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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
As I have set out, the Government believe that there is a legitimate role for political donations that are made correctly and effectively, in accordance with the rules. However, I will write to the hon. Lady about the specific issue she raises.
The reporting in The Sunday Times was clearly concerning for all of us in the House. What I would say is that, as I set out in my statement earlier, there are a number of agencies that deal with the regulation, enforcement and potential legal action that may be necessary in cases that involve illegal behaviour. I will go no further than that, although my hon. Friend tempts me, but I will just say that I am sure those organisations will be paying very close attention to the media reports over the weekend.
Any political party that abides by the rules the Government are introducing will be able to flourish in our political system. Those that do not can expect to be held firmly to account.
I am not going to comment on individual Members without having notified them in advance, but I note my hon. Friend’s comments.
As I have set out, the Government’s position is that there is a role for financial political donations that have been given in accordance with the rules, to enable British politics to flourish.
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As the independent regulator for our democracy, the Electoral Commission is always willing to hear from members of the public, political parties and other sources about anything that people believe may have been done incorrectly, whether inadvertently or deliberately. I refer the hon. Lady to the Electoral Commission, but I take her point.
The Government’s intention is to table amendments to the Representation of the People Bill following today’s statement. Report and Third Reading will take place next week, so we will be moving forward at pace.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the “know your donor” arrangements that will come in through the Representation of the People Bill and the way those rules will be tightened through the Rycroft review recommendations. It is an important point, and I may come back to him in writing.
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The measures that I have set out today on overseas electors and residents returning to Britain from overseas should provide some of the certainty he is looking for so that his constituents can feel confident that our system is safe.
My hon. Friend raises a particularly important point: it is essential that enforcement follows on from the legislation that we enact here. We are working with colleagues in the Home Office on policing and with the Electoral Commission to ensure that that enforcement is robust and well resourced.
Any company that wants to donate into British politics will have to substantially prove that it is able to do so by being headquartered in the UK and having persons of interest from the UK. We will end the way in which shell companies have been used to channel illegitimate funds into our political system.
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will be working across the Benches to develop a donor declaration that will set out where exactly money has come from. We need to proceed on that with care and collaboration to ensure that when a donation is given, it is clear where exactly it is coming from. I agree with him entirely.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tenacity in this field. She has worked really hard to highlight and bring to the surface these issues, and she has taken the time to meet with the Electoral Commission, Philip Rycroft and me. I am very grateful to her for sharing her experience and for contributing to this debate. I agree that this is work that must continue. It will not stop because we are legislating now. We are working across Government, and we continue to work relentlessly to keep our democracy safe.
I thank the Minister for this statement. Time and again, our constituents have been failed by outsourced companies; it is not just Capita, and it is not just Government services. Following on from an earlier question, what else will the Minister do to ensure that the other parts of the public sector—Government agencies, local government and so on—can learn from what he is now putting in place in future on outsourced contracts?
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she has done, and for accepting the recommendations of the Rycroft review. Can she clarify whether consideration was given to an outright ban on crypto donations, as opposed to a moratorium? Given the reports in the press, can she also tell us what additional steps will be taken to strengthen legal duties in the Representation of the People Bill, and impose restrictions on major online social platforms that are spreading hate and disinformation and interfering during our election periods?
On the issue of nuclear testing veterans, the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), confirmed in March this year that in 2014 both the MOD and Government legal advisers were made aware of a previously undisclosed fallout report, showing radiation across inhabited areas of Christmas Island—crucially, in the main camp where British personnel lived and worked. Can the Minister confirm what work has been done to establish why that evidence was not disclosed in legal proceedings, and whether Ministers were informed at the time?
I want to concur with all of the remarks by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who has made a crucial point. But there is a wider issue, which the Health Bill completely misses and which I urge Ministers to look at, around the accountability systems within the NHS. The reforms are not going to deliver accountability. They are going to weaken it, and as a result we will see more requests for investigations into patient safety. I want the Minister to take that point away, because I am really worried that we are going to see a system that is more unsafe as a result of these reforms.
I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. He has long taken a serious interest in patient safety, including in the importance of independent investigation. I recognise the strength and sincerity of the points that he has raised and will try to answer all of his questions. At the heart of this debate is a simple question: when patients and families tell us something has gone wrong, does the system listen and learn, and, most importantly, does it change? Patients do not judge the system by the number of reports published, the number of organisations involved, or the number of recommendations written; they judge it by whether care becomes safer. For too long, across too many parts of the system, we have seen the same pattern: harm happens; a review follows; lessons are identified; but the change patients were promised does not always follow quickly enough. This Government are determined to change that. Dr Penny Dash’s review was commissioned to consider whether the current landscape of organisations provides effective leadership, listening and regulation on patient safety and wider quality of care, and whether a different approach could deliver better outcomes for patients.
I thank my hon. Friend for putting that on the record. He will know that we are in Committee stage of the Health Bill and there will later be the opportunity to debate this issue on the Floor of the House.
Absolutely. I am very privileged to have patient safety in my brief. I know everybody across this House really cares about it, and I will make sure that officials do as the hon. Gentleman requests.
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution—she is absolutely right. I take accountability very seriously and am going to talk about it in my remarks in this debate. Far too often, we see so many inquiries and so many recommendations but nobody taking responsibility for implementing the change. In the end, patients have to feel that things have changed, not that we are just having further reports and recommendations. The Penny Dash review examined six organisations that are overseen by the Department: the Care Quality Commission; the National Guardian’s Office; Healthwatch England and the local Healthwatch network; the Patient Safety Commissioner; the Health Services Safety Investigations Body; and the patient safety learning functions of NHS Resolution. The review’s conclusion was clear. The problem is not that people working in patient safety lack commitment—we all know that there are dedicated people across the system doing important work every day—but that the system around them has become too cluttered, complex and difficult for patients, staff and leaders to navigate. We inherited a landscape with more than 70 routes for patients and service users to raise concerns or provide feedback, and around 40 public bodies with a formal role in quality and safety. That complexity does not automatically make patients safer. It can make responsibility unclear, create duplication and make it harder to ensure that learning leads to improvement. A cluttered landscape, as we would all agree, is not an effective landscape. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex asked me about the expertise in HSSIB, the full-time job that it does and whether it could undertake investigations more cheaply and quickly than public inquiries. The investigation function within the CQC will be expert and full time, and it will be able to conduct investigations in the same cheap and quick way that HSSIB does now. In future, there will be the same opportunity to use the CQC investigation function instead of needing a public inquiry as there is currently with HSSIB. The review also found that too many recommendations are generated through reviews, inquiries and investigations, as the hon. Member said, without enough clarity on ownership, prioritisation, implementation and impact. This is the fundamental point: recommendations alone do not make patients safer; change does. That is why the Government have accepted all nine recommendations of the Dash review. The hon. Member asked how the CQC will provide the same confidence that the safe space is not being compromised. The criteria for disclosing protected information outside the investigative function are set out in the Bill. Those criteria set a high bar for any disclosure—as high as it is currently with HSSIB—and the CQC will publish further guidance setting out much more detail. As the Bill sets out, the CQC will appoint a responsible person who will decide whether the case matches the criteria and whether it warrants information sharing outside the safe space. That person is likely to be the CQC’s chief executive officer. The hon. Member asked why the Dash review and the Government have ignored the whole question of HSSIB’s value for money. Let me be clear: the Dash reforms are not about saving money; they are about strengthening patient safety and patient voice across the system. The abolition of HSSIB and the transfer of its functions to the CQC play an important part in making the system of patient safety much more effective. Safety is the issue, not money. Accepting recommendations is the beginning, not the end. Patients who have suffered harm, families who have campaigned for years and staff who have spoken up do not want another report sitting on a shelf. They want evidence that the system can listen, learn and prevent harm from happening again. I want to be absolutely clear: every organisation in the system has a responsibility to meet that challenge. Patient safety cannot be something we support in principle but resist when it requires us to change. No organisation, however established or well-intentioned, should believe that learning and improvement only apply elsewhere. That is why we are streamlining and strengthening the patient safety landscape. The hon. Member mentioned the National Quality Board. We have revitalised the board by giving it a stronger role in providing a single, authoritative view of quality across the system. That will help reduce duplication, bring greater clarity to recommendations and ensure that effort is focused where it has the greatest impact. All hon. Members recognise that we need fewer recommendations because we know that they disappear into the system. More recommendations are needed that are owned, tracked and delivered. I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Member in respect of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. We had a constructive conversation earlier today. On his point about the accusations that HSSIB had expanded the scope of its work beyond its remit, he explained to me in detail how HSSIB’s inception came about. The Government have accepted the Dash recommendation that HSSIB’s role as a centre of excellence for investigation should continue, and clarified the remit of any future investigations. I think that the investigation function with the CQC will perform the role of a centre of excellence for investigations. HSSIB has developed important expertise in understanding why things go wrong and identifying system-wide learning, and I acknowledge that work. The question before us is not whether investigations matter —of course they do—but how we ensure that investigations lead to action, because learning without implementation does not improve patient safety. The Dash review recommended transferring HSSIB’s functions to the Care Quality Commission, while maintaining a dedicated investigation capability. I understand why colleagues will want reassurance on that, because, as the hon. Member said, independence, transparency and trust are essential in patient safety investigations, but so is impact. The purpose of these reforms is not to weaken investigation, but to strengthen the link between investigation, learning and improvement. We need a clearer route from identifying problems to making recommendations and ensuring that someone owns delivery and that patients see change. The hon. Gentleman asked if I could explain who will conduct future investigations into safety in the NHS if the Dash review is implemented. The investigation function in the CQC will have autonomy to launch investigations into any part of the health system and will be able to make recommendations on any part of the system, just as HSSIB does now. There will be no barrier to an investigator finding out that CQC inspections are causing unintended harm. If they are, and if the investigator feels that a recommendation for change should be made, they will make it. There will be no need for litigation through the courts, and insights gained from investigations will continue to inform recommendations concerning the Care Quality Commission’s regulatory functions. The Bill also allows for the investigation function to make recommendations to the CQC in its report, and the CQC would be legally required to respond to such recommendations. I hope that the hon. Member is assured that we will work carefully with colleagues, patients, staff and system leaders as these reforms are implemented. The same principle applies to patient voice. Patients do not share their experiences simply for the system to record them; they do so because they want to see things change. Listening matters, but acting on what we hear is what makes patients safer. That is why we are ensuring that patient experience is closer to where decisions are made, with commissioners and providers responsible not only for delivering services, but for listening and responding. The Patient Safety Commissioner will continue to champion patient voice on medicines and medical devices and report directly to Parliament.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I did recognise the reason for keeping the functions separate, but just because they are part of the CQC does not mean to say that they do not have their independence. I have pretty much set out the powers that they current have and what they will be able to do, but they do not prioritise investigating the situations that we spoke about, such as “never events”. It is not simply about the investigation; it is about how we get those “never events” to lead to learning and change in the system. How do we hold the system to account to ensure that the very thing that the regulator recommends is implemented? What that journey looks like for patients will be far more significant, as opposed to those bodies simply doing investigations that lead to further recommendations.
Westhoughton is home to a fantastic local veterans charity called the Darren Deady Foundation. Darren bravely served in the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, but, sadly, died following injuries he sustained on the frontline in Afghanistan. I had the privilege of visiting the foundation back in April. I met Christine, and Darren’s mum Julie, to discuss the vital work that the foundation does. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the incredible work done by everyone at the Darren Deady Foundation, and will he see if he can find time to accompany me on a visit to the veterans community hub that the foundation is building at the Old Washacre family support centre?
I thank the Minister for her statement and I pay tribute to Philip Rycroft, who, as I am sure colleagues across the House will agree, is an exceptional public servant. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, it was a pleasure for me to provide evidence to his review, and I know his diligent work was conducted in a considered manner. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have notified the relevant Member I am going to name. Given that the weekend’s newspapers were awash with stories about the financial interests of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), what assurances can the Minister provide to me that the measures the Government are introducing will prevent people—such as George Cottrell, convicted in the US of wire fraud, who we know has provided thousands of pounds-worth of benefits; or Ben Delo, who has been convicted for flouting American anti-money laundering rules, yet has donated £4 million to Reform—from being able to pump tens of millions of pounds into British politics?
It is my view that Shabir Ahmed, a vile paedophile, signed up for a one-way ticket out of this country on the very day that he started committing his vile crimes. I thank the Minister for his statement setting out that he will stop at nothing to see him deported, but is it not also the case that this situation demonstrates the importance of the Government’s ability to deprive individuals of British citizenship, notwithstanding that that must always be done with the utmost care and with proper scrutiny?
We know that Russia orchestrated not only an arson attack on the Prime Minister’s family, but then the spreading on social media of misinformation about the attack, so I welcome the Rycroft review’s recommendations on strengthening enforcement. Does the Minister agree that this has to target not only foreign actors who spread misinformation and the countries behind them, but the social media companies that are allowing misinformation to spread on their platforms?
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in this debate, which is clearly important not only to his particular area, but to UK manufacturing more widely. On the challenges of energy costs, the ceramics industry has suffered similar challenges to the critical minerals sector, specifically the tin mining and processing sector in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency. Does he agree that the Government must go further and faster to replicate some of the support that has been afforded to the ceramics industry for critical minerals?
3. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on veteran homelessness.
I associate myself with the comments about the loss of Sir George Howarth. His loss will be felt deeply in this place. Organisations in Liverpool, such as Veterans HQ, do incredible work to support homeless veterans, and the Government have made tackling the issue a priority through their reducing veteran homelessness programme. The latest evaluation highlights a shortage of housing for veterans who need to move on from emergency accommodation. Royal British Veterans Enterprise, an amazing charity, is addressing that shortage through an innovative new scheme that would provide 100 new homes for the most disadvantaged veterans, but it has to be funded through public donations. Will the Government look at how they can work with the voluntary sector on projects like this, to provide desperately needed social housing for veterans, to whom we owe so much?
Like other Members across the House, I have constituents who have faced unacceptably long delays, including a terminally ill lady who has been left waiting for months; a man in severe financial hardship who was due his first payment in December 2025, but, shockingly, is being forced to wait until 2027; and a lady, whose brother died in service in 2024, who is unable to settle his estate due to the delay. The Minister has talked about the missed deadlines, yet in February Capita was awarded more contracts across four Departments. Frankly, it is shocking that the Government are unable to pay the pensions of their own civil servants, who have spent their lives serving the public. When will the Government finally take the civil service pension scheme back in-house rather than rewarding failure? Will he assure the House that no further Government contracts will be awarded to Capita?
Shabir Ahmed is a dangerous, manipulative paedophile whose sickening crimes are a damning indictment of the public authorities’ failure to adequately protect the victims of Rochdale grooming gang. Does the Minister agree that, now that we have a new Immigration and Asylum Bill, this House has the power to change the law so that child rapists like Ahmed are deported back to Pakistan? Does he also agree that, as he hinted, that is just the first step towards pulling every legal, diplomatic and economic lever to ensure that Pakistan takes back those who have committed gross abuse in our country?
Mr Evans applied for early release of his civil service pension on health grounds because of terminal illness in November 2025, but sadly passed away this May. His case is still not resolved, despite repeated urgent representations from my office. Capita has failed inexcusably. What actions can be taken to ensure that Mr Evans’s family receives the pension and payments owed without further delay, and to hold Capita to account? Will interest be paid on back payments?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) pointed out, the critical minerals industry lacks wider support through the British industrial competitiveness scheme and the supercharger scheme, but so does upstream china clay production. That is a huge concern for a supply chain industry that supports many businesses represented by Members in the Chamber.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I declare my interest as a member of GMB union, and of Unite, which represents so many of the china clay workers in my constituency. That is one reason I welcome so warmly this Government’s £120 million package for the ceramics industry. I particularly welcome the £60 million of backing for capital investment in energy efficiency and decarbonisation, and the further £60 million to help manage rising costs. That is decisive support for a sector that has every right not just to survive, but to thrive in a changing world in which Governments have an absolute obligation to ensure a smooth transition. In this world, protecting the supply of china clay is vital to insulating supply chains for not just ceramics, but construction, advanced manufacturing, technology, aerospace and defence. Domestic production is only truly protected for any industry when the whole supply chain is. In my constituency, upstream producers of Cornish china clay are part of the foundation of the ceramics sector, directly and indirectly employing thousands of local people in Cornwall. It is our strongest current mining industry, serving as a big granitic bridge between our industrial heritage and the mineral products of the future. I will take a moment to thank the Minister for his excellent leadership in this sector, and for his lucid understanding of those supply chains and the fact that minerals represent quite clearly the biggest Cornwall-specific growth engine in the years ahead. I thank him for his work, with his Department, to help unlock the potential of that key industrial cluster for us. May I ask him, however, whether he will confirm that upstream producers, including those that extract china clay, will be eligible for the support? Can he provide me and my constituents with some clarity on when those decisions about who receives the support will be clear? Will he outline what steps he is taking for an industry with high energy costs upstream—again, ineligible for BICS, the British industrial competitiveness scheme—and facing not only the huge challenges of foreign dumping practices but, in many cases, significant environmental and legacy pension liabilities due to the labour-intensive nature of its workforce? What steps is he taking to ensure that we put that industry on a more sustainable footing?
Does the Minister share my disbelief that the Tories continue to trot out the line that the Government are auctioning off wind power at a high price, while simultaneously neglecting to mention the levelised cost of electricity for thermal power, which is at least as high but takes a lot longer to deploy? Let us bust that myth once and for all.
9. What assessment he has made of the level of threat from Russia.
As we have heard, we are in a new era of modern warfare, in which cheap drones, costing thousands of pounds, can knock out systems costing millions. The defence investment plan reflects that new reality, and I welcome the £5 billion set aside for drones, but what steps is the Minister taking to invest in the fightback against Russian aggression in the information warfare space?
I want to provide the House with an important update on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. Capita was awarded this contract in November 2023. It had two years of transition to prepare, and its senior leadership gave me explicit personal assurances ahead of the handover that they were fully capable of managing the workload and that they were ready for a successful transition. Indeed, the chief executive promised that technological improvements would create a flagship use case for the largest AI-enabled pension scheme in the country. It is clear that non-delivery of technology has been a fundamental part of Capita’s inability to deliver. The reality is that it was completely unprepared and its system was overwhelmed, which resulted in a backlog that skyrocketed to a staggering 120,000 unresolved cases. In response, I intervened immediately and established the Cabinet Office pensions recovery taskforce. Capita committed to two critical recovery targets: an end of April milestone to clear the inherited arrears, and an end of June milestone by which point it promised a complete return to standard contractually required levels. Capita missed its own April milestone. The end of June deadline has arrived, and I regret to inform the House that Capita has failed to meet that milestone, too. Seven months on from taking over operations, too many pension scheme members still face unacceptable delays after years of dedicated public service. Since my last statement on this matter, thousands of quotations have been issued and pensions put into payment. Capita had committed to clearing the quotes backlog by today, but I am afraid that the reality remains very different. As of the end of June, there are still more than 6,700 quotations outstanding for past retirement dates, and more than 4,100 bereavement cases on which Capita could take action. These are the most harrowing stories, affecting devastated scheme members and grieving families. My officials have forcefully escalated those systemic back-office failures directly to Capita’s senior leadership, demanding an immediate investigation and resolution. I have to be frank with the House: what progress has been achieved is due to the significant additional capability provided by the Cabinet Office pensions recovery taskforce, and a team of more than 140 officials whom I have “surged” into the process. Let me also say that public money will not fund Capita’s failings. We will recover every single penny of these surge costs directly from Capita, and I will not remove a single member of the team until the service is permanently fixed and fully restored. Across core areas of pension payments, quotations and complaints, the operational reality remains deeply concerning, and although the speed of quote issuance has accelerated over the past month, it still leaves more than 6,700 outstanding quotes to be processed, as of the end of June, for past retirement dates. Let me turn to the subject of parliamentary correspondence. The volume of MP complaints remains too high—there are more than 1,900 outstanding constituent cases. I understand that Capita resolved nearly 700 last week, but another 500 or so complaints were raised, so this remains all too current an issue. When I last reported to the House, the figure stood at 1,500. The growth of the backlog is completely unacceptable. Capita has clearly failed to manage the correspondence effectively, to the extent that I have had to ask the pensions recovery taskforce to step in. Indeed, the situation has been so faltering that the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), has written to Mr Speaker about it. Because of Capita’s persistent failures, alongside a wider, completely unacceptable failure in its overall MP engagement, demonstrated—as was reported to me by Members from across the House—by a poorly co-ordinated MP drop-in session at the end of May, I had to intervene again. I ordered the pensions recovery taskforce to take direct operational control and establish virtual surgeries for MPs and caseworkers running every weekday. I hope that has provided at least a direct route for parliamentary offices to try to secure updates. Since I launched that initiative in May, we have delivered more than 250 virtual surgeries, supporting more than 150 Members from across the House. Let me now turn to the steps that I am taking to protect scheme members. I have no doubt that all Members will agree with me that the service that Capita has provided has been dreadful. We need to take further robust measures. First, I will continue to apply the most stringent commercial levers. We are executing robust, continuous action with immediate financial consequences. We have already hit Capita’s bottom line by withholding £9.9 million in payments, because the Government will only ever pay for what is successfully delivered. I find this failure remarkable in the light of the personal assurances given to me by the chief executive ahead of the transfer. Those assurances have not been met. Core outputs are deficient, and Capita is failing even to make basic functionality work. I know that many Members are calling for the immediate termination of the contract and the insourcing of the service, but if I were to terminate the contract straightaway, that would clearly cause severe disruption to the payroll. I have to manage this so that the payroll is operated effectively; what I cannot do is create an immediate, catastrophic operational vacuum. I cannot replace a complex pension operation overnight. However, I have instructed my officials to bring together a broad range of stakeholders and experts to consider, in line with the Government’s strategy, how scheme members can best be served by a long-term, durable delivery of the scheme. Let no one think that I or the Government are accepting the status quo. This episode highlights the severe limitations of outsourcing the civil service pension scheme. I say openly to the House that if I could insource this operation today, I would do so. None the less, it is Government policy to insource, in line with our manifesto commitment to deliver “the biggest wave of insourcing of public services in a generation”, and this pension scheme could be a prime candidate for insourcing in the future. That future is being actively shaped by the Government’s announcement on 17 June of a new public interest test that will end outsourcing by default. From April 2027, all contracts over £1 million in value must be assessed for in-house viability before renewal, and Departments exceeding £100 million in annual spend must develop five-year insourcing strategies. This framework builds the exact long-term capability that we need, shifting our focus from short-term pricing to service quality and operational resilience. To ensure full accountability, we are executing our contractual right to deploy independent auditors immediately to conduct a technical review of systems, data integrity and compliance with statutory duties. We are also beginning the process to appoint a remedial adviser, at Capita’s expense, to force rectification directly on the ground. I am not ruling out further interventions, but we need to build the unvarnished evidence base that will serve as a strict prerequisite for further formal escalation, including potential litigation or step-in remedies, should performance fail to improve. In October, the House will receive a further update on the findings of the independent audit, the performance of the remedial adviser and the longer-term structural options being considered, including meeting our manifesto commitment by bringing the scheme in-house. Let me finish by saying this. Public servants who dedicated their working lives to this country deserve absolute financial security and unwavering dignity in retirement, not corporate failure, empty promises and severe administrative failure. I hope the House will see the uncompromising line in the sand that I am drawing today. I will continue to apply commercial pressure and ensure full accountability, and we will find a way forward that delivers for the people who deliver for this country. I commend this statement to the House.
I am quite astonished by the shadow Minister’s contribution. The House should be in no doubt that the previous Government signed a 10-year contract in November 2023. That is the situation we were left with, and I have been grappling with it throughout my time in office. The idea that I have put ideology above operational urgency is utter and total nonsense. I have intervened strongly at every single opportunity, and I have held Capita to account on its milestones time and again, to the tune of £9.9 million, in a way that the previous Government never did. I have a lot more sympathy with the shadow Minister on his point about compensation. We have introduced a process to pay interest in respect of pensions paid by Capita from 1 December 2025, whereby full benefits are paid more than one month after retirement. The interest rate applied will be based on the Bank of England base rate plus 1% for the period of the delay between retirement and payment. That information has formally been published on a civil service pension website, and members will have the opportunity to ask for other losses to be covered as part of the complaints process. As for the rest of the shadow Minister’s comments, I think he will struggle to find anyone who has been as robust as I have been in holding Capita to account.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these cases are harrowing. He is also right to say that there were huge issues—I am sure we will cover this on Wednesday—with MyCSP, the previous provider. As I have said, the previous Government decided to sign this contract in November 2023. That is not, of course, to say that I was just seeking specific reassurances last autumn; we were also looking at contingencies. I am sure that he, and indeed the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), will cover that in the two Committees’ joint evidence session on Wednesday.