What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
No, it is not acceptable, and if the hon. Member flags that case with me, I will ensure that it is chased. I will not make excuses for Capita’s poor performance; it is accountable for its performance, and frankly it should be ashamed.
I hope that Capita is listening to the pain and hardship that it has caused so many thousands of dedicated public servants up and down this country. The new rectification plan that is being done with Cabinet Office officials means that we should hopefully see some improvement. We will be monitoring that on a fortnightly basis, since Capita will now be publishing the numbers. I will keep a close eye on that and ensure that the House is updated.
I myself was not confident in the numbers previously given by Capita, as I said to its face after 1 September, when it claimed to have met its self-imposed deadline, which did not reflect the experience of scheme members. We have today heard about cases that should have been resolved by that deadline, but which clearly were not. I agree that Capita has been, let us say, flaky with the truth on the reality of the numbers. The difference now is that Cabinet Office officials have access to those systems; they can go in, see for themselves exactly what is going on, verify the numbers and figures that Capita is providing and report back on that. The transparency of the new fortnightly updates means that we will be able to see those cases in all their glory and see whether or not the figures are coming down.
I am absolutely disgusted to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituents with the Capita hotline and will be taking that up with Capita myself. It is totally unacceptable. No one in Capita right now should have the time to laugh, frankly; they should be spending every waking minute working to resolve their failures and the crisis that our retired civil servants are facing.
I will be discussing with the Department for Education the lessons that we have learned from this transfer. Capita has shown publicly how terribly it has been—you do not have to look far to find a constituent who has been affected by this. We absolutely must improve these services going forward, which is why we are exploring in-house models. We want to have a big wave of insourcing, because we can no longer be totally reliant on these companies that let us down time and again.
If my hon. Friend writes to me with the detail of those two cases, I will, of course, be happy to look at them. What he raises is just another example of the poor service that Capita has provided—an indictment of its incompetence.
Some of Capita’s classifications for cases—“workable cases” and that sort of carry-on—are not something that the Government ever recognised; that classification was not in the contract, and it is something that Capita has made up. I was very clear when I first met the CEO of Capita that I do not recognise that. Capita said that those bereavement cases would be resolved by 1 September. If any of those have not been resolved, then frankly that is a missed deadline. In relation to what further action we could take, as I have said, my predecessor already withheld £10 million in contractual payments. Capita is receiving 10% less each month on a voluntary basis while the service remains as poor as it is. The Government now have at our disposal the Procurement Act 2023, which allows us to take into account poor performance when regarding other contracts.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues related to Capita and fought for his constituents on many occasions in the Chamber. As I set out, it will not be possible to publish the full remedial adviser’s report for legal and commercial reasons. However, we will be providing it confidentially to the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I will discuss with officials the possibility of bringing out a smaller version of it that can be made public, but the rectification plan that we have put in place is based on the recommendations of the remedial adviser.
I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The Cabinet Office is working with Capita on existing cases from MPs’ surgeries. The only hesitancy I would have is that the priority is to make sure that the service Capita is providing is improving. I could put lots more resources into this, but unless Capita is able to provide answers, produce a quote, and deliver people’s pensions, we will not see an improvement in the output that people are getting. We will absolutely keep under consideration what more we can do to help people, but I really want to hold Capita’s feet to the fire on this rectification plan so that we can get to a position where the surgeries are not needed any more because people are getting what they deserve.
I am sorry to hear of Kathy’s experience. What has happened to her and many scheme members up and down the country is not right. As I have said, we will not be able to publish the audit report in full for legal and commercial reasons, but we will provide it confidentially to the PAC and PACAC for their scrutiny. The remedial adviser’s report recommended the rectification plan that we have put in place. That has only just been put into place. In the coming weeks, we will monitor whether it is working. If it is not, we will take further steps. Nothing is off the table.
The situation that the hon. Member highlights for his constituents is totally unacceptable. I understand why he is so angry about it; I am, too, as I am about so many of the cases we have heard about. I am not sure whether I can make 11 am on Friday, but I will follow up after the statement to see if we can get any further progress.
The performance of Royal Mail is a matter of serious concern across North Somerset, where delivery failures are having real consequences for residents and businesses alike. The problem is long standing in my constituency. In February, following a steady flow of correspondence, I launched a survey asking constituents about their experiences. I have worked constructively with local CWU representatives ever since to understand the pressures that Royal Mail faces and find practical solutions, and I am grateful for their engagement. Earlier this year, I also hosted a town hall, which made the issue painfully clear when many of my constituents received their invitations by post only after the event had taken place—three weeks after I had sent them out. That is part of a wider pattern of delays eroding confidence in postal services across North Somerset, with Portishead and Nailsea particularly affected. The results of my survey are stark. Some 87% of respondents reported experiencing delays, with nearly half having waited between one and two weeks beyond the expected delivery date to receive a letter. In September, I visited the Portishead delivery office and heard the voices of our amazing posties and CWU representatives. It is clear that Royal Mail is going through significant change as parcel volumes grow and the nature of the service evolves, and our posties are being asked to bridge structural problems that are not of their making. Locally, the service is also struggling with high vacancy levels. Across Bristol and North Somerset, staff shortages are preventing Royal Mail from delivering a business-as-usual service.
I have to agree with my hon. Friend, who is, as I hear often in the Chamber, a fantastic advocate for Harlow. Royal Mail’s staff shortages expose the shortcomings of its new delivery model and the two-tier pay systems that are affecting retention, and help to explain—but not excuse—the delays that my residents are experiencing. We need a system that gives staff the time, resources and support to deliver reliably. That means enough workers, proper support for new starters, enough vans and hours, and delivery models that actually work in practice. Although I would like to see tougher penalties when Royal Mail fails to meet its delivery targets, the fines issued by Ofcom have clearly not prompted change. This is not about faulting postal workers, who work amazingly hard; it is about holding the company accountable for a service that the public still rely on so heavily. We cannot accept the current standard of service. Some 53% of respondents in my survey said that delayed deliveries had caused them to miss appointments or deadlines. As a pharmacist, I am particularly concerned about health consequences, as late letters increase the risk of missed appointments and put added strain on our NHS. For some people, a late letter is not simply an inconvenience—it is a health risk. Some steps that would make a real difference without placing undue burden on postal workers include notifying businesses when deliveries will not be made and providing for collection in exceptional circumstances. Our posties are pillars of our community, working tirelessly in all weathers to deliver a vital service. I want to be clear that my concern is with the systemic problems in the postal system and not the amazing, dedicated individuals who deliver it. I will continue working with local CWU representatives. Royal Mail must communicate better when deliveries cannot be made, consider local collection options and keep addressing the operational pressures behind these delays.
I rise to present this petition on a windfall tax on the banks in the autumn Budget, further to a corresponding online petition signed by over 13,000 people. This petition of residents of the United Kingdom states that a windfall tax on the super-profits of banks, like that introduced on energy companies, could generate £15 billion per year, providing essential resources to tackle the cost of living crisis affecting millions of people. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the requests…and consider the resource benefits of a windfall tax on banks when allocating funds in the budget.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Notes that Britain’s largest banks are making unusually high profits from the higher interest rates that simultaneously have driven up rents and mortgages, and that experts estimate that a windfall tax in line with that introduced on the oil and gas firms would generate up to £15 billion a year, providing resources to fund emergency action to address the cost-of-living crisis. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the requests of the petitions and consider the resource benefits of a windfall tax on banks when allocating funds in the Budget. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003251]
Today, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry visited the Methil yard in my constituency, which has already doubled its number of apprentices, and with the prospect of Programme Euston and new dry docks for Faslane being built at the yard, there could be hundreds more. Does my hon. Friend agree that the recommendations about apprenticeships show the need for apprentice availabilities to be increased at pace for the opportunities that lie ahead for Scottish yards?
My constituency consistently has the highest number of rough sleepers in the country. This is not a statistic that we welcome. I was grateful for the opportunity to attend the Prime Minister and the Minister’s rough sleeping summit today, and to visit The Connection at St Martin’s in my constituency, where I spoke to people who have been sleeping rough and the frontline workers who work every single day to help people off the streets. This sustained funding will make a real difference, and we cannot overestimate the impact that it will have. Will the Minister comment on how local authorities should collaborate in the future on local connection, in relation to how that issue prevents some people from finding a sustainable home, and on the commissioning of detox and recovery services, which have been fragmented for far too long? The fact that these things are so fragmented is holding people back from the recovery that they so desperately need.
I am concerned that recorded crime figures in York Central reached an 11-year high this summer. About a third of those were antisocial behaviour offences, and retail crime reached its highest level, with around 15,000 offences in August alone. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that places like York are properly funded and have all the resources that they need to tackle crime so that we can get on top of this rising level of offending?
Over the years we have worked incredibly hard in York, across multiple agencies, to end rough sleeping by looking at the holistic needs of people who were out on the streets. I am pleased to say that we have cracked that nut. However, we have a challenge in the way the funding works for people with no local connection. Will the Minister say a bit more about how we can ensure that such people receive funding in the place where they are choosing to stay and that there is a proper transfer of resources?
My hon. Friend has spoken very passionately about the experiences of her constituents. My constituents have faced issues in which they have had mail only once every three or four weeks; one constituent did not receive 14 items of post. Does she agree that the Royal Mail’s treatment of Ofcom fines simply as a baked-in operational risk is one reason, among others, why we need a far more muscular regulatory regime?
My hon. Friend is making a passionate contribution about the experience of her constituents and the real-life impact of Royal Mail’s failures. Does she agree that this is yet another prime example of why it is important to properly regulate a public service? Contrary to what some Members of this House may think, it is not bureaucracy or red tape; it is about securing the proper functioning of a public service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The National Screening Committee’s current recommendations are very restricted, limiting prostate cancer screening to every two years for men aged between 45 and 61 with pathogenic BRCA2 variant and a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer. According to its modelling report, just one in 277 people has the variant. In total, around 1,500 men in England would be eligible for such screening. The Transform trial is a key part of the Government’s strategy for improving detection and support for men with prostate cancer. It is a long-term commitment and I absolutely support that work, but I am concerned about the lack of strategy to support men with, and at high risk of, prostate cancer in the interim. Clearly, this impacts men today. I am concerned that the decision to withdraw the previous prostate cancer risk management programme and to direct GPs to refer to guidance in NICE clinical knowledge summaries when discussing PSA tests with patients has seriously reduced clarity for patients.
I absolutely agree. We clearly have to act on that, and very quickly—that is the key point that many Members have made. We cannot wait. We see so many men affected by this illness and, unfortunately, many deaths and many men suffering for a long period.
I absolutely agree. I recently had to work quite hard to get a PSA test. I have a very good GP, but was basically told it was a waste of time having the test. We need to make sure we have clarity so that GPs know how to deal with this and men understand that they have an entitlement to the test. I ask the Minister to make sure that we have a clear offer to higher-risk men. Will she confirm that men aged 50 or over or at higher risk are able to discuss the pros and cons of testing with their GP, and that the entitlement to a PSA test remains even though the PCRMP has been withdrawn? Going back to the screening we have at the moment, will she explain how BRCA2 carriers will be found and invited to screening going forward?
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 am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for a statement on the publication of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report, “Securing Scotland’s Future: Defence Skills and Jobs”. As the House will know, significant increases in defence spending are anticipated as the UK works towards our commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. Our inquiry therefore examined a simple but important question: how can we maximise the positive impact of this spending in Scotland? Scotland already has a world-leading defence sector, from shipbuilding on the Clyde and in Rosyth to aerospace, advanced manufacturing and cyber-capability. Growth in the sector has the potential to create more highly skilled jobs and support economic growth across Scotland—including, importantly, in rural and island communities. The strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and the defence investment plan provide the framework for delivering these ambitions and for ensuring that Scotland is well placed to benefit from increased investment. However, our inquiry has shown that it is not a given that increased defence spending will benefit Scotland. We cannot afford to be complacent: ensuring that Scotland benefits will require long-term planning and co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments to support jobs, skills development, innovation and growth. The clearest message we heard throughout our inquiry was about skills. Employers, colleges, universities and trade bodies across Scotland repeatedly told us that the defence industry faces skills shortages, including in engineering, fabrication, welding, software, cyber and advanced manufacturing. This is despite major defence programmes such as for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates and the Dreadnought-class submarines, which will require a sustained pipeline of highly skilled Scottish workers for years to come. This will be all the more important as the UK Government continue to win and sign deals for the export of Scottish-made defence products such as frigates. We have heard similar messages about skills shortages in our inquiries into other sectors, including offshore wind, civilian shipbuilding and space launch, to name but a few. Many of those sectors, which are key to our economic prosperity and to the UK’s strategic interests, are competing for the same pool of skilled workers. Without investment in training and apprenticeships, there is a real risk of one sector solving its skills shortage by poaching workers from another sector. That is why apprenticeships are such an important focus of our report. During our Committee’s visit to BAE Systems—part of which I am proud to say is located in my constituency—we met young people whose expertise and enthusiasm demonstrated the enormous potential of apprenticeships and early career routes in the industry. However, demand for apprenticeship places far exceeds supply, with engineering programmes often attracting many thousands of applicants for a very limited number of places. Our report highlights the importance of that talent pipeline keeping pace with future demand. This will require the UK and Scottish Governments to work together effectively, as policies impacting the sector span both reserved and devolved responsibilities; defence policy, as we know, is reserved, while education, skills and apprenticeships are devolved. Our report calls on both Governments to work together to increase defence-related apprenticeships in Scotland. Our report also welcomes direct investment through the defence industrial strategy skills package, through which Scotland will receive a share of the £20 million allocated to the devolved nations. While this funding is absolutely welcome, £20 million is a small fraction of the full £180 million UK-wide package, and it must be shared across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, meaning that Scotland will receive a disproportionately small share of the total UK fund. Our Committee questions whether such a limited share of funding can really shift the dial on skills shortages and calls on the Government to explain how the funding is commensurate with the size, importance and potential of Scotland’s defence sector. We look forward to the Government’s response on that point. Moving on from apprenticeships, our report also looks at the defence technical excellence colleges, or DTECs, which are specialist colleges designed to provide advanced technical training for defence careers. These colleges will help to develop the skills that employers tell us they need. The Committee heard overwhelming support for DTECs, and we believe they could have the potential to address persistent skills shortages. The UK Government have proposed two DTECs in Scotland—one in the east and one in the west—and have provided funding for one of them. The establishment of both DTECs is subject to match funding from the Scottish Government. The Committee strongly supports the establishment of both colleges, and stated in our report, which was published last month, that we hoped to see the Scottish Government provide the funding required. We are very pleased that since the publication of our report, the Scottish Government have confirmed that they will provide the necessary funding, with both DTECs now going ahead. This is a positive outcome for Scotland, and reflects the joined-up approach that we need to see. However, progress establishing DTECs in Scotland has fallen a little behind counterparts south of the border, and we are concerned that further delay risks Scotland being left at a disadvantage. We therefore urge both Governments to work with greater urgency to deliver those colleges, because the skills challenges facing the sector are too pressing for Scotland to miss this opportunity. Our inquiry also examined the experiences of small and medium-sized enterprises. SMEs form the backbone of Scotland’s economy and play a critical role in the defence supply chain, too. The Committee heard from numerous SMEs, many of which told us that participating in defence procurement remains difficult and that complex bidding requirements, high compliance costs and financial risk are all burdensome barriers to growth. Our report therefore welcomes the creation of the MOD’s Defence Office for Small Business Growth, which is designed to help SMEs and start-ups to access the defence supply chain and to scale up. It is too early to know whether the office will deliver meaningful change. To help to track its effectiveness, our report calls on the Ministry of Defence to publish clear metrics for success. We also call for the MOD to favour prime contractors that are committed to support supporting SMEs in their supply chain. During our inquiry, we also heard about the particularly concerning issue of debanking. We heard first-hand accounts of SMEs struggling to access banking and financial services, despite providing products and services that directly support our national security. That is clearly unacceptable. These firms are helping to strengthen our nation’s security. They are creating skilled jobs and driving economic growth, yet some are still being denied access to basic banking services at a time when the Government are scaling up defence capability. Our report calls on the Government to engage directly with the financial services sector to put an end to this problem. The report highlights wider challenges around public perceptions of defence. We heard concerns that misunderstandings about the sector negatively impact recruitment and discourage talented people from considering careers in defence. Too often, discussion focuses narrowly on weapons and overlooks the engineers, researchers, software specialists, manufacturers and innovators whose work contributes both to security and technological advancement. The Committee therefore supports efforts to foster a broader national conversation about the defence sector, its role in protecting the country and the opportunities it creates for communities across Scotland. Ultimately, our report reaches a straightforward conclusion: Scotland is exceptionally well placed to benefit from increased defence spending, but unlocking that opportunity will require investment in our young people through apprenticeships, technical education and initiatives such as the DTECs. It will also require the Government to provide certainty for the industry and support SMEs, which are so critical to us. I thank everyone who contributed to our inquiry and my fellow Committee members for their thoughtful and constructive work throughout. With that, I commend the report to the House.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We are very grateful that the DTECs are going to happen—all credit to both Governments for working together on that—but apprenticeships will also come through our further education colleges, and it is important that they are given the resources to benefit from jobs not only in the defence sector but, for example, in clean energy, which our Committee has heard so much about.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that point, because it was raised with us by those in the defence sector. The right to peaceful protest is something that we all recognise the need to respect and uphold, but she is right to highlight the problems that there have been on some occasions in the sector. However, I draw heart from my experience of speaking to apprentices at BAE Systems in my constituency, who to my mind are the best advocates for the work that they are doing and the purpose to which that work will be put. They were able to tell me in very straightforward terms—just like they do with their mates down the pub at the weekend, as a couple of them told me—about the importance of their work, why they were doing it and how proud they were of it.
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She is right; there is a great deal of misunderstanding around the defence sector. It is very difficult for people to understand its importance not just globally and nationally but locally. If that importance were better recognised and understood, it would be much better for the firms involved, so I very much hope that the Government take our point that they need to engage with the financial services sector to address that.
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning that skills academy. It is in my constituency, so he will not be surprised to hear that I agree with him entirely about that. BAE Systems built the facility because it recognised that there was a skills gap coming and it no longer wanted to have to employ welders from the Philippines at extortionate rates and take on board all the financial responsibilities that came with that. The academy is an inspiration, frankly. Its way of teaching changes ideas around skills that traditionally were regarded as being for men only, heavily industrial and, sometimes, dangerous. The myths about those trades have been busted by the academy. It is wonderful to see young people so enthusiastic about the jobs and the future that they know they will have because of the work that is going on.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning our excellent Clerks, who ensure not only that we are kept on our toes but that we get the best possible evidence for our inquiries. She is right about the problem that many SMEs have. It is easy to think of those jobs as being very technical in nature, as she describes, but we sometimes forget about the people who provide logistics and other services to these suppliers. It is important that the opportunities to benefit from the work in the sector spread across the range of roles, particularly in those areas where employment is perhaps more vulnerable or fragile. We want to see the Government do as much as they can to allow those jobs to filter down.
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As he knows, the Committee has visited many of the facilities in his constituency and adjacent constituencies —I was going to say “neighbouring” constituencies, but really there are no neighbouring constituencies in his part of the world. Fifty sounds like a small number to some of us, but for a community like his it is a large number. Those are skilled jobs, and they will be there for a long time to come, so he is absolutely right to mention that. I agree entirely that Project Safari is a great opportunity, and it is also great to see—I will try not to use the word “great” too often—that his constituency, slightly remote though it is, can benefit from the defence contracts available now across Scotland.
If all of Northern Ireland has the ingenuity that the hon. Member has in weaving his constituency into every debate, we will be doing really well. We have not looked at Northern Ireland in particular. I know Thales, because it used to be based in my constituency; it has since moved to another part of the country. However, he is right. It is very important, and it is wonderful to see so many young women working in skills that were traditionally thought to be for men only.
I thank the Chair of the Liaison Committee for that question. She is right to say that it should be revisited. I suspect that we will revisit a number of aspects of our report. Of course, we look forward to the Government’s response to the report, but as we go forward during the rest of this Parliament I think we will come back to a number of points.
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I was pleased to see that the visit went so well. It is encouraging to see such new opportunities. He makes the point, which we tried to make in our report, that there are great opportunities here, but it is up to everyone in Scotland—Governments, local authorities and manufacturers alike—to grasp them and make a success of them for our communities.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate. I will refer to a few things related to work done on the Scottish Affairs Committee, as well as briefly talk about the situation in my own constituency. In June last year, our Committee looked at the work of Royal Mail, particularly the importance of the universal postal service to remote rural and island communities. We heard from Consumer Scotland, the Federation of Small Businesses, Ofcom and Royal Mail itself. The Committee heard how delays in the postal service can have particularly serious knock-on consequences for people in those communities. An appointment letter arriving late can leave someone without enough time to arrange transport to hospital, and that is often inter-island travel to hospital, and that can cause them to miss their appointment altogether. In an age when public services are increasingly accessed online, the postal service none the less remains essential for many Scots, because often our broadband connectivity and sometimes our digital skills can be limited. We also heard how much people value their local postie, particularly where older residents in remote places have little other daily contact.
The hon. Member is absolutely right about that. As we have heard, if we are to make improvements, we really need to listen to the people who are doing the job on the frontline. For Scotland’s rural and less well connected communities, the universal service promise of one price to every address is especially important, as many other couriers impose varying levels of delivery surcharge, which are often extremely high in these communities. The latest published UK figures for the first quarter of this financial year show that 85% of first-class mail arrived the next working day against a target of 90%, and 91% of second-class mail arrived within three working days against a target of 95%. However, the figures for Scotland show why these UK-wide averages cannot be the only measure. In the same quarter just 54% of stamped and metered first-class mail reached the Outer Hebrides the next working day and the figure for Lerwick in Shetland was only 25%, so we cannot rely on these averages as a measure. There are real challenges in reaching the islands, including weather and transport connections, but the postcode areas covering these islands also remain exempt from the additional local first-class performance targets applied elsewhere. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government’s work with Royal Mail will include regular reporting on whether Scotland’s rural and remote areas are benefiting. That should cover second-class deliveries as well as first-class post. I would also welcome an update on a practical issue. As we have heard, Royal Mail told the Committee about its NHS barcode, which is intended to help prioritise health letters. Royal Mail subsequently confirmed to us that uptake depended on individual NHS boards. It expects NHS boards to obtain new envelopes with those barcodes on. How widely are those barcodes being used across Scotland? Are they helping patients to receive their letters in time? My experience and that of my colleagues suggests not. Our Committee’s inquiry was based on rural and remote communities, but the issues are remarkably similar in my own very urban constituency. We have heard about those problems today, such as people not receiving birthday cards or important appointment letters from the NHS. I frequently hear from constituents about long periods—10 days, 14 days, sometimes a month—where they receive no mail and perhaps only know about a hospital appointment because the hospital called to confirm it or because they subsequently found out that they had missed an appointment. Having visited a nearby sorting office over the summer, I was struck by the physical restrictions of many sorting offices. These offices were often built for a letter service, but they are now struggling to deal with the physical size of parcels. One postie told me that he had been expected to deliver car tyres that had been ordered online. That suggests to me that there are serious questions about the health and safety of our posties in these sorting offices, and the conditions in which they are being expected to work. Royal Mail must consider the situation of its staff and its customers. I support the motion’s call for the Government to work with Royal Mail to improve performance and to ensure a reliable service for all of Scotland’s communities. I hope that the Government will be creative when considering the way forward and will not rule out looking at issues such as those raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), because they are at least worth examining.
I welcome the Home Secretary’s progress in reducing those perilous and often exploitative small boat crossings, but aside from the misplaced idea that asylum seekers have significant recourse to public funds or mainstream benefits, we must still be honest that a lot of human behaviour ultimately boils down to incentives. What consideration have Home Office Ministers given to the Danish model in terms of narrowing any incentive gap for migrants between coming here for work and doing so by other, irregular means?
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully on behalf of his constituents in Scotland; I have had many emails on this issue from my constituents in Wales. Does he agree that when it comes to testing, all men are at high risk? It should happen not just in England but all around the United Kingdom.
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?