Ukraine

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

The removal of children from Ukraine to Russia is truly shocking and heartrending. The best we can hope for is that Putin sees the reputational damage that it delivers to him and his country and reverses his policy. We have seen some indication in recent times of some children being returned to their parents. It is a truly shocking element of a truly horrendous conflict, and we know precisely who to blame for it.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We all want the Ukrainian counter-offensive to be successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was right to challenge the Government on whether they are adhering to their commitments. On the point about long-range missiles, which my right hon. Friend and others have pressed the Minister on, can he tell us whether the MOD is now walking back from the Prime Minister’s commitment to offer further long-range missiles? If it is, when will we hear more detail and clarity on how many more long-range missiles, and what sort, will be issued to Ukrainian forces?

Ukraine

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and may those protests grow, may they flourish and may their voice be impossible to ignore.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s remarks and those of the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey). The Minister has rightly made much of the need to maintain the unity of the western alliance, but can I ask him what efforts have been made to reach out beyond that alliance, in particular to China, to try to discourage China from offering any active or indeed implicit support for what Putin has done?

[James Heappey]

First, the work of Her Majesty’s Government and NATO Governments to reach out beyond the Euro-Atlantic to the rest of the world has been going on at pace, and a number of countries have already joined European and north Atlantic countries in imposing sanctions of their own. The hon. Member is absolutely right that this is a moment of real decision for China. If China wants to be a world leader, it needs to show that it stands for a rules-based international system. Her Majesty’s Government will encourage it to take a stand to do so, and I think there is an opportunity this evening in New York for China to show that that is where it stands. If it does not, it will have set out its stall all too clearly, but let us hope that it can be persuaded otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I was delighted to visit the Heyford and Bicester veterans group with my hon. Friend just a few weeks ago and see the amazing work that it is doing to support so many of our veterans. The issue she highlights is vital. The Ministry of Defence continues to work with service personnel and their families to support them, and we are in discussions and working closely with our Home Office colleagues on that important issue.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the United States, an impressive military charity called Soldier On has established housing co-operatives to give homeless ex-servicemen an affordable place to live and allow them to help control the running of it. Would the Secretary of State consider such an approach here in the UK?

[Gavin Williamson]

That charity has also been looking at the United Kingdom. We are keen to work closely with it, to see how we can take the lessons learned from the United States and the positive experiences that have been created and ensure that it can benefit people here in the United Kingdom.

Armed Forces Pay

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

I am going to do the House a favour and move on.

As alluded to earlier, for those joining our armed forces, pay is not the be all and end all. People sign up to challenge themselves, experience adventure and learn new skills. The most frequently cited reason for leaving, according to the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey, is the impact of service on family and personal life. That is why we are keen to do all we can to improve life for our personnel. Some 70% of our people told a recent MOD survey that they wanted more flexible working opportunities, so we are introducing a flexible working Bill. It will enable regular service personnel temporarily to change the nature of their service, enabling part-time working or protection from deployment to support an individual’s personal circumstances “where business need allows”.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Lancaster]

I will in a minute, but only once more because others want to speak in this short debate.

At present, a woman considering starting a family, or an individual with caring commitments, faces a difficult choice over leaving when their circumstances change. We do not want to lose good people with knowledge, skills and experience from a more diverse workforce, and we should not have to.

By providing a more modern and flexible employment framework for our people, we will help to improve morale, retain and recruit the very best, and increase the overall effectiveness of the armed forces. More than that, we will also help to attract recruits from a wider cross-section of society—those who might otherwise not have considered a military career.

Pay and flexible working, in and of themselves, do not offer a silver bullet to address the issues of recruitment and retention, as highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford in his excellent report “Filling the Ranks”, but taken together with our broader people programme, we believe that it will have a significant impact.

[Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Mark Lancaster]

I will give way for the last time, to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), who asked first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

rose—

[Gareth Thomas]

rose—

[Mark Lancaster]

I will give way one more time, to my hon. Friend, and then I will conclude.

[Mark Lancaster]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point.

It is worth being clear about what this programme entails. It will see us offering greater help to personnel, so that they can live in private accommodation and meet their aspirations for home ownership. It will see us develop a new employment offer for new joiners to the service from 2020, better meeting the expectations of future recruits and targeting resources on the people we need most.

[Gareth Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Lancaster]

No: I have been very generous.

The programme will also make it easier for people to move between the public and private sectors during their careers—retaining and making the most of their skills in areas where they are most needed.

Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford outlined, there is still more to do, whether recruiting more people from ethnic minority communities, improving accommodation or making sure that all our people are fit mentally as well as physically; but we are now hard at work developing an action plan to take forward his recommendations, including a planned medical symposium.

Our people will always be our greatest asset. As a Minister and a reservist, I have nothing but respect and admiration for achievements of our armed forces personnel. Of course I appreciate the impact that pay restraint has had, but I also believe we are taking a balanced approach. On the one hand, we are ensuring pay discipline, which is critical to the future affordability of public services and the sustainability of public sector employment. On the other hand, we are doing our utmost to make sure that our overall package not only reflects the value that our people bring to our country but retains the flexibility that is so vital in attracting the best and the brightest.

Armed forces pay structures and levels are regularly reviewed, and I look forward to hearing the AFPRB’s latest recommendations. In the meantime, I am personally committed to doing everything I can to make sure that our exceptionally talented and hard-working men and women continue to receive the recognition that is their due.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Yes, I would like one day to see our new aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth, which is named after our wonderful Queen, captained by a woman.

The MOD has been able to make much of female representation in media terms in order to show the career progression that is possible for female officers, but clearly it would be desirable to see female candidates reaching three-star rank or above in the relatively near future. The independent service complaints ombudsman has three-star rank, but she is independent of the armed forces. In addition, as a ministerial example, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was, I believe, the first female Minister of State for the Armed Forces in history; she held the post from 2015 to 2016.

The MOD is now also introducing women in ground close combat, meaning that in future women will be allowed to serve in the Royal Marines, the infantry and the RAF Regiment. Places will be made available to female candidates who can pass the requisite physical standards, which will be maintained as the same as for their male counterparts; that is important in maintaining confidence in the process. In addition, women will be allowed to apply for posts in the special forces, again entirely on merit, thus clearly demonstrating there are no longer any areas of the armed forces that are off-limits to female personnel.

The RAF Regiment was opened up to suitably qualified female candidates this September, and women will be able to take places in the Royal Armoured Corps and the infantry in 2018. It will take some time for the absolute number of women in ground close combat to build, but the opportunity should be used at an early stage, with exemplars, to demonstrate unequivocally that there are no longer any restrictions of opportunity for women serving in the armed forces.

The flexible engagement system, which we debated in the House on Monday evening and to which several Members have already referred, will positively affect the ability to attract and retain a diverse workforce. FES is designed to allow individuals to decide on their level of commitment, including opportunities for work in full-time and part-time capacities, with the current barriers between regular and reserve being reduced. That flexibility should be particularly helpful in assisting women to enjoy full careers in the armed forces over a period of time, while reducing concerns female recruits may have about the longevity and potential progression of their careers.

Overall, female recruitment—including representation at senior level—is starting to show real success, and this is one area where the Ministry of Defence can afford to be more ambitious. The 15% recruitment target by 2020 seems likely to be met and the Royal Air Force is already intending to raise its target to 20% by 2020. If the Department wants to continue the momentum that is currently being developed in this area across the three services, I believe it should set a new stretch goal of 20% of recruits being female by 2025. In addition, maximum publicity should be given to the introduction of women in ground close combat, to highlight that all areas of the armed forces are now open to female talent.

[Gareth Thomas]

Two years ago, the Government set up an armed forces credit union to help armed forces personnel on low pay who might be vulnerable to payday loan companies charging very high rates of interest. Two years on, the three armed forces credit unions are well-established, but could do with the MOD taking steps to advertise their services more widely. Given that 15 years ago the right hon. Gentleman showed a brief interest in co-operatives, may I encourage him to join me in encouraging the Minister to think through what else the MOD might do now to encourage awareness of that armed forces credit union among military personnel?

Future of RAF Northolt

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of RAF Northolt.

I want to ask the Minister a number of substantive questions about an issue of concern to many of my constituents. What are the Ministry of Defence’s ambitions for the future of RAF Northolt? Do Ministers envisage, as their consultants scoped out, that RAF Northolt could become an alternative to London City airport, in north-west London? When will local residents have the chance to be consulted about this airport’s future? Can the Minister confirm that RAF Northolt will be brought into line with civilian safety requirements as a result of the up to £45 million-worth of runway works planned for next year? Those substantive questions are exercising the minds of many of my constituents in Harrow on the Hill and in south Harrow who are directly under the flight path into RAF Northolt.

I should say at the outset that RAF Northolt has a very proud history in the defence of our nation, and local residents feel a unique affection for it. RAF Northolt is still the Queen’s airport, and the military squadron based there has played a crucial role in many of the conflicts in which British servicemen and women continue to play an important role.

However, it is clear that the important military function is dwindling at RAF Northolt. To those who live under its flight path, it is increasingly apparent that RAF Northolt is a commercial airport in all but name, and as a result it is having a major impact on local quality of life, with an increase in noise, concerns about safety and increasing concerns about the impact on air quality of all the extra flights.

I sought this debate specifically because the Ministry of Defence is about to undertake a £45 million renovation of RAF Northolt without any consultation with my constituents under the flight path or with other local residents. They are concerned that we might be about to see yet another escalation of commercial activity at RAF Northolt by the back door.

Official documents have revealed that RAF Northolt’s capacity could be up to 50,000 commercial flights a year, and regional airlines such as Flybe have been lobbying for access to use Northolt, so local residents’ concerns are legitimate and should be properly addressed by the Ministry of Defence. This is not “scaremongering”, as the Tory leader of Hillingdon Council recently put it.

The process of commercialisation at RAF Northolt started back in 2012, when Ministers decided to raise the annual limit for the number of commercial flights to 12,000 a year. Again, there was no direct consultation with local residents and certainly not with any of my constituents in Harrow who live under the flight path just 4 miles away. The Ministry of Defence did not even consult the then Conservative Mayor of London—now the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—who publicly opposed the plans on the grounds of air quality and traffic.

At about the same time, the Ministry of Defence commissioned a report by Ernst and Young to explore the commercial possibilities at Northolt. “Project Ark” laid out strategies to increase the number of commercial flights initially to 20,000 and ultimately to 50,000 a year, under a series of scenarios. It laid out a vision of Northolt as

“an alternative to London City Airport”

whose existing runway configuration could accommodate “small” types

“of regional jets (up to approximately 100 seats)”.

It also stated that Northolt could become

“the UK regions’ key access airport for…Heathrow.”

Perhaps the most concerning element of a linked report by Mott MacDonald involved the safety implications of expanding the number of commercial flights. Its work assessed whether Northolt would be eligible for a licence under Civil Aviation Authority regulations. Owing to a “substantial number of obstacles” on all runway approaches, it concluded that RAF Northolt “could not be licensed” by the CAA “in its current form.” Those obstacles, numbering in the hundreds, include the petrol station at the bottom of the runway, a three-storey block of flats nearby and the spire of St Mary’s church in Harrow on the Hill in my constituency.

The most serious safety flaws relate to the close proximity of Northolt’s runway to the A40 and surrounding homes and residents. Indeed, in 1996, a business jet overshot the runway and crashed through the barrier into oncoming traffic. The brutal truth, I am told, is that most aircraft accidents occur on either take-off or landing. That is why we have regulations insisting on minimum clearances between an aircraft and obstacles on the ground—so that if an aircraft does get into difficulty, it has every chance of clearing them and landing safely.

The report by Mott MacDonald stated that although some changes could be made, the permanent nature of the obstacles meant that Northolt would never be up to the safety standards required for civilian flights. It could not have been clearer in its recommendation: future expansion of commercial flights would not be allowable under CAA guidelines.

Despite the warning, commercial flights continue to operate from RAF Northolt every single day. I do not need to remind anyone of the consequences of an accident at Northolt, given the proximity of a petrol station, hundreds of homes and that major travel route, the A40. And surely I do not need to remind anyone of what happens when a public authority ignores repeated safety warnings. I want to put those safety concerns on the record and ask directly why Ministers, knowing what they have known since 2012, allow any commercial flights from RAF Northolt at all. The current Civil Aviation Authority line is basically to say that it is up to pilots to decide whether Northolt is safe. It is no wonder that the Ministry of Defence did not release either the “Project Ark” report or the Mott MacDonald report until 2015. Even now, parts remain redacted.

Now we are told that RAF Northolt will close for eight months next year for the runway to be resurfaced and safety changes to be made. Last year alone, there were more than 10,000 commercial flights, compared with just 3,800 military ones.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I apologise profusely to you, Mr Howarth, and to the Minister for not being able to stay to the end of the debate, as I have to be on the Front Bench in the main Chamber for Northern Ireland questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) talked about the history of RAF Northolt, which after all precedes and predates the existence of the RAF, but he did not mention the glorious history of the Polish squadrons there. In addition, you will know, Mr Howarth, as a former Northern Ireland Minister, about the secure transportation from RAF Northolt, not just for the Queen’s Flight but for ministerial flights. My constituents living in the Northolt area are horrified by the prospect of the skies darkening over UB5 and RAF Northolt becoming either a Heathrow hub or a “City Airport West”. Will my hon. Friend accept my assurance that my part of the world, which borders his, views the whole scheme with horror? We want to keep RAF Northolt and its history as it is.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I know that his constituency also has concerns about the future of RAF Northolt, and why shouldn’t it? There was a substantial increase in the number of commercial flights just five years ago. Now, Government-commissioned reports suggest a big increase to 50,000 commercial flights into RAF Northolt, and up to £45 million-worth of renovation works being done to the runway. It is not hard to understand why my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine are worried about where this is all leading.

When I first asked Minsters to reveal the cost of the renovation works at RAF Northolt, they refused to do so. That was despite the MOD revealing, in EU tender documents, a contract for the runway renovation works worth up to £45 million. I am no engineering expert, but that figure looks awfully high compared with the cost of resurfacing runways at similar sized airports. One thinks of the £21 million it cost to renew the runway at Manchester airport. Even RAF Waddington is managing it for some £35 million, albeit with a runway almost twice as long and a much longer projected shelf life.

I would like to ask the Minister for clarity on what the money—up to £45 million—is actually being spent on. Thus far, the official MOD line has been that it is installing modern safety equipment at the runway ends. To be fair, that was one of the recommendations of the “Project Ark” report. Can the Minister confirm whether that relates specifically to arrestor beds, and if so, whether EMAS—engineered materials arrestor system—beds will be installed. This is an important point, because EMAS beds are a necessary precondition for accepting larger jets. If arrestor beds of any type are to be installed, can the Minister confirm that that means that the Government have accepted that RAF Northolt falls short of civilian safety standards? If that is the case, what does the Minister intend to do about the petrol station nearby, identified by “Project Ark” as a significant safety risk?

The Ministry of Defence argues that it is financially prudent to use what it terms “irreducible spare capacity” at Northolt for commercial flights. In layman’s terms that means keeping RAF personnel busy with servicing commercial flights, given the relatively small number of military flights. If the Government are to spend £45 million on renovations, how do they intend to make that money back for the taxpayer? It is one thing generating revenue from the time paid for anyway; it is quite another making a new multimillion-pound investment, in these times of austerity, in order to generate further revenue. Can the Minister confirm how much revenue 12,000 commercial flights a year generate, and whether that will be enough to recoup the £45 million investment over a period of time? If that revenue is not enough to recoup the investment, will the number of commercial flights need to increase? Or does the MOD intend to increase the number of military flights—on which grounds public investment on this scale could, in my view, be justified?

Either way, my constituents and all those living near Northolt face a detrimental impact to their living standards. Surely the Government need to come clean on their long-term intentions for the airport’s future. As I understand it, the Ministry of Defence has also argued that the runway is too short for larger commercial jets. However, the “Project Ark” report directly contradicts that view, stating that the current runway can receive 100-seater jets of the type used by commercial airlines such as Flybe. Can the Minister confirm whether the runway, post-renovation, will still be a code 3 runway with a landing distance of 1,354 metres? Or will that configuration be changed? If so, in what way? Will the Minister also acknowledge that there is a difference between transcontinental airliners, which Northolt cannot accommodate, and regional jets, which it currently can? Fifty thousand flights of 100-seater aircraft are just as noisy and detrimental to air quality as a jumbo jet.

It is clear that at every turn the Government have sought to hide what is happening at Northolt from my constituents and those of other hon. Members, by using its military status as a smokescreen. That has meant a gradual worsening of quality of life and that an important discussion about safety has been swept under the carpet. The simple fact of the matter is that Northolt is no longer, in practical terms, a military airport. The vast majority of flights there are now commercial.

If this were any other airport, it would have to go through the planning system to make the kinds of changes we have seen over the past few years and that Ministers envisage over the next 12 months. It would also have had to carry out environmental impact assessments and consideration of noise controls. Again, the “Project Ark” report, commissioned by the MOD, confirms that, but RAF Northolt is not seeing any of those assessments, because it is designated under military airport regulations, as opposed to civilian airport regulations. In these circumstances, my constituents and other nearby residents have a right to be consulted on RAF Northolt’s future, before £45 million is spent on renovations, which would seem to continue the relentless march towards a full commercial operation at the Northolt aerodrome.

If all that is not enough, it appears that major regeneration projects are at risk because of questions about the future of RAF Northolt. The Ministry of Defence objected to the proposed redevelopment of the Grange Farm estate in my constituency—a project vital for creating more good quality social housing. To be fair, the MOD commissioned specialist aeronautical assessments, to verify the proposed effect of the redevelopment on RAF Northolt’s air traffic movements. Those assessments concluded that there would be no impact, yet the MOD has not withdrawn its objection to the Grange Farm redevelopment going ahead. Why not? That is the obvious question, and my constituents and council would like to know the answer. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a deputation from my local council, to discuss that specific concern about RAF Northolt?

In conclusion, it is time for some transparency about the future of RAF Northolt. If Ministers intend to extract greater commercial revenue from commercial flights at Northolt, that is clearly within their rights under current military aircraft regulations, but they should be open about that intention, and the people most affected in the area should have a say about the airport’s future. There should be a debate, not just in this House but in the communities affected. It is not right to continue to hide behind the military status of the airport, making small changes each time that in the long term add up to a significant change to the way in which RAF Northolt operates. I ask the Minister today to recognise those genuine concerns and grant my constituents and other nearby residents a full and open consultation on the future of RAF Northolt, before the runway redevelopment works commence.

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

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important debate, Mr Howarth; I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing it. I have prepared some remarks in response to where I think he would like me to go, but I will write to him in due course about a number of specific issues that he raised, if I do not cover them in my remarks today.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that transparency is very helpful. If consultations and studies are taking place, they have to go through the course of those actions before any results can come forward. Once those are there, they should absolutely be shared. I will be delighted to meet him and representatives of his council in due course, once he has taken stock of what I have to say today.

I begin, as the hon. Gentleman did, by paying tribute to those who are connected with RAF Northolt—the community around RAF Northolt, who for many years have been so supportive of the aerodrome, and the personnel of RAF Northolt. It is not just an aerodrome, but a vibrant, core military station, with over 1,800 personnel based across 33 diverse units, from all three of the armed services and wider Government. Alongside 32 (The Royal) Squadron undertaking VIP and operational command support flying, there are many other major units at the station in ground roles. An Army bomb disposal squadron, the British forces post office, the Service Prosecution Authority, an aeronautical publication and mapping centre, two RAF bands and an operational RAF regiment unit, which also encompasses the ceremonial Queen’s Colour Squadron, are all based at the aerodrome.

I turn to the aerodrome itself. As the hon. Member for Harrow West has highlighted, it is used and needed by the military every single day. It is true that for a number of decades it has been underutilised in that role. Since the 1980s, RAF Northolt has accepted up to 7,000 business aviation movements per year, but that was done under stringent terms and conditions to utilise the spare capacity. For that very reason, from 2011 to 2013 we conducted an extensive value-for-money evaluation of RAF Northolt’s future utilisation. Wide-ranging options were considered, including selling the aerodrome off as a civilian licensed airport, devising shared civilian and military usage to better maximise revenue, and retaining the aerodrome in military hands—although that would leave an irreducible spare capacity. I impress on the Chamber that those were simply options that were considered.

While the review was going on in 2012, the Ministry of Defence commissioned a series of reports under Project Ark and Project Noah. Those reports were not designed simply to open the floodgates—no pun intended—to civil movements at the station, but rather to analyse the various available options. Other evidence was also analysed. The benefit of spare military capacity at RAF Northolt’s aerodrome was ably demonstrated in 2012, when it played a vital role in the security of the London Olympics. RAF Typhoon and military helicopters were able to seamlessly deploy to the station as part of the multilayered deterrence and defence of Olympic sites. That could not have been achieved at a civilian-operated site.

[Gareth Thomas]

The Minister describes the work that the Ministry of Defence undertook between 2011 and 2013. Does he acknowledge that it was an error not to share that assessment with local residents, and not to involve them in a full consultation process about the decisions that the Ministry was weighing up?

[Mr Ellwood]

I am willing to meet councillors and other residents. I very much want to share the information we have, but we have to allow the Ministry of Defence to conduct its own studies in due course and share them as is deemed pertinent, as decisions and options are considered.

As I said, other evidence was analysed and the benefit of the aerodrome was demonstrated in its use during the Olympics, but military movements will always have priority at RAF Northolt. If necessary, civil business aviation movements can be fully stopped from using the station at any point. Ministers took those final decisions in the value-for-money review in 2013 and decided that the firm benefit was in retaining the aerodrome as a military aerodrome. It is still used by the military every day on vital operational tasks. We also retained the same stringent civilian operating terms and conditions, which exclude schedule airlines.

I make it clear that the whole review had nothing to do with Government options on the future of Heathrow; it was purely about the future of RAF Northolt. Our decision means that the aerodrome, although vital, will remain underutilised by the military for a large proportion of the time, but also that it has capacity to accept military contingency requirements that displace civil movements whenever required for the national benefit.

The review seeks to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used properly, so we still need value for money from that spare capacity when the military are not using the aerodrome. Further consideration was given to one “Project Ark” option that had the potential to increase civil use of the military aerodrome to up to 20,000 movements, to generate additional revenue from the underutilised spare capacity. That, in turn, would benefit taxpayers by offsetting the costs to the taxpaying public of the station’s military operation. However, Ministers took the final decision to increase the self-imposed cap on civil movements to only 12,000 movements per year. That was implemented in April 2013, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I firmly assure hon. Members that there are no plans to revisit that decision.

Following the review decision, the “Project Ark” report and other review documents were archived and the project’s other options remained hypothetical. I assure the hon. Gentleman and residents of the area that no current active planning is looking at any further changes to that 2013 decision about the cap or the operating terms and conditions. The unchanged, stringent terms and conditions that have been in place for civil movements for many years mean that in future we will not attract any aircraft larger than those that we have accepted for decades.

It was against these terms and conditions, which were reaffirmed in 2013, that Flybe made an unsolicited bid in 2015. No meetings about RAF Northolt have been held with any commercial airlines, but in late 2015 and early 2016, Ministers corresponded twice with the chief executive of Flybe to inform him that his bid was not being considered further.

The hon. Gentleman asked why there was no public consultation. In 2013, the decision was for a relatively modest increase; the terms and conditions of use remained unchanged, as I have stressed, and the existing infrastructure had the spare capacity to absorb the increase. No formal regulatory action was therefore required in any form, but the station did undertake extensive community engagement to keep residents informed once the decision had been taken. I will be delighted to continue that process, as the hon. Gentleman requests.

On the aviation regulatory and safety structure, the Military Aviation Authority is the single independent regulatory body for all defence aviation activity, and regulates Government aerodromes. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety regulation oversight of civil aviation activity at Government aerodromes and sets out the requirements for civil operators that wish to use them. The robust oversight relationship between both regulators is formalised in a memorandum of understanding that demonstrates constant dialogue and joint audit and assurance activity where appropriate.

There is close stakeholder engagement with the CAA on changes related to air safety that may have an impact on civil aviation operations at RAF Northolt and on the oversight of published aeronautical information pertaining to it. The memorandum of understanding is reviewed annually to ensure that the MAA and the CAA continue to employ robust oversight and assurance of civil aviation activity at all Government aerodromes.

The runway resurfacing project at RAF Northolt aims to make improvements as required to upgrade existing military runway end safety features and extend the life of the main runway pavement to between 10 and 15 years. This planned life cycle replacement works in line with the safety cases for the military aircraft that operate from the station. I repeat firmly that the aim is not to accept bigger commercial aircraft, but to ensure that the runway has the strength to accept the larger military aircraft that may be required to visit the station in future. Alongside the BAe 146 military airframes based there, a number of European allies operate medium-airliner-sized military aircraft into RAF Northolt on military business. The RAF C-17 and A400M Atlas are the largest types of aircraft that visit the station.

In conclusion, RAF Northolt remains a core station with many diverse units. The aerodrome is needed by the military every day and is valuable for contingency, as we saw during the Olympics and the Ebola outbreak. A decision on its future use was taken in 2013, and we will not revisit that decision. After the military runway works are complete and the runway reopens, nothing will have changed: the same stringent terms and conditions on civil movements that have been in place for many years and that were reaffirmed in 2013 will remain in place. The MAA and the CAA continue to employ robust oversight and assurance of civil aviation activity.

[Gareth Thomas]

Does the Minister recognise that despite his words, there will still be widespread concern about the scale and cost of the runway works, and about what they might mean for the future? Will he commit to consulting residents to explain what that money will achieve?

[Mr Ellwood]

I have only a short time left, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are comparing apples and pears. A runway’s length, thickness and usage and an aircraft’s heaviness all determine the total cost. I will write to him with more details.

Civil operating hours and numbers of passengers will remain limited, the movement cap of 12,000 that was set in 2013 will remain unchanged, and scheduled commercial operations will remain excluded. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and the communities he represents.

Question put and agreed to.

Military Covenant

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; he is absolutely right.

Lord Ashcroft was commissioned by the Prime Minister to undertake a review of the transition for veterans leaving the armed forces and entering the community. His report made two specific recommendations in relation to Northern Ireland. First, and significantly, he recommended amending section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act to enable service leavers and veterans to receive the recognition and provision they deserve. Again, we call Lord Ashcroft in aid of our argument that we need that legislation to be amended.

Secondly, Lord Ashcroft recommended that the Government should appoint a security-vetted armed forces champion in Northern Ireland to enable service leavers and veterans to claim entitlements without fear for their personal security. That remains an issue for many veterans, because in parts of Northern Ireland there is still a threat and they are still targeted by those elements in our society that do not support the peace process.

I hope that the Government will reflect on those recommendations. It is disappointing that the Cabinet Office response did not refer to either recommendation. I therefore call on Ministers today to reflect on the proposals to amend section 75 and to appoint an armed forces champion in Northern Ireland. Perhaps an armed forces champion could also serve on the reference committee that meets regularly to discuss implementation of the military covenant. Northern Ireland is not represented on that committee, because unfortunately there is one party at the Executive table that will not agree to the appointment of a military covenant representative.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s discussion of the potential role of an armed forces champion and wonder whether I can tempt him to suggest that the champion might also look at the potential for a military credit union for servicemen and their families, both in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. There has been some debate in the House on that prospect, so it would be useful to hear his view on it.

[Mr Donaldson]

We in Northern Ireland would be very keen to see such a facility made available to armed forces veterans and their families. Credit unions are very widely supported in Northern Ireland, and this would be of real benefit, so the armed forces champion might have a role in helping to take that forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

We are. Members will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has come to the Chamber specifically to listen to the debate. He has reminded me—I should have known this—that he has already visited Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is not in his place, but I remember him inviting me to Northern Ireland some time ago when I had a different ministerial role. I assume that that invitation still stands—his colleagues will no doubt ask him about that for me. I would be more than happy to come over—in fact, I would love to—and not only see the examples of which we have heard, but help in any way I can so that people in Northern Ireland understand what the covenant is all about.

[Mr Thomas]

After the hon. Lady has been to Northern Ireland, I wonder whether I could tempt her to go to Virginia in the United States and visit the home base of the Navy Federal credit union. It is the world’s biggest credit union and the only people who can join it are members of the US military and their families. Would that offer further motivation for the hon. Lady in her helpful conversations with civil servants at the Ministry of Defence about the possibility of a British military credit union?

[Anna Soubry]

I think that’s a bit off the motion, if I may say so, but, hey, it doesn’t matter: it’s always worth getting in a good point. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to speak to the noble Lord Kennedy, with whom I had a very good meeting recently, who will tell him that huge progress has been made on credit unions.

To return to the subject of the debate, we have ensured that war pensions and armed forces compensation payments for veterans are disregarded for the purposes of entitlement to benefits, and that the most seriously injured veterans receive a new independence payment so they are not affected by changes to the disability living allowance. Those are just some examples of the steps we have taken to support our armed forces community and ensure the Government are living up to the principles of the armed forces covenant. The 2014 armed forces covenant annual report, which will be laid before Parliament before Christmas, will provide further details on the work we have done and the progress that we have made, as well as on areas in which we need to do more.

In a devolved society, there will always be differences in service provision in different parts of the UK. Only yesterday I had the great pleasure of attending the Army Families Federation annual conference, at which several people made quite serious complaints about standards. For example, some of those from Wales complained about education and health in Wales, over which, unfortunately, I have no control whatever. We are aware that there are disparities in services, but I am afraid that that is often the consequence of devolution.

It is heartening that even with the different political and legal situation in Northern Ireland—as we have heard, such differences can make armed forces issues more challenging than elsewhere in the country—the armed forces covenant now extends to Northern Ireland almost in its entirety, notwithstanding the difficulties of councils not signing up. I must mention one of our concerns. We now know that all councils in Britain have signed up to the covenant, but the most important thing is for them to deliver on it. If I may say so, it is very easy for a council to sign up to it, put out a press release and get all the good publicity, but delivery is what is most important. We certainly take the view that there has been some good delivery in Northern Ireland.

Military Credit Union

Gareth Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan, for what I think is the first time. Given your past and present, you seem to be a particularly good choice of Chair for this debate, although I recognise that that will not save me if I deviate from the usual rules and conventions. In that spirit, I should say that I am one of 8 million ordinary members of the Co-op Group; I have accounts with Nationwide; I belong to the M for Money credit union in Harrow and the Rainbow Saver credit union; and I am privileged to chair the Co-op party and to be one of its MPs in the House.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the first two credit unions in the UK. Now would be a good time for the Government to facilitate the establishment of a new credit union for our soldiers, sailors, Air Force personnel and their families. Hornsey Co-operative credit union was one of those first two 50 years ago; it is now part of the London Capital credit union, which is directly taking on payday lenders throughout the capital, charging only £12 interest a month on a £400 loan, compared with the £120 charged by a typical payday lender for the same loan over the same period. That is one of many examples of how credit unions can offer a powerful alternative to payday lenders.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for the opportunity to press the case for the Government and the senior ranks of our armed forces to do more to facilitate access to a military credit union or to credit unions more generally, which can serve the needs of our armed forces personnel. Those personnel often face particular challenges in accessing financial services and sometimes have limited opportunity to develop financial management skills. In addition, as Lord Ashcroft has pointed out, transitions from military to civilian life are often hard and there is the potential for worry about debt to be a life-threatening distraction.

I hope that the Minister will commit to a feasibility study to establish a military credit union, to report by the end of the Parliament, and that he will say what he will do in the meantime to facilitate and encourage access to credit unions by members of our armed forces. I recognise and welcome the interest that a number of Ministers have shown in the idea of such a union, but I hope that this Minister will be able to do more than merely repeat interest and that he will demonstrate a more tangible commitment.

A credit union is a financial co-operative, which provides savings, loans and a range of other services to its members. It is owned and controlled by the members, and each member has one vote. Volunteer directors are elected from the membership of the credit union, by the membership. Credit unions are owned by their own users and not by external shareholders or investors, so the emphasis is always on providing the best service to members, rather than on maximising profits from their customers.

Such financial co-operatives exist throughout the world, as well as in the UK, and there are some 200 million members in 56,000 credit unions in more than 100 countries. Indeed, in the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland, more than a quarter of the population are credit union members. Such a target is achievable over time in the UK and, if 25% of the British population were members of a credit union, I suspect that payday loan firms would have fewer customers. More than 90% of the British population can join a credit union because of where they live, which is in no small part thanks to investment by the previous Labour Government, which, to be fair, is continued by the current Department for Work and Pensions credit union expansion plan.

I pay tribute to the many hundreds of volunteer board members and to the staff helping to drive a slow expansion in credit union members in the UK. I hope that the House will indulge me if I take the opportunity to praise Graham Tomlin of M for Money, which serves my constituency, and the board of the excellent Rainbow Saver credit union. I hope that the Government will do more to increase awareness of credit unions generally, but in particular among the military, because Whitehall, local government and housing associations could do much to make military personnel and others aware of the benefits of credit union membership. Crucially, credit unions, including any new military credit union that might be set up, are authorised and regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.

As I set out in my ten-minute rule Bill on the same subject last year, my inspiration is the success of Navy Federal in the United States, which since 1933 and its first seven members has grown to have almost 4,700,000 members, with $44.5 billion in assets. Based in Vienna in Virginia, it is the world’s largest credit union, with 220 branches and almost 9,000 employees. It offers savings accounts, car loans, credit cards, 24/7 telephone access, internet and mobile banking, budget counselling and more than 45,000 ATMs, among other services, to people as diverse as navy SEALs and army cooks.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the other services under that regime in the United States is insurance? That is incredibly attractive to service personnel, who recognise that they will get a very good insurance package if something terrible happens to them or their loved ones.

[Mr Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If I remember rightly, through a subsidiary Navy Federal offers specialist insurance services as well. In short, it offers highly competitive services to those who put themselves in harm’s way for the United States. It provides tailored services to military personnel, supporting their specific needs, including the commitment to cover pay during the threatened US Government shutdown last year. The president or chief executive of Navy Federal is not perhaps the most obvious missionary for co-operation. Cutler Dawson is a graduate of the US Naval academy and served for 35 years in the US navy. He ended up as a vice-admiral, commanding four ships—the Enterprise battle group—and was the commander of the US second fleet.

Other significant military credit unions in the US include the Air Force Federal credit union, which charges no fees on its regular savings and cheque accounts. It requires a minimum deposit of only $5 and, for example, offers 60-month car loans with an annual percentage rate, or APR, of only 1.6%. The Pentagon Federal credit union has 1.2 million members and $1.7 billion in assets. Australia, too, has a credit union for its service personnel; the Australian Defence credit union has been providing banking services to defence personnel and contractors, and their families, since as long ago as 1959. It now has 34 branches, assets approaching 1 billion Australian dollars and more than 47,000 members. Again, each member of that credit union has an equal say in how it operates.

Credit unions provide a responsible alternative for savings and loans and an inclusive service for all people, as well as being a crucial alternative to high-interest lenders. They are owned by their members and, because they have no external shareholders, they can offer competitive borrowing and savings rates.

I realise that establishing a new credit union dedicated to the military could take some time. It would involve some cost and, crucially, would not immediately be able to offer the lowest alternatives to payday loans that better capitalised and more well established credit unions are providing. I hope that, as well as committing to the specific feasibility study for a dedicated military credit union, the Minister will consider working with existing credit unions that may be able to offer our armed forces personnel access to the best credit union products and services straight away.

One such credit union, the Plane Saver credit union, has approached me directly and I believe it has written to the Secretary of State for Defence offering its services to do just what I have suggested. I am sure that other credit unions—and, indeed, the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd, the excellent trade body for the credit union movement—could help the MOD to think through how to provide more immediate access to the benefits of a credit union while cracking on with a feasibility study for a dedicated military credit union.

One crucial requirement if credit union services are to be accessible to our soldiers, airmen and women, and naval personnel, is for the Ministry of Defence to be able to put in place payroll deduction, just as payments are made directly from wages for all sorts of reasons already. It should surely be an employee’s right to be able to make payments from wages into their local credit union account. Many employers in other public services already allow that simple process, which in turn strengthens credit unions and helps to build their sustainability, enabling them to pass on to their members benefits in the form of better loan rates and dividends. ABCUL has said:

“Payroll deduction is an easy and convenient way for employees to get a savings habit and access affordable credit.”

There would be some additional work and, therefore, costs for the Ministry of Defence in running such a payroll deduction service. For example, regular payments and information and details of leavers, as well as of those joining the credit union, would need to be provided to the relevant credit union or unions in a timely manner, but payroll deductions are not a new concept and the MOD should be more than able to take that in its stride. Will the Minister set out whether he and the Secretary of State are willing in principle to allow payroll deduction for credit union membership? If not, will he say why?

Some of the many credit unions that already exist in Britain and internationally have strong links to particular groups of employees, as a new military credit union clearly would. That enables them to provide services to a range of employees, highly paid and lower paid, earlier or later in their careers, and allows the credit union to build a balanced portfolio for all. Such credit unions can offer extremely competitive terms. For example, the Police credit union serves a similar uniformed service and offers savings returns of 2.5% on instant access cash ISA accounts alongside small short-term loans at 25% APR or larger, longer-term loans from 4.3% APR. ABCUL tells me that similar examples exist in the passenger transport, airline, NHS and local government sectors.

Sadly, colleagues on both sides of the House will be aware of the many shocking statistics on the increasing use of payday loans in the UK. The Money Advice Service reported that some 1.2 million people took out payday loans to get through Christmas last year. The Debt Advice Foundation found that one in four people who took out payday loans did so to buy food or other essentials. Particularly worrying, perhaps, is that some 44% of people used payday loans to pay off other debts, thus sinking even further into the quicksand-like trap of ever-increasing debt.

Research from the Office of Fair Trading found that 50% of the industry’s profits come from refinancing, with those who take loans out repeatedly creating the largest return for the industry’s big boys. Some 19% of the industry’s profits came from just 5% of loans that were rolled over four times or more. That is a growing problem. Research from Citizens Advice shows that in just two years there has been a fourfold rise in the number of people seeking its advice with debt problems as a result of taking out payday loans.

Last year, I spoke to the chief executives of several Citizens Advice branches located close to military bases, and they said a pattern was clear. Soldiers and sailors were facing real financial difficulties because they had taken out one payday loan for a small sum and soon found themselves in ever deeper problems as one loan became two, two became three, and the interest mounted up and up.

The problem is clearly not limited to armed forces personnel—far from it. R3, the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, is the body representing insolvency practitioners, and published data in December 2013 showing that some 47% of British adults are worried about their debt levels, with 44% struggling to make it to pay day. Interestingly, R3’s research found that 71% of British adults blame the rising cost of living for their struggle to make it to pay day, but I digress.

Payday loans are a real and growing problem for our armed forces. The Royal British Legion published research warning that one third of all of the debt problems it deals with relate to people struggling with payday-style unsecured loans. In 2011, its money and benefit advice service was helping 11,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen with debt problems. That is a huge increase from when the service started back in 2007, when it helped just over 2,000 people. ABF, the soldiers’ charity—formerly the Army Benevolent Fund—does important work in many of our constituencies and has said that it gives half the money it raises directly to individuals to help in areas such as debt relief. That figure is remarkable by any definition.

There is a real problem. Payday lenders should have to signpost those taking out payday loans to debt management services, a little like cigarette packets having to carry health warnings. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out some steps we should take to tackle the damage done by payday loans. Some lenders make as much as £1 million a week in profit, and he has called for a levy on the profits of payday loan companies to raise capital for alternative and affordable sources of credit such as credit unions. That could raise an additional £13 million, allowing credit unions to offer more financial support to people in need of credit. Perhaps a little of that sum could be used to help to develop a credit union for military personnel if the Government were so minded.

My right hon. Friend made clear his support for the banning of payday loan adverts during children’s TV programmes, which would be a very sensible step forward. Just as importantly, he set out how he would take steps to allow local councils to decide whether they want to place some premises in a separate planning category, giving communities more control over payday loan outlets in their high streets. Sadly, many local authorities and communities feel increasingly powerless to shape their town centres or do anything to halt the tide of payday loan firms. We want to change that.

I understand that there is cross-party support for a payday loan charter setting out what effective regulation of payday lenders and high-cost credit might look like. Such a charter could call for better affordability checks, a crackdown on advertising, and real-time data sharing within the industry so that lenders can check whether a borrower already has other plans. A military credit union could support such initiatives.

I welcome the written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison):

“Although commanding officers retain discretion to decide which advertisements are appropriate for their bases, guidance has been issued to each of the services that advertisements from payday loan companies should not be carried in their internal publications.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 124, c. 63W.]

That guidance was given once it was brought to the MOD’s attention that payday loan companies were seeking to entice people to their products; soldiers and sailors in particular were being targeted rigorously using military publications. Payday loan companies that were particularly targeting our soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel include Forces Loans, which claims to be the No. 1 lender to the military. Its loans are currently being advertised with an APR of 3,351%. Another company, QuickQuid, regularly advertises on the apparently popular militaryforums.co.uk with a rate of 1,362% APR.

A quick search online will find other examples of companies that have sponsored links to forces sites or to information that forces personnel can easily get access to: 1st Stop charges nearly 2,000% APR; Quids Today charges more than 2,000% APR; and The Money Shop charges nearly 3,000% APR—I could go on. A quick check of payday loans widely available online shows loans available at APRs ranging from nearly 900% to more than 7,000%. A military credit union could, over the medium to long term, provide a powerful competitive financial services offer to those who put their lives on the line for us, in ways that best meet their particular needs.

Let me underline the questions that I hope the Minister will answer today. Will he undertake a feasibility study into the establishment of a dedicated military credit union? Will he ensure that that feasibility study reports by the end of this Parliament? In the short term, other credit unions could help to offer such services now, with positive support from the Ministry of Defence. Will the Minister commit to meet ABCUL, credit unions such as Plane Saver and possibly me to discuss how that might happen?

Will the Minister commit now to the principle of payroll deduction to help any member of the armed forces or supporting staff to join a credit union more easily if they want to? Will he encourage military publications to carry adverts for credit unions that armed forces personnel can join? Will he support an explicit ban on payday lenders advertising in military bases? Will he consider discussing with other ministerial colleagues a requirement on high-cost lenders, such as payday lenders, to signpost their borrowers towards free debt management advice services?

Credit unions have a long history. They are increasingly building capacity and membership. They are a powerful demonstration of the values of co-operation: working with others to help oneself; giving equal voting rights and an equal say in the running of a business; and being committed to a fair distribution of any profits or surplus in the form of better, cheaper services. Sadly, no such clear, distinct service exists for our armed forces, and I gently encourage the Minister to back our campaign for a military credit union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

I think she is indicating that she did not mean that, and I am pleased to hear that, because there is no reason for it.

Citizens Advice has said that it is dealing with a significant number of cases of service personnel and their families who get into difficulty with debts at high interest rates owed to payday lenders. Those lenders appear to be specifically targeting the armed forces because some personnel have problems with credit ratings. The hon. Members for Harrow West and for West Dunbartonshire both mentioned some of those payday lender adverts, and the extortionate rates of interest that they charge. I searched the internet to see what claims those companies make. Entering “armed forces loans” into the search engine generates a list of companies promising no credit checks, rapid payment and 100% satisfaction. One website even depicts a smiling soldier in uniform giving a thumbs-up in front of the Union flag, with the claim that it is the

“Number One lender to the military”.

[Mr Thomas]

The Minister accused me of persistence, so as he is five minutes into what is, to be fair, a very interesting speech, will he tell me whether he will support a feasibility study on payroll deduction, and meet me to discuss how we might get quicker access to credit union products for armed forces personnel?

[Mr Dunne]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to want to bring the debate to a premature conclusion. We have plenty of time left, and I am sure, given that he called the debate, he would like to use as much of it as possible. He already asked that question in his remarks, and I hope to deal comprehensively with all his questions before the debate finishes.

I referred to the website because of the impression that may advertently or inadvertently be given that websites directed at the armed forces carry some endorsement from the armed forces. That could not be further from the truth, but it highlights the risks for the Ministry and the service branches in any involvement in the provision of financial products, should personnel or their families get the impression that the military was endorsing a particular product. Such a financial product would carry the same kinds of risk as any other regulated entity, and we take that seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dunne]

The Government are keen to support the development of credit unions but we are not keen to be the operator. The funding is available to provide support. I am not familiar with all the detail about what the DWP funding has provided, but I can certainly look into that matter and write to the hon. Lady if she would like clarification. Nevertheless, as far as I am aware, it is not the business of the DWP to establish credit unions. I think that it is providing support for existing or start-up unions being established around the country on an initial basis, effectively like providing start-up funding for a business.

[Mr Thomas]

Of course the Minister is right that one would not want a military credit union to be run by the Secretary of State for Defence, or even by a talented junior Minister such as himself; one would want it to be run by its members. However, what the Ministry of Defence could do is help to facilitate the establishment of such a credit union and a feasibility study that was specifically focused on what role the MOD might play to help to achieve that objective.

[Mr Dunne]

Indeed, and not for the first time the hon. Gentleman is pre-empting just what I am coming to in my remarks; he is very prescient.

It is important that any organisation that undertakes the establishment of a credit union does so with its eyes wide open and is aware of the risks that might be involved. From our perspective, in the event that we were to provide support for an organisation, we have some responsibility for the savings of service personnel, to ensure that those savings are in an environment where they will be properly stewarded, managed and regulated. That said, we are minded to support any suitable organisation with the wherewithal to put in place a credit union to support the men and women who serve in our armed forces.

To that end, I will update the House on where the Department has got to in the discussions that were identified by the hon. Gentleman in his remarks. The Department has already brought together relevant parties to form a working group to look at precisely this issue. It includes the DWP, the Treasury and the Association of British Credit Unions Limited, as well as service charities such as the Royal British Legion and the three service benevolent funds. A number of those stakeholders were present at meetings hosted in January and February by the MOD. There was broad support for the credit union concept and a number of parties expressed their willingness to become involved, but unfortunately at that time none of the individual charities stepped forward to take the lead. Subsequent to those meetings, however, we have had further approaches from some of those organisations that attended them. ABCUL, which was referred to earlier, has been in touch and it has indicated that it is keen to take these discussions forward. We, too, stand absolutely ready to do so.

The hon. Gentleman has asked repeatedly about the prospect of the MOD funding a feasibility study into a military credit union. We are of a mind to support one or more organisations that wish to take the lead in investigating the feasibility of a credit union, but we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to take the lead. As and when an organisation steps forward, we are willing to work with it on how we can best support the establishment of a credit union, but we think that actually establishing a credit union would be best done by an organisation that is already one of those we have been talking to and that is already embedded with relationships with service personnel and their families.

[Mr Thomas]

I want to understand exactly the Minister’s point. If a charity or a credit union were to come forward saying that it believes it has the capacity or interest to provide such a dedicated military credit union and to get it up and running, would there potentially be the prospect of support in financial terms as well as in the crucial area of payroll deduction for a military credit union?

[Mr Dunne]

I am not in a position to commit the Ministry’s budget here and now. What I am willing to do, as I think I have already indicated, is to offer further support to explore the possibility of establishing a military credit union. If an existing credit union felt that it had the resources and the experience to bring to bear, that would be a very positive development; equally, if an existing service charity felt that this was an area that it wished to explore, that would also be very welcome. I am not closing the door to providing assistance for a feasibility study, but I will not commit at this point to conduct one without knowing to whom I might be making such a commitment.

[Mr Dunne]

The subject of payroll deduction has been raised by a number of hon. Members. We make payroll deductions in certain areas. Insurance services were specifically mentioned as possible services for a credit union to provide and it was said that a payroll deduction might be a way of helping to fund insurance premiums. We already make such deductions for armed forces personnel. We have a payroll deduction scheme that is financially supported by the Government, over and above our merely facilitating contribution payments. That is to ensure that life insurance is available to armed forces personnel who are on operations, irrespective of their role. That is a specific product that is funded through payroll deduction.

[Mr Thomas]

I am grateful to the Minister for what he just said on that subject. However, may I specifically ask him whether the MOD now accepts that if there were a credit union that it had confidence in regarding the ability to provide financial services to armed forces personnel, it would be willing to facilitate payroll deduction for members of the armed forces to join, contribute to and pay into such a specific military credit union?

[Mr Dunne]

Again, we are talking about quite a number of hypothetical steps here. I am certainly willing to say that if we get into discussions with a serious, credible entity that is willing to establish a credit union, we can consider the possibility of payroll deductions as one means of providing either interest payments or investment through the union’s savings products. However, in the absence of knowing which party we would be dealing with and the suitable structures that would be placed around it, I cannot commit to do that.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that military payrolls are not a uniform or simple thing. The issue strays rather beyond my departmental responsibilities, so for me to commit other Ministers and other elements of the Department to things about which I am not expert would be career-inhibiting. I will not do that, but I certainly undertake that, if we pursue discussions with the credit union, the issue can be on the agenda.

[Mr Thomas]

I would not want to limit the Minister’s career in any way, given how helpful he has been in this debate. On payroll deduction, I gently suggest to him that the NHS has some equally complex systems, and many parts of the NHS are able to do it. My last specific question is whether he is willing to commit to asking the relevant Minister—I appreciate that he is filling in today—to meet ABCUL, Plane Saver and me. Those organisations think they might be in a position to offer a credit union service now, before a dedicated military credit union is established.

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman referred to Plane Saver before, and I am not aware that it has directly approached us. We have clearly had an approach from ABCUL. It participated in meetings earlier this year and wrote again last week, perhaps prompted by sight of this debate. I am confident that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for defence personnel, welfare and veterans, would be willing to meet the hon. Gentleman and ABCUL. If he wanted to bring Plane Saver along, it would be welcome, too.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions about the promotion of credit unions within military publications. Were the credit union to be established with support from the military, it would be more than welcome to take space in the military publications. I cannot, however, commit to the charging basis on which that space would be available; that would be a matter for the normal procedures for each publication. He asked whether we could institute a ban on payday lenders advertising in military publications. This Government are not in the business of prohibiting freedom of speech. Payday lenders might be unethical, but they are not unlawful, so we should not ban their adverts. We should, however, look to support the credit union going forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked whether we could underwrite a scheme, but I have to disappoint him. The Ministry of Defence budget might appear to be large, but it appears from the inside to be somewhat constrained. We have to devote our budget to our front-line duty, which is protecting the nation. We are willing to provide opportunities to access military publications and that kind of thing, but we are not in a position to underwrite a financial offering to our personnel.