existing powers to support residents facing temporary or fluctuating mobility challenges. That would not change the core eligibility criteria for the blue badge, but in the short term, it may help councils to better understand the tools at their disposal.
We have not really touched on this today, but it is important to note that blue badge schemes in England, Scotland and Wales are fully devolved, and each nation administers its own scheme, sets its own criteria and determines its own fee structure. In Wales, the devolved Administration has chosen to introduce a temporary blue badge option, allowing individuals to apply for a 12-month badge if they are recovering from or awaiting treatment for serious illnesses or injuries that have a significant impact on mobility.
While I understand the appeal of such a model, it is important to recognise the scale of the English scheme and the context in which it operates. England has a significantly larger population and a far greater number of blue badge holders than Wales. Introducing a temporary badge scheme on the same model could place a real strain on local authority resources, many of which are already under pressure, and it could risk reducing the availability of on-street disabled parking spaces for those with long-term and severe mobility needs.
Of course, a change could also lead to a big surge in applications, increasing administrative burdens and undermining reliability, processing times and the current operation of the scheme. That said, I remain open to learning from the experiences of the devolved nations. I note the Welsh Government’s recent publication of their review into the blue badge scheme. Where there are lessons to be drawn, or best practice to consider, I want to do so carefully and constructively.
To conclude, I reiterate that the Government fully recognise the importance of accessible services for people with disabilities and serious health conditions. The blue badge scheme plays a vital role in enabling independence and dignity, and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to serve those in need. I am cautious about expanding eligibility in ways that could undermine the current scheme’s effectiveness, but I am keen to reflect on the concerns raised today. I will continue to engage with my officials and ministerial colleagues to explore how we can support local authorities in delivering compassionate, practical solutions within the existing framework.
This is not the end of the conversation; I am listening, I will keep listening, and I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the blue badge scheme remains fair, effective and focused on those who need it most. I am open to the possibility of change to address some of the concerns that have been rightly raised today.
Helen Grant
I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have spoken so meaningfully and passionately on this matter today. In particular, I must mention the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is working with closely with me and the Kent Messenger on this matter. I know that the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), will be meeting the Transport Secretary. I hope the Minister, who was listening carefully today, will also speak to the Transport Secretary about what she has heard from all hon. Members today. I am glad she said that she will reconsider certain matters, and I hope that she might agree to have a meeting with me and some other colleagues so we can go into more detail than we have in the hour allowed.
Helen Grant
I think that was a nod. We can and must do better. As I said in my speech, and I am repeating it again, we need a fairer and faster approach, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless applications are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect.
Finally, I pay tribute to the courageous Dr Susan Michaelis, who died of lobular breast cancer last week. Susan, with her husband Tristan, was a great campaigner for cancer patients, and she would have been so happy to see this cross-party campaign debated so sensitively today. May she rest in peace. Let us all keep working together to make a difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.