Search

Far too many residents in Gloucester tell me about persistent antisocial behaviour in the city centre, and they are fed up with it. We are seeing a situation where people get off the bus and are immediately confronted by street drinkers, and the local corner shop is selling alcohol to them when they can barely stand up. The police are doing what they can but, given the challenges facing Gloucestershire constabulary, can the Minister outline what more can be done to tackle the antisocial behaviour blighting our city centre?

Illegal car cruising is a real blight on communities, causing noise pollution and terrifying local communities, including pedestrians and legal road users alike, on private and public roads. Will the Minister look again at the legislation to see whether this particular crime—it is a crime—can be penalised in a different way? At the moment, the generic legislation for antisocial behaviour is not catching enough people and is not a deterrent.

Too often, antisocial behaviour on our streets comes with a racist edge, and tackling it starts with naming it, something that shamefully the wannabe Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—I have informed him that I would be referring to him—could not do this weekend when asked whether calling the Leader of the Opposition a “Nigerian scammer” is racist. Will the Minister say what he could not, and outline what the Government are doing to tackle racist antisocial behaviour?

I thank my hon. Friend the Policing Minister for her visit to Coventry last month to see the brilliant work done by the Labour council’s trading standards officers, in partnership with Coventry police, to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour on Foleshill Road, and the public spaces protection order for Edgwick Park, which has cleared that park, which is next to a school, of the drug dealers who used to blight it. Will she say what more respect orders can do to tackle this level of low but persistent antisocial behaviour that blights our streets?

9. What progress she has made on reforming the police funding formula.

I thank the Minister for that response. I want more funding for policing, as well as the fairer allocation of it, to tackle the issues blighting Bournemouth, whether illegal e-bike use or ketamine use. I thank the Minister for agreeing, in writing today, to meet constituents whose lives have been deeply affected by that drug. I understand why police reform and funding formula reform go hand in glove, but can I urge the Minister, as we move forward with those reforms, to do everything she can to minimise the number of consultations needed to achieve fairer funding for Dorset? The longer we have to wait, the longer Dorset is at a disadvantage.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is clear that, despite recent welcome funding increases from the Government to the capital city grant, to be able to police protests and events in London he has two pretty invidious choices on his hands: he either has to take police officers out of constituencies like mine—and the Policing Minister’s—to police those protests and events, or he has to cut back on just-in-case police officers, so there is a huge risk if an event flairs up. Which does the Policing Minister think is the better option?

In recent years shoplifting has become an increasing issue for many of the high streets in my constituency, and our shop workers are having to deal with increasingly frightening and dangerous situations. In the light of that, we look forward to seeing meaningful progress towards the Government’s ambitious targets for the expansion of neighbourhood policing. What practical steps are the Government taking to boost local police numbers and neighbourhood policing in the Bristol area?

Cheshire constabulary was named the best police force in England and Wales for the highest charge rates for crimes against women and girls—specifically, sexual offences, violence against the person, stalking and harassment. The chief constable, under whose leadership this has happened, is retiring next week. Will the Minister join me and fellow Cheshire MPs in congratulating him on his dedicated life of service, and is she, like me, surprised that the police and crime commissioner for Cheshire did not seek to extend the chief constable’s tenure when he offered to remain in service?

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Many of my constituents have raised the issue of antisocial behaviour and dangerous riding by people on e-bikes, particularly in Southwick, Shoreham and Lancing. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to crack down on such behaviour, which is blighting the lives of many people in my constituency?

The Home Secretary is clearly not standing by her own plans. Several times this year, the Home Secretary has used her power to prevent entry into the United Kingdom on the basis of individuals’ views, including people opposing mass migration. I recently asked her to prevent entry by Randa Abdel-Fattah, who planned talks around the anniversary of the 7 October massacre. Abdel-Fattah has glorified terrorism and said that massacre was “exhilarating”. Is it not shameful that the Home Secretary allowed this antisemitic supporter of terrorism into our country, where she likely radicalised our citizens?

When the Minister announced new refugee pathways in September, we were told that Afghan women and girls would be prioritised. I have since received correspondence that says there will be no prioritisation. Can we get clarity on what is correct?

There is wide consensus across the House on the need to tackle modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 went a long way towards doing that, but fails to have any real teeth to stop slave-produced goods being sold in this country. The Immigration and Asylum Bill presents this House with an opportunity to give that Act some real teeth. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister sit down with me to discuss the options to give that Act teeth?

The Home Secretary talked positively about reducing the number of illegal migrants coming in by small boats. Could I ask her, though, what actual steps the Government are taking to thwart illegal migration to the United Kingdom across the open border from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?

I thank the Minister for the briefing she gave last week to me and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and for early sight of her statement. I note that it arrived in unusually good time and hope that other ministerial offices will learn from her good example. The latest figures in the Government’s 5 October update are deeply concerning. As of the end of last month, more than 1,900 cases in four priority categories were more than 100 days old. Of those, just over 1,500 were labelled non-workable, with a further two death-in-service cases in data triage. That includes 1,049 bereavement cases and eight ill-health retirement cases, all classified as non-workable. That is not acceptable. Recent reporting also raised the prospect of bereaved families facing severe tax consequences because of delays to death-in-service benefits. Reports have suggested that the Government plan to make those bereaved families claw back this money via the Pensions Ombudsman, rather than preventing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from taxing delayed claims. To make matters worse, the Pensions Ombudsman itself estimates an 18-month wait to resolve cases. Will the Minister reassure the House and all those watching outside that this is not the case and that bereaved families will not have to proactively claw back that tax? The Minister mentioned the delivery of surgeries to many Members of this House. Last month, my casework team had a surgery with a member of Capita staff. They were expecting to come away with updates to pass on to affected constituents, but for all the cases that were discussed, there were no updates whatsoever, leaving them feeling that the surgery was a total waste of time. I know that other hon. Members have reported similar experiences. What hope do affected constituents have when reaching out to Capita if it is prepared to tell our teams that nothing has been done on their cases? The warnings about Capita were there in black and white, and not only from earlier this year, as the Minister suggested. The contract of Capita’s predecessor, MyCSP, was extended to December 2025 to allow a two-year transition nearly 18 months of which was under the current Government. There were several milestones during those 18 months that Capita failed, but the new Government chose not to act. The National Audit Office’s June 2025 report identified many missed milestones and risks around operational readiness and data transfer. The Public Accounts Committee subsequently warned of further missed milestones and the need for contingency plans, but still the new Government chose to allow the new contract to go ahead and gave it that final go-ahead. Issues with Capita have been reported across several Government contracts. Under the new provisions in the Procurement Act 2023, the Government could refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation to prevent it from winning further similar contracts. Does the Minister plan to do so? The people affected by these failings did everything asked of them. They paid into the scheme, and they served this country as civil servants. They should not have to chase their own pensions, borrow for basic bills or wait months for basic updates. I ask the Minister to give the House clear deadlines and to set out how every affected member will receive their payments, and to explain why she is so confident that the assurances that Capita now gives her will deliver results when the assurances of improvements so repeatedly given to this House by her predecessor have amounted to so very little for those retired public servants, who cannot wait any longer. Finally, I agree with the Minister that Capita should be made to put things right. Cancelling the contract would result in more disruption, but surely there is only so long for which she will put up with failed targets and broken promises of improvements, so what preparations and contingencies will her Department put in place if it is necessary to cancel this contract, and what criteria will she use for deciding when we reach that point?

I thank the Minister for initiating this statement on civil service pensions and for her strong commitment to hold Capita to account, because we are still getting no updates or progress even on the cases that we were told were a priority, particularly those relating to the bereaved. I know she knows the hardship and anxiety this is causing out there, so in the short term will she push those priority cases harder? I join other hon. Members in supporting her to sort this out.

I recognise the Minister’s efforts to resolve this issue, and I am grateful to her for meeting me recently, but far too often, Capita remains completely unresponsive. Sadly, trying to get an appointment at the MPs’ surgeries is proving very difficult. Last week, I wrote to her about four outstanding cases in my constituency. Will she commit personally to reviewing those cases and securing me a detailed update, so that my constituents know what to expect and when to expect it, and when they will get the money that they are owed?

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and for the briefing last week. Since the last ministerial statement in July, Capita is reported to have met its own September target on priority cases, but as the Minister has said, that does not match lived experience and hon. Members have heard promises of improvement before. Capita missed both its April and June targets, and months later it is being propped up by a Cabinet Office taskforce. I welcome the news from the Minister that Capita is improving its technology, and I am glad that it has been deploying additional resources to support improvements to its dashboard so that it can get through more cases. Time will show us if that work actually results in Capita working through its backlog—there are still too many people across the country waiting. My constituent, Diane, who lives in Offerton, applied for retirement at the end of August last year. She finally received her formal quote this month—a full 14 months after applying. It was a whopping £14,000 less than she was informally quoted, which may well have changed her decision to retire had the quote been received in a reasonable timeframe. There are 1.7 million current and former civil servants who simply want to know that their pension will be handled competently, fairly and with dignity. I heard the Minister’s statement on holding Capita to account, but will she say, in terms that our constituents will relate to, exactly how she is planning to do that and what the impact will be on families around the country? I note the Minister’s comment on debarment, but, given the absolute shambles Capita has made of this situation, can she truly say that she would be happy for it to bid for future Government contracts? Will the Government finally commit to inflation-linking payments for all outstanding cases in order to ensure that those affected by Capita’s mistakes do not pay even more for Capita’s delays?

I have no doubt that Members across the Chamber have an extremely regrettable constituency postbag on this issue, as I do. I thank the Minister for her statement. I do not plan to rehearse the cases that I have seen, but, needless to say, they are all marked by the fact that timescales seem to be ignored, while people are being left in financial hardship. People are finding it very hard to understand why this is the case with a Government body—or, at least, with a body that they think is a Government body. How long will Capita have to deliver on the latest rectification plan, and how will the Minister judge it on that plan? Does she have a timeframe for all that work?

I thank the Minister for her statement, but the situation is worse than she has outlined. We have had four PAC inquiries into Capita’s administration scheme this year, and it has missed virtually every single one of the deadlines that it set out in each of those hearings. The latest revelation I have discovered is that if Capita does not pay out the lump-sum payment due to bereaved relatives within two years, those relatives will have to pay tax at the highest rate. I wrote to the Minister about that issue; she very kindly replied and had a meeting with me, and she told me that there were not likely to be more than 10 such cases. I find that improbable, given that the scheme has 1.7 million members. Indeed, The Guardian has published an article saying that 1,600 members have been waiting for over 100 days, so it is likely that many of these people will get up to the two-year deadline. Can she guarantee to the House today that she will either enforce Capita paying compensation for any lost money, or change the law so that none of the people in that very vulnerable position, waiting for their payment, will be worrying about whether they will pay tax?

I am the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. I think we all appreciate that my hon. Friend has inherited a scandal, and I thank her for the access that she has given to the unions and for working with them closely. In her statement, she mentioned the independent audit report. Will the Grant Thornton report be published and, if so, when? The trade unions are willing to work with the Minister on bringing this service in-house—first the front operations, then eventually the computer systems—in a gradual but, I hope, fast way. Let me ask her this. The Government went ahead and outsourced to Capita the payment of salaries in three Government Departments under the Synergy contact. If there is any delay in wage payments at all, will that contract be brought in-house immediately?

Like many MPs across the House, I have a number of constituents who have been affected by this issue. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response, but there is an issue that concerns me more than anything. When the procurement process happens, it seems that officials come to us and assure us that a series of decision points have been gone through, and that the options before us are the best ones available—as a former Minister, I recognise that. However, when these things go wrong, nobody is individually accountable. What would the Minister say to our constituents, who are alarmed at the fact that nobody is apparently responsible for such a dire outcome?

The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) says that people should be held accountable for their actions, but let us remember that the Conservatives allocated this contract to Capita, knowing that it was a recidivist, continually breaking contracts that had been outsourced. It is totally unacceptable that a woman living in Upton in my constituency who gave 40 years of her life to public service has been left with no response from Capita for over 300 days since we contacted them. Since then, she was diagnosed with cancer. We can imagine the problems that people affected by this issue face in any event; pile on the problems that she has with illness, and we can imagine the personal anguish. Has the Minister been able to establish whether Capita is in breach of contract? Finally, let me say this: bring it back in house.

I thank the Minister for her statement. I, too, am on the Public Accounts Committee, and as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) mentioned, we have done our best to get reasonable responses from Capita. My constituent Jane has been failed time and again by Capita; there has been a five-year delay to her pension payments, poor communication, an unexplained suspension of her pension, and now an outrageous demand that she repay £8,000 because of Capita’s mistake, not hers. Will the Minister condemn that treatment and reassure my constituent that the Government will ensure that she is treated fairly following those serious errors? Will they ensure that Capita, as a contractor acting on behalf of the state, is properly held to account for its failures? That has not happened so far.

As the Public Accounts Committee Chair said, we have had Capita before the Committee on many occasions. In all my time in the House, I do not think I have seen a worse example of incompetence, failure to deliver to deadlines, and a company seemingly just not caring about its effects on people and the distress it is causing. Every time Capita’s representatives come along, I simply do not believe a word they say. Does the Minister really have any confidence, even with all the guardrails that she is putting in place and all the connections to the Cabinet Office, that Capita is capable of delivering a scheme that actually works and delivers pensions on time? Secondly, I congratulate the Minister on what she said about looking into bringing the scheme in house; it is a pity the previous Government did not think about that before they let the contract. Will she commit to updating the House regularly on how far she is progressing with those possibilities? In the end, bringing the contract back in house may be the only option for giving pensioners a proper scheme, given Capita’s failures.

Only on Friday, I spoke to a constituent who gave notice of retirement in March and still has not had his pensions quote. I commend the Minister very much on the very hard work she put in over the summer, after the actions I took and the statement that I made to the House in July. Looking to the future of the scheme, can she assure me that she will direct officials to do the preparatory work to make sure that the different insourcing options are viable ones that we can put to the House?

I thank the Minister for her update. I appreciate the focus on complex cases—Members across the House are dealing with many of them—but can I ask that she also looks at the paid-for fast-track services? I have a constituent who paid almost £700 for a pension valuation in order to finalise his divorce. It was expected within 10 working days, but it took nine months; the wait cost him several times the original amount. Does the Minister agree that that is entirely unacceptable? What action will she take to ensure that Capita refunds any payments taken for so-called fast-track services that are nothing of the kind?

My constituents will welcome the robust tone of the Minister’s statement, but what difference will this make for constituents such as John Carroll from Annan, who worked at Dumfries prison and who has been waiting since February to hear anything meaningful from Capita? What difference will it make to the likelihood of a response?

Communications with Capita did get better for a time, but I am afraid they have dropped off a bit now. Let me share with the House the sad case of a constituent who came to us in May 2026. She had spent two hours on the phone to Capita; she could not get through, and she had two pensions unpaid. She had retired from the Department for Work and Pensions with breast cancer. In June, she was contacted by another scheme member—a completely different person—who said that on two occasions, she had been sent my constituent’s details, both the annual benefit statement and some other details about the scheme, which was an appalling breach of GDPR. Can the Minister please help me to resolve that case, as it is still outstanding, and will she consider compensation for those who have waited for more than two years, and from whom I have many emails in my inbox?

A constituent of mine from Somerton applied for retirement nearly a year ago, but has had to withdraw her application twice because she has not received her pension quotation, and she obviously cannot afford to retire with no income. My caseworkers have been attending the fortnightly casework meetings regularly, but there has been no resolution of this issue and many others like it. If neither Capita or the Cabinet Office can resolve my constituent’s problem, will the Minister intervene personally and tell my constituent when she will finally be paid?

I have raised in the Chamber previously the appalling delays that my constituents are experiencing in gaining access to their civil service pensions. Those delays continue. Another problem they are experiencing is that if they do not agree with the amount that they receive when they finally receive it, there is no response to their concerns from Capita and, indeed, no response to my correspondence on their behalf. Will the Minister raise with Capita the need for it to respond, as a matter of urgency, to my constituents who are receiving lower amounts than they expected, and to make corrections where necessary?

Let us not sugar-coat this: the contract has been a complete flop. Yes, it was awarded under a past Government, but now it is under the current Government—but of course the Prime Minister is setting the standard of not playing the blame game, although I have heard a lot of that today. What my constituents want to hear is when this will be sorted out. Ministers have talked about a recovery plan in April—fail. They talked about a recovery plan in June—fail. They talked about a recovery plan in September —fail. There has been failure after failure after failure. Will the Minister answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), and tell us whether Capita will be given any other Government contracts? Will my constituents be compensated? This Government wanted to be in government, so now that they are, may I ask when the Minister and the Government will take responsibility for this, take control of the contract, and get it sorted out, because my constituents are suffering?

I declare an interest, as I hold a civil service pension. I thank the Minister for her statement. Like other Members of the House, I have a number of constituents who provided years of service in the civil service. They have retired yet have had to wait months to be paid. Could the Minister say more about the pressure she is putting on Capita and the options for taking the whole matter in-house?

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have constituents who have not had their pensions paid. In the worst case, a constituent has waited for 11 months without a pension. My question is twofold. First, what compensation will the Minister force Crapita—sorry, Capita—to pay those constituents who have missed out? Secondly, there are tax implications for the sequencing of payments, so payments can fall in different tax years, among other things. Will that all be squared away with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that our constituents do not overpay tax?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting a grip of this issue. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and, as we have heard, we have had repeated undertakings from Capita that improvements were imminent. Despite that, many of my constituents are still waiting for quotes and pension payments. The Minister has set out clearly that Cabinet Office officials are effectively taking over the delivery from Capita. Does she agree that this is a shambles and that Capita should pay for its failures?

Like many other MPs, I am still being contacted by constituents about their civil service pensions and the unacceptable delays. It is deeply concerning that my constituent Julie, who retired from the civil service in February, had her pension finalised only in September, and these delays are causing huge distress and financial hardship. If we are going to pay compensation, should it not be paid by Capita, not from any pension pot, and will that be done without having to navigate any lengthy or tiresome claims process?

In North East Fife, civil service pension delays are not the only issue. I have previously spoken in this House of the “Jobs Forgotten” campaign for retired former police officers who are dealing with the failings of the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, so I found the comments from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) interesting. My question to the Minister is this: one of the things my office is finding is that, just as they manage to sort out somebody’s case, a new one comes in, so I appreciate the interest and focus on complex cases, but are we not just firefighting if we are not stopping new cases emerging in the first instance?