Labour Party MP for Doncaster Central since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
199
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
2
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£1,876
1 of 2 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Doncaster Central | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | Arena Racing Company - £1,876.00 | £1,876 | Labour | Register record | |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Parliamentary Chair of SIGOMA. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
The Government are determined to ensure that we have strategic authorities everywhere by the end of 2028, and I and other Ministers in the Department will work with my hon. Friend and council leaders from across the region to ensure that they also get a strategic authority in that time.
We had an excellent meeting with Cornwall leaders and MPs in No. 10 North not long before that decision was taken. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to that, and I understand the distinct status that Cornwall has. We will continue to work with him to ensure that Cornwall can make the most of its foundation strategic authority in the future.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As hon. Members have identified, I am not the Minister for Housing. He is in another Committee as we speak, but I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government and I will make sure that the strength of feeling and the questions that have been raised today are fed back.
I will ensure that that request is fed back to the Minister for Housing, as well as the strength of feeling behind it. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing today’s important debate, as well as hon. Members for their contributions on the subject. The modernisation of planning committees, as many will know, is a big part of the housing and infrastructure delivery that the Government intend. Our reforms are about creating a level playing field across the country to give certainty to communities and developers about the process their applications will follow. We recognise the vital role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight for important development decisions in their area. Our reforms were a key measure in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and are intended to support planning committees in this crucial role so that they can be effective as possible.
I do not agree with that. Extensive consultation was done around this policy before it was brought in—in fact, I believe there were three rounds of consultation.<span id="216WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="216WH"></span> The national scheme of delegation, which will come into force this Sunday, will allow committees to focus on the larger and more complex development proposals that really require member input. The applications that matter most to communities are those that will deliver the kind of development that local people desperately want to see. We also want to ensure that skilled planning officers in councils are trusted and empowered to make decisions on more applications more quickly to ensure that development is brought forward in the right place at the right time. The national scheme of delegation will mean that officers will spend less time and resource preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications, speeding up decision-making processes more broadly and freeing up time to focus on larger and more complex applications. It will also provide greater clarity and consistency across the country about who in a local planning authority will determine applications. Irrespective of whether a decision is made by an officer or a planning committee, the important thing is that both are working to serve the interests of their community. I want to thank the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who praised his council’s record on planning, and I hear the concerns he has raised. As I have said, I will make sure that they are fed back.
I will come to that later in my speech, but I will canter through, as I am conscious of time. During the many consultations and parliamentary debates on the planning committee reforms, the Government have been clear that they are not in any way intended to be an attack on local democracy. We recognise that councillors and communities are central to deciding what development is right for their area, but the Government believe that the best way for them to do that is at the beginning of the process, when the local plan is being developed. The national scheme of delegation will support the plan-led system. It will allow planning committees to operate as effectively as possible. For example, they will not need to revisit the same decisions that have already been considered through the local plan process; instead, they will be able to focus on those applications that really require member input. I must also stress that decision makers, whether they are members or officers, must determine applications in accordance with the local plan unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. Having an up-to-date local plan will have the biggest bearing on the outcome of a robust decision. Importantly, we are not changing the consultation rules on planning applications. Local residents and elected councillors will still be able to make their views known on individual applications. Regardless of who the decision maker is, where those representations relate to the planning merits of the development, they will continue to be taken into account in reaching decisions. On transparency and reporting, it is clearly important that local communities know about decisions that are being made on their behalf. That includes decisions on <span id="217WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="217WH"></span>the referral of schedule 2 applications to the committee. We have set out requirements for that in the statutory guidance to which local authorities must have regard. As a minimum, we expect local authorities to keep a record of the cases that the nominated officer and nominated member have considered for referral to committee, the outcome of their consideration and the reasons for their decision. That should be reported to the planning committee on a regular basis and made available on the authority’s website. A couple of points were made on HMOs. A strong local plan, particularly featuring HMOs, should be able to guide planning officers, but I will ask the Minister for Housing and Planning to write to hon. Members who raised that and provide further information. I will also feed back about websites and the council advertising campaign. On devolution and powers of strategic authorities, I am, as it happens, the Minister responsible for the devolution strategy and the rewiring the state plan. We will set that out later this year as part of the Government’s 10-year plan. Hon. Members will see that this Government are serious about putting power back in communities. Part of that is having a strengthened local government system. I can give an example: in my own strategic authority, we announced this week that we will reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport, which will have a massive impact on the local community for jobs and growth. That is a prime example of how rewiring the state can bring the power and prosperity mentioned by Members today. On mandatory training for members, the Government’s priority has been getting the national scheme of delegation in place. Now that that is complete, we will resume work on member training. Further stakeholder engagement is needed on how we will make that a credible and cost-effective system. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will work with local government and hon. Members to ensure that that is robust. On the approach to the size of the committees, planning committees need to be the right size to inform decision making. There have been examples of sprawling committees having unruly debates and not getting anywhere. The intention behind introducing the cap was to ensure that they are more focused and of better quality. I think that initially, the planning committees were going to have <span id="218WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="218WH"></span>11 members, but that has been increased to 13, as a number of political parties are represented in some councils. That changed as a direct feedback from consultation. On the national scheme of delegation, it is something new. We recognise the need to ensure that it works on the ground as intended. That is why, following the consultation on the draft regulations earlier this year, we inserted a further provision into the regulations to require that they are reviewed within two years of coming into force. That will give an opportunity to monitor the implementation of the regulations. I will feed back the request that that be looked at before the two-year mark to the Minister for Housing and Planning and ask him to come back on that, even if it is with some kind of interim or informal assessment of how that has been going. Once again, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing this debate and for the contributions from other colleagues on this important issue. I recognise that not all questions may have been answered, but I will ensure that the Minister for Housing and Planning comes back to hon. Members where I have not had the time to do so. I close by reiterating that the reforms to planning committees, including the national scheme of delegation, are intended to support, not undermine, committees. We want them to be as effective as they possibly can be, so that they serve the best interests of our communities.
I wish to provide the House with an update on the administration of the civil service pension scheme. I must declare my own interest as I hold a civil service pension with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. As we know, the previous Government awarded the contract to Capita in 2023. Earlier this year, in response to significant performance issues, the Government intervened to increase scrutiny and oversight of the scheme’s administration. Capita committed to recovery milestones for April and for June, both of which it failed to meet. In June, we exercised our contractual rights and mandated Capita to produce a rectification plan and—at Capita’s expense—appoint a remedial adviser to assess the plan. The Government also appointed an independent auditor to assess the effectiveness of Capita’s operational arrangements up to July. Capita committed to the House to deliver recovery milestones in September, which it states it has achieved. However, I want to be clear that that does not reflect members’ lived experience or my own correspondence. Those were self-imposed, self-determined and self-assured targets. Many hon. Members, unions and scheme members have written to me asking why, if Capita has met those targets, they still do not have their quote, their pension remains unpaid and they are struggling with no income despite years of commitment and public service. Building on the good work in holding Capita to account undertaken by my predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), I have taken further clear and definitive action to continue that work and ensure that Capita has its feet held to the fire. We have seen some small improvement on priority cases, with Capita now processing more than it receives, and I acknowledge that Capita staff on the ground are working hard in difficult conditions. We are also seeing some slow improvement on technology, with Capita confirming that increased volumes are being managed through automation. It is also rolling out new tools that allow eligible spouses and dependants to view pension payslips and make online inquiries. However, the question remains: why has it taken this scale of Government intervention to force Capita to act? Since taking up this role, I have met the CEO and his senior team twice, and on both occasions expressed in no uncertain terms my outrage at their performance throughout this contract. We were promised “the most AI-enabled Pensions service”. It is fair to say that Capita has comprehensively failed to deliver on that commitment. The progress overall has been abysmal. Complex issues remain unresolved for too long—1,800 cases for more than a year. Although some individuals have more than one case, too many members and family are still left waiting in limbo. The administration issues have also had a knock-on effect on the progress of Capita’s work on the McCloud remedy. I will update the House on that issue next month. The House will be aware that my predecessors rightly directed Capita to appoint a remedial adviser and Cabinet Office to appoint an independent auditor through the <span id="30" class="column-number" data-column-number="30"></span>Government Internal Audit Agency. My officials have this month received the remedial advisory report and the auditor’s interim report, giving independent and objective perspectives. It will not shock this House that the independent adviser’s report clearly shows that Capita’s rectification planning was wholly insufficient, its technology was weak, and its ambition was falling well short of restoring the quality services that members deserve. Poor performance has been evident, but the reports now provide detailed and actionable recommendations, including a new recovery plan for the whole service, with a road map for technology and a focus on data. The remedial advisory report concluded that, in a service whose success firmly relied on automation, Capita did not deliver the promised technology, that it had not been applying the right techniques to understand demand, productivity and capacity, and that it had not put in place effective mechanisms to detect and escalate failure. Well, I have certainly detected a lot of failure, as have many in this House. For the sake of the dedicated people who are waiting for their pensions, we must not allow the service to fail them further. It is clear that Capita cannot do that on its own. A new plan is needed. I agreed with Capita executives that Cabinet Office officials would work with Capita to develop a credible, workable and realistic recovery plan for which Capita alone will be held to account. I can confirm that, for the first time, Cabinet Office officials now have full access to Capita systems and data. I have put in place expert teams to work alongside Capita to agree priorities, improve quality and processes, and ensure that pensions are paid correctly. The new recovery plan is made up of five workstreams. The first three workstreams look at cases of differing levels of complexity, the fourth ensures that significant exercises such as the McCloud remedy are not overlooked, and the fifth, on technology, tackles issues around infrastructure that support delivery. We will require Capita to evidence its focus on fixing complex cases, ensuring that this plan makes the difference that Capita’s original plan could not. Capita has committed that every member with a complex case will be written to in the next month, ensuring that they understand where they are in the system and how they will be supported. Old cases will no longer be allowed to sit on backlogs without progress. Any stuck quote or payment will be actively managed through revised complex case management. Capita’s new plans will be further supported by challenge and advice from a new group of senior experts, drawn from across the civil service and led by the Cabinet Office. These problems were not created by civil servants, but it will be through the expertise, commitment and perseverance of the civil service that operational delivery is supported and we shape the solutions with Capita. Capita must be open and transparent. We will be publishing fortnightly scheme updates on the pension scheme website, with the number of outstanding complex cases broken down by age, the service levels for straightforward cases and the number of other tasks that are outstanding. We will do so until performance has been stabilised. I want to be clear that while we are leaning in with expertise, Capita remains absolutely accountable for service delivery. It will need to deliver its contractual obligations and pay for its failures. We will continue to apply commercial levers to recover costs incurred, including <span id="31" class="column-number" data-column-number="31"></span>holding back nearly £10 million of statements. Throughout this crisis, hon. Members have shown why they and their teams are so valued by their constituents. To support that, we have delivered over 1,300 surgeries for more than 320 MPs. I will provide further updates on the progress of our recovery plan in the coming months. In addition to the immediate ongoing recovery plan, I want to update the House on the longer-term strategy for the scheme. Following our previous commitments to Parliament, my officials have led an extensive programme of engagement with trade unions, practitioners and experts. The evidence from those sessions was clear: restoring operational resilience and member trust must be the approach. I have instructed my officials to evaluate the viability of a range of future delivery options, including insourcing all core business operations. There are a number of different insourcing models in operation across the public sector that we will learn from, and we will consider which is the best approach to take for the civil service pension scheme and all the other schemes that it interacts with. Once those assessments are complete, I will return to the House to provide a further update, but in the here and now, Capita must deliver. This Government inherited a broken, outsourced administration. We cannot replace a complex pension operation overnight, but let me be clear: this Government will hold Capita to account and continue to apply the most stringent commercial levers, and we will not rest until every civil servant receives the pension they are entitled to. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his questions. Let me start by saying that I am not making excuses for Capita, and I am not here to defend its triaging of workable or unworkable cases. I made it very clear to the Capita CEO when I met him on two occasions that I do not recognise those categories—it is either done or it is not, frankly. I will not make excuses for that. In relation to the cases of bereaved families, particularly the families of those who have died under the age of 75, the Cabinet Office has identified that a very small number are at the 18-month point. There is huge focus on ensuring that those cases are resolved before the two-year point, and we will continue to do that with any <span id="33" class="column-number" data-column-number="33"></span>cases that might fall into that bracket, so that we do not find ourselves in a position where anyone would end up paying tax as a result of having to wait two years for these pension issues to be resolved. In relation to the casework surgeries, I understand that sometimes the answers people get back are not satisfactory, and that is because Capita’s performance overall is not satisfactory. All the casework surgeries can do is let people know where they are in the system. For a lot of people, that is not good. We are continuing to work to improve the service through the rectification plan. Over time, that should mean that people have a better experience with casework surgeries—as, frankly, the answers should be getting better. I think this rectification plan will be different from previous plans that Capita has set out because this time the Cabinet Office has access to all the data and to the Capita systems. It has taken the advice of the remedial adviser and worked alongside Capita to help produce this rectification plan, meaning that it is of a better quality. We can now hold Capita to account in relation to that plan, using its systems and using the numbers and data in the correct way, and we will not be quoting things like “unworkable cases” or having all sorts of different triaging mechanisms that make no sense to anybody else. On the “go live” issues referenced by the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), by November 2025 assessments indicated that Capita had made significant progress since the Public Accounts Committee hearing in July. The only alternative would have been extending the contract with the incumbent, MyCSP, but anyone who had any involvement with MyCSP would have known it was equally abysmal. The comparative risk assessment conducted in October 2025 concluded that an extension would have been commercially and operationally unacceptable, and presented a significantly greater risk than transitioning. Let me gently say that if, in the 14 years prior, the Conservative party had not stripped our public services to the point where we were reliant on companies like Capita all the time, we might have found ourselves in a different position. On the question of other contracts in the future, the hon. Gentleman rightly identified that the Procurement Act 2023 will allow Government Departments to look at previous poor performance. It would not be right for me to comment at this time on whether anyone is subject to, or being looked at in relation to, debarment. Finally, as with any contract of this size, the Cabinet Office always has contingency plans in place should they be required.
I will indeed be holding Capita’s feet to the fire every single step of the way on the rectification plan. Now that we have access to the Capita systems, we will be able to track its progress every single day, <span id="34" class="column-number" data-column-number="34"></span>as I know Cabinet Office officials are doing. As I said in the statement, we will be publishing figures every two weeks so that people can see for themselves how Capita is performing. If it is not up to scratch, I will return to the House.
I am sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent, Diane. It is just one of many, many cases that we have heard about where the outcome is totally unacceptable. The Chief Whip was on the phone to me this morning about her constituent, Lisa, who is also facing similar problems in getting anything out of Capita. The hon. Lady asked what I am doing to make sure that Capita lives up to its promises on the most recent rectification plan. As I said, Cabinet Office officials are now in the Capita systems every single day, which has given us the ability to challenge the organisation in a way that we have not been able to do before. If we do not start to see progress each fortnight, as we publish those results, I will have the Capita CEO back in and I will continue to hold Capita’s feet to the fire. All options remain on the table contractually. It is in Capita’s interest, frankly, to pull its socks up and do a better job. On debarment, I really cannot comment on anyone that may or may not be subject to consideration or investigation under the Procurement Act. However, I think <span id="35" class="column-number" data-column-number="35"></span>that most hon. Members would recognise that Capita has done a pretty poor job. It is not its first rodeo either—I will leave that there. I will take away the hon. Lady’s point about inflation-linking and write to her, and I am happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Held . Recorded result: Lab Hold. Majority 9,551. 37,944 votes cast from an electorate of 74,678. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sally Jameson | Labour | 17,515 | 46.2% |
| Nick Allen | Conservative | 7,964 | 21.0% |
| Surjit Duhre | Reform UK | 7,886 | 20.8% |
| Jennifer Rozenfelds | Green Party | 1,880 | 5.0% |
| Greg Ruback | Liberal Democrat | 1,199 | 3.2% |
| Tosh McDonald | Workers Party of Britain | 758 | 2.0% |
| Andrew Walmsley | The Yorkshire Party | 742 | 2.0% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Doncaster CentralElected 1 time | – present |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Parliamentary Secretary and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government)Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill | – present |
| Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill | – |
| Victims and Courts Bill | – |
| Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill | – |
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .