Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 4 February 2026

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my colleagues for attending this morning’s debate. After reading many emails from constituents, it is clear that the issue before us today is not just an admin problem. It has caused real worry, stress and financial hardship to people who spent decades serving the public, trusting that their pension would be paid properly and on time. The scale of the problem is now very large and affects people across the country.

Since Capita took over running the scheme on 1 December 2025, the Public and Commercial Services Union has been flooded with complaints. Members report long delays, mixed messages and very poor service. This is happening while there is a large backlog of cases passed on from the previous provider, MyCSP. Thousands of people are now stuck waiting. The result is stress, uncertainty and real financial hardship, which is not acceptable. The seriousness of it has been accepted at the highest level. Last week Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, wrote to civil servants to admit that the service being provided falls short of what members should expect.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

A couple of weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions I raised the issue of a very young civil servant trying to access her pension as she has only months to live. It was an exceptionally difficult and heartrending story, but thankfully, because of the appearance of her case at Prime Minister’s questions, the issue was resolved shortly afterwards. The point that was made then and since is that it should not take raising something at Prime Minister’s questions to get issues resolved. We need to get Capita, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the Cabinet Office or whoever to sort the issues out as quickly as possible.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The seriousness of it has been accepted at the highest level. As I was saying, Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, wrote to the civil servants to admit that the service falls short of what members should expect. That alone should worry us all. We have also seen reports that some former civil servants have been left without any pension income at all because payments have not been made since Capita took over.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. We can see by the numbers here how serious it is. I have heard from a number of constituents, as she has, in the situation she describes. Heartbreakingly, one constituent, Collette Reeves, retired at the end of last year to care for her husband who has been diagnosed with dementia, and she is now struggling to pay her bills because of the delays. Despite repeated attempts to get answers, she has got nowhere in accessing her pension or getting support from the interim emergency fund. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the performance of Capita since it took over falls woefully short of what we should expect and that it is crucial for our constituents to get clarity on how to access the interim fund as a matter of emergency?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree. Some retirees have had to borrow money just to pay bills because their expected pension payments or lump sums have not arrived, and no clear timescale has been given for when they will. This is not a one-off mistake; it is part of a longer pattern. The Public Accounts Committee has made it clear that successive Governments have failed for years to manage the outsourced contract properly.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. PCS members in my constituency were on strike for a long time last year because of the failures by MyCSP. Capita had the contract before and failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that those people who have been waiting and struggling need to be compensated as soon as possible?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I absolutely do agree with you.

The move to Capita was meant to modernise the system and improve services. Instead, it has exposed poor planning and weak control. Since the transfer, the scheme has struggled to work properly. There have been late pension payments, missing lump sums, lost records, broken systems and long delays in answering calls.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I was contacted by a constituent who is a former civil servant. They waited on the so-called helpline for over two hours on six occasions and were cut off continually. It is a contradiction in terms to call it a helpline. Does the hon. Member agree that that is completely unacceptable behaviour from Capita?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I do agree with you; it is completely unacceptable.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, they are referring to me. It is the same convention as in the Chamber.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I apologise, Ms Lewell.

The scheme cannot even say how many people are still waiting for their first pension payout. From what we are hearing, it is clearly thousands. Behind those failures are real people. I want to share some examples of constituents who have agreed that their cases may be raised.

John was a prison officer for 25 years. He has been receiving just a fraction of his pension for several months. He was left on hold for two hours in December, only to be told that there was nothing Capita could do about it. Robert emailed to tell me that while the loan system is seen as a lifeline by many, Capita seems to be completely unequipped to deal with it. He says that some of his former colleagues are even being directed to charities and Citizens Advice.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Like the hon. Lady, I have a litany of complaints from constituents about the service they have received, and she is doing a brilliant job of highlighting the real-world impact of these delays. I have a constituent who spent 36 years in the police service and is currently unable to pay his mortgage or household bills. Another constituent spent 28 years at the Ministry of Defence and has been forced to take out loans and borrow money from family members. Is this any way to treat people who have dedicated their lives and their careers to public service?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I totally agree; this is not any way to treat our civil servants.

Elaine has been waiting for a pension forecast since early December. She came to see me in January because she cannot plan her retirement at all. She does not know whether she can retire, when she can retire or what income she will have. Julie partly retired at the start of January after applying for her pension back in August. She has still not been paid. She waited five hours on the phone and was told that no timescale could be given. She and her family are worried about paying bills, growing debts and whether her pension will be backdated.

Paul retired from the Ministry of Defence last July, but seven months later he has not received any pension and is living off his savings, with no clear answers. Alison retired and sent in her paperwork in September. She was told that it would be done by December, only to be told later that there was no record of her case and she should write to a PO box address.

Paul retired after 30 years of service. His forms were sent in on time. He has received no lump sum, no pension and no timescale. Julie has worked for the Department for Work and Pensions for 26 years. She carefully planned partial retirement and sent her forms months in advance. Her retirement date is now close and yet she still has no pension forecast. Diane contacted my office about her husband, also a civil servant, who was diagnosed last year with a serious brain tumour. They have been waiting months for a pension forecast so that they can plan their future.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Like her, I have received a litany of complaints in recent weeks from constituents—including Antoni, Catherine, Christopher, Kevin, Mike and Robert—with similar heartbreaking stories. Does she agree that it is important we take urgent action to ensure that consistent and timely pension payments are made for all these scheme members in our constituencies?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree. Peter reached state pension age and gave plenty of notice, but heard nothing. After waiting three hours on the phone, he was told that nothing had been done. He retired in good faith, but the system let him down.

Such cases are not rare. PCS has heard from people who cannot pay their rent or mortgages, who have missed bill payments, who have been charged fees by banks, who are borrowing money or relying on family, and who are suffering serious stress. Some widows or widowers wait months for their late partner’s pension. This is a human crisis. PCS has said that up to 8,500 people may have retired without receiving their pension. For many, this pension is their only income and, when it does not arrive, the impact is immediate and severe. This is a failure on a huge scale.

I also want to mention retired prison officers such as my constituent John, whose cases have been raised by the POA. They have worked in tough and dangerous jobs, and many now face delayed pensions and missing lump sums. The POA is right to call for urgent action, clear timescales and fair compensation.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Public servants in Bournemouth East who gave decades of their lives are struggling after providing service to all of us. Probation officers, youth justice workers, prison staff and court clerks are struggling while Capita makes mistake after mistake. Does my hon. Friend agree that being good at winning public service contracts is not the same as being good at delivering them, and that we need accountability where people’s lives have been harmed?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and we are all grateful for the opportunity to raise these cases. I have been contacted by a constituent who left the civil service in 1992 and, more than 30 years later, has still not received the pension that she is owed, despite providing proof of service from HMRC and making repeated transfer requests. Despite the fact that the civil service later located her superannuation file, the scheme continued to insist that no record existed. Does the hon. Lady agree that such cases show that the failure is not just delay but deep-rooted maladministration within our state, and that the Government must commit to ensuring people are paid the pensions that they are legally entitled to?

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree.

To deal with hardship, the Cabinet Office has announced interest-free loans of up to £10,000. That may help in the short term, but it is wrong that pensioners are being asked to borrow money that already belongs to them. That should never have been needed. What is more, those affected have been left in limbo and have no information about the operation of these loans. Given the mismanagement of the scheme, how can members have any confidence that Capita will know who is facing hardship and is therefore eligible for a loan?

PCS has made it clear that many of these cases should have been completed before the hand-over, but were not. The Cabinet Office has accepted that more retirements late last year, and more this year, have made the backlog worse. Without a clear and well-resourced recovery plan, normal service could take many months to return. That is why Capita must urgently prioritise the cases of retirees, as over the coming months many could remain without any income whatever. It must increase staffing capacity and, ultimately, devote every resource to clearing the backlog.

It is welcome that the Cabinet Office has now brought in about 150 civil servants, mainly from HMRC, to help fix the problem, but it raises a simple question: if so many civil servants are needed, why is the work not being done inside the civil service? Are the Government billing Capita for the work that those civil servants are having to do?

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We are told that a system of crisis payments has been put in place but I am still receiving correspondence from constituents, including this morning. They are terrified that they will not be able to pay their bills at the end of this month. My question is for the Minister at the Cabinet Office. What sanctions will be put in place to ensure that Capita acts, because my constituents are still being totally ignored?

[Lorraine Beavers]

This problem has a long history. Pensions administration used to be done in-house. In 2012, it was moved out as part of the wider push to outsource services. Over time, Government control was sold off and MyCSP came to an end in 2025. The new contract was awarded quietly, despite known pressures from rising retirements and major legal pension changes.

Those decisions need to be looked at closely. PCS has called for Capita to focus first on hardship cases, including unpaid retirees, people about to retire, ill-health cases and bereavement. It has also called for proper compensation schemes to cover interest, extra costs and distress. Those are fair and reasonable demands.

Capita and senior officials have apologised and promised recovery plans. Apologies matter but they are not enough. When people are left without income, through no fault of their own, action must follow. There must be clear responsibility, updates and deadlines. Hardship cases must come first and resources must match the size of the problem. People must be compensated for the harm caused.

I have five questions for the Government. First, will the Minister ensure immediate financial support and fair compensation for all those affected? Secondly, will she publish a clear recovery plan with proper oversight? Thirdly, will she ensure that Capita pauses voluntary exit schemes, increases staffing capacity and dedicates every available resource to clearing this huge backlog for retirees? Fourthly, will she review how this contract was handled, including whether the service should return in-house? Fifthly, will the Minister restate a simple promise: pensions earned through public service must be paid on time and with respect?

Before the general election, my party promised Britain the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. This farce has exposed just how important that promise was and remains. I urge the Labour Government to make good on that promise. Civil servants give their working lives to this country in good faith. When that trust is broken, it is not just unfair to individuals, it is a failure of Government that this House must address.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

We will need to keep Back-Bench contributions to three minutes. I call Ann Davies.

09:48

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr, Ms Lewell; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing the debate.

My corner of west Wales, Caerfyrddin, is no different. Multiple constituents have come to me with unacceptable experiences of trying to access their civil service pensions, as administered by Capita. Among them is Steve Dawkins, who retired this month after 24 years as a civil servant. Steve followed all the procedures and submitted his formal notice of retirement, but he has not received a formal acknowledgment of his pension claim, nor an indication of when his lump sum or monthly pension payments might be expected. His salary has stopped and he is not eligible for his state pension until September. I have sent a letter to Capita, outlining Steve’s case and urging action. I have had an acknowledgment but no action.

Rhiannon Davies-Laughlin, another constituent, has contacted Capita multiple times to request pension details but has not received a response. She also requested an annual benefit statement and was told to wait to hear within 10 days. She never did. She had to resign from her job and was due to finish work yesterday. She was intending to retire, but still does not know her pension position. I have written to Capita; I have not received a response.

We could go on to talk about many more cases, but we will finish with Sarah Rees. Last February, Sarah applied to receive her pension early because of ill health. That application was lost. The situation was similar to what the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) described. Sarah submitted the application again in July, and in November she was told that all the necessary paperwork had been received, but she did not hear back until last week. When I raised Sarah’s case during a business statement, it seemed to catch Capita’s attention, as Sarah has finally received a response, and a lump sum. But the sum was miscalculated, so I have had to write to Capita again, and you have guessed it: no response.

This is just not good enough. It is inexcusable that more than 8,000 people who retired more than 12 months ago still have not received their pension payments. Retired and retiring civil servants left in this position should seek, and have, compensation. I join the PCS Union’s call for a bespoke compensation scheme that takes account of interest on overdue payments and the financial implications of delays, as well as the distress that this scandal has caused them.

I urge the Minister and the Department, once the backlog of 90,000 cases is rectified, all pension payments have been issued and a compensation scheme has been set up, to act on the Public Accounts Committee’s report and consider bringing civil servants’ pensions back in-house to help prevent such a scandal from ever happening again.

09:51

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for initiating this debate. I have been inundated with emails from constituents in Jarrow and Gateshead East regarding their civil service pensions and the unacceptable delays that people are facing. This is not just a delay on paperwork, but something that is causing huge detriment to the lives of many people in my constituency and across the UK. This issue could have been avoided. Indeed, I and others, including the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the trade union PCS, all raised concerns ahead of the transfer to Capita. Unfortunately, we are now seeing those concerns play out.

On 12 January I wrote to Ministers, highlighting this and asking a number of questions. I received a response just yesterday, ahead of this debate, but it did not answer all the questions, and directed me to tell constituents to email Capita, complaining about its system. Of course they had already done that, and I contacted Capita on behalf of constituents, but I have not had a response. Of course I am not surprised, as my constituents have been ignored and have been waiting for months.

The response that I have received from the Minister says, “I hope constituents feel reassured,” but I can tell you, Ms Lewell, that they do not. It does not reassure my constituent Christine, who is 65 and retired on 2 December, but has not received her pension or a lump sum. Every time she contacts Capita, she is told that she will receive it in 10 days, yet it still has not arrived, leaving her without money for months, including over Christmas. It does not reassure my constituent Pauline, who retired back in July and has still not received anything. She is repeatedly being told that her case is with the finalisation team. It does not reassure my constituent Jackie, who took early retirement to care for her grandson and help her son, and should have started receiving payments in August but has received nothing, or Christopher, who is 60 and lives on his own, with no savings and no other income. He has now been three months without a pension payment. Another constituent, Carol, is 70 and does not know when she will get any money or even how much her monthly payment should be.

None of my constituents, or many others who have been waiting for months, are reassured. These are real people, who have been waiting for months, so I ask these questions. Will the Minister instruct Capita to prioritise the people who have been without money for months, rather than continuing to process the volunteer exit scheme? Will the Minister commit to a compensation scheme covering these delays that does not force my constituents to apply through the scheme’s own laborious internal process?

09:54

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). We all owe the hon. Lady a debt for bringing forward this issue, and our constituents would agree.

I have constituents who are close to defaulting on their mortgages without their appropriate payments, and we cannot allow Capita to continue fobbing those people off. I spoke to the Minister before the debate and it is not their fault; it is Capita’s. However, my constituents would say—I hope the Chair will find my language okay—“It is time to kick ass in Capita”. I could say something worse—although I had better not.

[Mr Campbell]

My hon Friend had better not!

[Jim Shannon]

Let me read out an email sent by a lady who worked for almost 50 years in the civil service at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If anyone knows how to work the figures, then this lady does. Yet she is powerless in the face of Capita.

“I joined the Civil Service in September 1977 and retired from it on the 31 December 2025. I worked in the Inland Revenue that then became HMRC. I have not received my lump sum or final details of my pension. I telephoned Capita on the 13 January and after hanging on the line for 2hrs 10 mins (being 12 in the queue) was told by Helen a chaser would be made to processing.

She was unable to let me speak with a manager or processing and confirmed there are issues with logging/registering with the new pensions portal.

I telephoned again today and after hanging on for nearly 5hrs was told by Lilly she would send an escalation today to her manager Adrian. I asked for a call back & whilst Lilly agreed to make this request to her manager she could not guarantee it could be done. I explained I could not get onto the pension portal and she advised the issues with it would not be sorted until March.”

That is the lived experience of a lady who has dedicated almost 50 years of her working life to the civil service—a lady who knew the penalties in place for those who are paid late and who could listen to the extenuating circumstances that someone was going through. I know that the Minister is not responsible but, my goodness Capita needs a throttling.

I have five questions. Why did civil service pensions not postpone the changeover to Capita until the issues with the existing scheme were resolved? When can deadlines for resolving the issues be set? Why was the resolution of the McCloud issues not adequately resourced? When will the remaining contingent decision routes procedures be issued? Will the affordability test be applied to civil service pensions, and if so, when? The affordability test is a clause in the pension scheme allowing it to reduce the pension if it looks like it will become unaffordable. These are the implications of what happens. People can find themselves with a pension that is less than it should have been.

The Government know that the country does not operate without our knowledgeable, hard-working civil servants, but our obligation to them does not end with their final day—it continues. We are failing those who gave so much—and this must end right now.

09:57

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I think that we are all going to be saying much the same thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) set out a comprehensive understanding of the situation at the moment.

My latest contact has been from a Border Force guard who was planning his retirement but cannot get the information and has had to delay retirement. Others have not had their pensions paid. They are in a really serious plight. I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a failed privatisation. It came in during the obsession of the last Government with privatisation during the early 2010s. At that time the union warned that there would be problems of this sort. We also warned that what will happen with these privatisations is that they get sold on—the companies get taken over and contracts are re-awarded. I found it shocking that Capita was awarded the contract in the first place, having lost the teachers union pension contract. I find it extraordinary that that was not properly taken into account.

People are aware that the general secretary of the union has written to the Cabinet Office about this on behalf of the union. So that hon. Members are aware what has happened, all that the union is asking for is clarity about the disclosure of the resources that Capita and others are now putting into resolving this problem. What level of staffing will be devoted to this problem? What is the timetable for resolving this problem? As many Members have said, there needs to be a direct instruction to Capita about dealing with the hardship cases—the bereavements and so on: the priorities that the members of the pension scheme have set out though their union.

The union has said it needs an assurance that if there is a prioritisation taking place, the completion of the voluntary exit schemes should be delayed. The prioritisation should be focused on getting the money out to those people who need it. Angela MacDonald has been announced as setting up the recovery scheme in the current crisis. My worry is that we might be here in two, three or four years’ time—whenever it is—because this privatisation has demonstrated that it cannot work. That is why so many members are asking the Government to please not exclude the possibility of bringing the scheme back into public administration. I do not want to be here again, pleading for people who have not had their pensions. On that point, I would like the Minister to say whether there is a clause within the existing contract that allows for its termination if it has failed, as it is failing at the moment. That could give us the opportunity for a fresh look at bringing it back in-house.

10:00

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) not only for securing this important debate, but for her excellent opening speech, which set out comprehensively and with passion the impact that this issue is having on our constituents all across the country.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am well aware of the problems with the civil service pension scheme and contributed to the report that was published on it in October. In that report, we highlighted a range of issues that we have heard about already in this debate: poor customer service and staff retention at MyCSP, long waits for pension options to be set out for those wishing to withdraw pensions, a failure from the Cabinet Office to manage transitions between suppliers, and concerns about Capita’s readiness to take the scheme over and about whether the scheme administration overall was delivering value for money.

The Cabinet Office’s response, in the Treasury minute published at the beginning of December last year, reassured the Committee that, yes, everything was in place for the success of the transition, that Capita had sufficient staffing, and that the Cabinet Office had sufficient penalties for poor performance in the contract with Capita. Does the Minister agree that the Cabinet Office underestimated Capita’s ability to take on administration and that it should indeed face consequences for severe failure?

Those issues are evident in my own constituency; I can briefly talk about a couple of them. One constituent has been trying to claim civil service pension since May 2025; they have faced long waits on the phones, emails unanswered and documents going missing. Since Capita took over, they have had new problems, such as the portal not allowing log-ins and eventually getting through on the phone only to be cut off. My constituent is suffering from financial hardship, and still waiting for the lump sum.

Another constituent, approaching 60, wanted to claim a deferred pension from January this year. The forms were posted in August. He was told he would receive a quote in November, did not receive it, and was unable to speak to Capita despite persistent attempts to contact it. The deferred pension would allow him to remain financially secure. Instead, he has reduced his hours and is now facing financial hardship. A third constituent is waiting for a lump sum to be paid on partial retirement. Again, the correct forms were sent in, but the lump sum was not received and there have been no communications.

Such examples are rife. Given the terrible hardship and worry that this fiasco has caused, I urge the Minister to explain what urgent action she is taking to rectify the situation and ensure that Capita, and not our public service pensioners, pays the price.

10:03

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a trade union member, and refer to the fact that I received support from the trade unions at the last election.

It is really important that we recognise who we are talking about: ordinary people, ordinary folk. Many of the people who we are discussing have worked in the civil service for many Government Departments and, shamefully, have been claiming benefits for years because their wages are that low. That is the vast majority of the people we are talking about. They brought us through the pandemic—let us not forget that. There are a lot of them in my constituency of Blyth and Ashington; I have a number of examples, which I am not sure I will be able to get through.

The root problem here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, is privatisation. The initial privatisation by the Tories was in 2012. It was initially DWP/Capita. Then it was MyCSP, which was a disaster. How on earth is Capita getting a secret contract agreed in 2023 to take place in 2025? It is an absolute outrage. Look at the situation now. They promised transition would be fine, but MyCSP had 16,000 unopened emails when Capita took the scheme back over. There are 1.7 million scheme members and a backlog of 90,000; there are 8,500 retired members not in receipt of any pension—and what about those in ill health and the bereaved? There is hardship, and there are issues with the interest-free loans that were promised.

[Dan Carden]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Is it not important that this Labour Government show how they are different, and deal differently with those failed privatisations?

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I will refer to three of my constituents. Mr Brown, from Bedlington, who retired in December and cannot get any response whatsoever to his inquiries. Mr Newell, who worked in the civil service for 40 years and has a number of questions regarding Capita, which I will send to my right hon. Friend the Minister. He spent 21 hours in total on the telephone waiting for a response, and he had additional problems. Mr Davies from Choppington raised a problem with the portal, where people cannot access details.

Those are three real issues. We need to pause the voluntary exit scheme and focus on those people who are not in receipt of their pensions at this moment in time. There needs to be more resourcing, with more staff employed to get rid of the backlog. Again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we need to consider whether Capita is carrying out the job it is supposed to. It is time to have a look at Capita and see whether it is doing the job correctly. If it is not, penalties must apply.

10:07

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for introducing the debate and speaking so articulately. I will not repeat the many points made by colleagues from across the House; instead, I will use this chance—of two and a half minutes, now—to talk about my casework. I want to say to my constituents that I had a meeting with the Minister yesterday, and I was reassured by how seriously the Government are taking this issue, but I am disgusted by how Capita is handling it. I want to ensure that, in every single email that I send to Capita, I am referencing this debate and the case I am bringing forward.

I have had about 10 correspondents, the first of whom is Kathleen Cassie. Again, I will be using these minutes in my correspondence with Capita. She took partial retirement in November. She has received no lump sum and no payments, and I have not had a response from Capita after chasing them. Maxine Fuller is planning for retirement. She has written four times, phoned twice and sent three messages on the portal. Surprisingly, she has had no response.

As Members can imagine, the story continues. Chris Fryer—I should say that all these people are happy to be named in Parliament—retired a year ago, and has not received a single penny after spending his entire career working as an officer for the Border Force. He has contacted them, and the same story remains: he has had no response. That is a year of not being able to make mortgage payments and the like, payments he should be able to take for granted.

It is a similar story with Lisa Andrews. She is a serving police officer who, after 37 years, applied for partial retirement on 1 December. She got cut off the portal, and she has not been able to have any correspondence with Capita. After chasing, but not hearing back, she received a lump sum, but she now awaits the monthly partial pension payment, and lo and behold—quelle surprise!—she did not receive it on 1 January.

I have many more examples, some of whom do not want to be referenced. To cite one without naming them, they were on the phone yesterday and were at 183 in the queue, but they are terrified that if I name them in Parliament, they will be sent to the back of the queue and penalised further. About 10 constituents have reached out to me about that. They are terrified. They have spent many years serving this country through the civil service, dedicating their life to it, and they should be able to look forward to their retirement—either partial or full—but they have been let down by Capita.

I look forward to the response of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), on how the Conservatives agreed this contract with such a lack of scrutiny, because they have not been challenged enough about that today. However, I will leave it there, Ms Lewell, because my anger is rising.

10:10

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Like many Members, I want to share the real impact that the serious concerns about the administration of the civil service pension scheme are having on my constituents. In the north-east, this issue is particularly acute because we have one of the largest HMRC and DWP offices in Benton Park View—often known locally as the Ministry—employing thousands of people. Civil service jobs have long been the backbone of our local economy, with many local people giving decades of their life to public service, but they are now being let down at the point when they should most be able to rely on the system.

I am regularly contacted by constituents who are spending hours on the phone—sometimes two, three or four hours—just to try to get an update on their pension, often only to be told that no one can help them or that they will receive a callback in seven to 10 days. Except, of course, that that call never comes. People are left with no information, no timescales and no way to resolve their issues. One constituent who already had a pension in payment is now being double taxed because Capita incorrectly told HMRC that she had started a new pension, rather than continuing her existing one. Despite repeated attempts to fix the issue, there has been no joy.

One civil servant with 43 years of service applied in August for partial retirement to start this year: all paperwork submitted all the paperwork, but no confirmation and no payment—nothing. After more than four decades of service, they are denied even the certainty of a planned retirement. Another constituent, with 29 years of service, claimed their pension in July and has still not received either their lump sum or any ongoing payments. As a result, they are having to rely on credit cards, incurring additional interest and struggling to meet mortgage payments—all because money to which they are entitled has not been paid. I have been contacted about a widows and orphans scheme refund of £1,940, due since July, that remains unpaid. For families dealing with bereavement, such delays only add to the strain they are already under.

As we have heard, these are not isolated cases, which points to systemic problems with how this scheme is administered. Civil servants have upheld their side of the bargain, and it is only right that the system does the same. I urge Ministers not only to examine Capita’s performance closely, but to recognise that previous MyCSP failures also need to be taken into account. I and other hon. Members want to hear what action is being taken to ensure that people receive their pensions accurately, promptly and with the respect they deserve, but also what action will be taken to hold Capital and MyCSP to account for their failures.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. To ensure that all Members wishing to speak do get to contribute, I am reducing the time limit to two and a half minutes.

10:13

[Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which declares my various union memberships.

Many Members have made very valid points, and I will try not to echo them. To follow on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) said about MyCSP, I know from personal experience and the experience of my colleagues in the Prison Service that it was absolutely appalling—and, just when we thought its incompetence could not get any worse, it managed to surpass itself. I do not think any of us shed a tear when it had the contract taken away.

I am sure that Capita is full of excuses, saying “We had a terrible inheritance, because MyCSP did x, y and z”, and that is true, but Capita has huge resources of people and money, and it should have known what it was letting itself in for. It should have known how bad MyCSP was and how bad the backlog was, and if it could not do the job, it should not have taken on the contract.

I have constituents like Billy, who was considering taking partial retirement but now does not want to because he does not know if he is going to get his money. He is scared, and he is denying himself time away from work and partial retirement because of how appalling Capita is.

Will the Minister tell us what review will be done of the mismanagement of the contract, but also of how the was decision taken? I appreciate that it was taken by the previous Government, and that the Minister cannot answer for that, but what official advice was given to Ministers in the previous Government about the contract? In particular, what advice was given about break clauses? This is abject failure and we should be able to get out of the contract. What were officials in the Department advising Ministers about that? I am afraid to say that this level of failure requires accountability, and people who were involved in the procurement should never be involved in procurement for a Government contract again. We need to know who they are and what price they are going to pay, because, yet again, taxpayers are footing the bill for failure, and it is totally unacceptable.

This was not Capita’s first rodeo; it has been on the failure train many times before. The fact that it was given another contract is deeply worrying. Will the Minister confirm that Capita will not be allowed to bid for any future Government contracts, at the very least until this issue is resolved and the taxpayer has been compensated for what it has had to pay for to date? As far as I am concerned, this kind of thing should be brought back in house, so I am also interested to know what work is being done to see whether that is possible.

10:16

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Those who serve the public deserve dignity and respect as they go into retirement, but, after a lifetime putting their shoulder to the wheel to keep the country running, that is not what my constituents in Falkirk who have been impacted by these delays feel that they are receiving. They feel utterly let down by MyCSP and Capita.

When Capita won the contract under the Tories, it promised the world—improvements to service levels and response times—and justified proposed staff reductions through a more efficient IT system. Given the value of the contract and Capita’s reputation at the time, following the management of the teachers’ pension scheme, serious questions arise for the Tory then-Ministers about whether the contract should have been signed off in November 2023.

Transitional arrangements between MyCSP and Capita failed to plan for the scale of the backlog and the required additional staffing, as the Public Accounts Committee warned in October. Those warnings were not heeded, and that has had human consequences. Mary was supposed to retire with her pension last week, but without any time to make alternative plans and after hours on the phone, she was callously told to wait her turn, months after applying and of the ball being firmly in Capita’s court. After a workplace injury forced Andrew to retire after 40 years guarding Scotland’s prisons, he has not received his pension or the capability payment tied to his scheme. Multiple more constituents have been waiting nine months and counting to receive death in service payments following their spouses’ tragically passing away. This situation is directly responsible for their financial hardship and for aggravating the emotional devastation that they feel.

Those facing hardship and crisis and those at imminent risk of retirement with no income must be prioritised in the backlog. I have written, and will continue to write to both the Minister and Capita with each of their stories. I welcome the interest-free hardship loans of up to £5,000 and £10,000 for those in exceptional circumstances secured by Labour Ministers. Those must move at pace for those in Falkirk and across the country who urgently need support.

Capita must urgently state what additional resources it is providing to clear the backlog so that the crisis is fixed and paid for by the taxpayer-funded contractor, and not any more than is necessary by the taxpayer swooping in to the rescue. Once the backlog and crisis is cleared, the recovery team must have a clear mandate to consider whether reversing this failed privatisation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) referred to it, is the right way forward. Once the crisis is resolved, all contractual options available to the Cabinet Office must be considered. I have heard that this contract is stronger than the preceding MyCSP contract. Will the Minister say in what way it is stronger, and what further actions will be considered once the priority work for people who are sitting waiting on their pensions is completed?

10:19

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this debate. It is crucial for my constituents who have dedicated their entire careers to public service at naval air stations, the Inland Revenue and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. They all got in touch with me as a last resort due to delays and lack of information. I welcome the urgent recovery plan that has been put in place by Angela MacDonald’s team, but we need more clarity on the timeline for when the outstanding pensions matters will be resolved.

My constituents have highlighted issues with accuracy. Simon found that the figures he received were incorrect. When he questioned them, the answer from MyCSP was that he should wait until January and contact the new provider, who would sort it out. Mark, who worked at HMRC, noticed that, according to the new website, his nominated beneficiary was his dad, who has been dead for many decades. Mark queried this and was told that it is actually his wife, but the website still has not been updated. David said:

“I heard nothing. I called many times and was…on hold for 90 minutes to 2 hours. The line kept going dead, after getting from say number 105 to around 45 in that time. I got through three times this month and each time the call handler promised escalation, telling me I’m with the ‘finalisation team’, but still nothing.”

What steps are being taken by Capita and the Cabinet Office to improve the situation, and what penalty clauses have been triggered? Is consideration being given to forfeiture of the contract? What hard targets has Capita been set to get through the backlog? Did MyCSP breach its contract? What penalties has it paid?

When I was a councillor, I chaired Cornwall’s local government pension scheme, which managed to deal with 60,000 members and £2.3 billion. It had proper resources in place to deal with the McCloud judgment, among other things, and everybody gets their pension on time. That is done in house. Why cannot these civil servants, who have worked their whole life in public service, receive the same measure of fairness and respect?

10:20

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this vital debate. As some of my colleagues have already done, I will speak about the human cost of the failures in the administration of the civil service pension scheme, and I will do so with the permission of constituents whose MyCSP cases have been handed over to Capita.

Sally Clementson was a civil servant who had paid into her pension throughout her working life. Sadly, she died in January last year. Her husband, Mark, waited months following her bereavement claim without hearing anything about the widower’s pension. During that time he was anxious, and suffered distress and serious financial hardship while grieving for his wife. Tragically, Mark himself died in November, having never received a penny of the pension that his wife had earned. To this day, his family have received no pension payments to help cover the funeral costs or mounting bills. The latest response that they received from Capita states that that is due to the backlog.

That is not an isolated case. Another constituent, Debbie Bowen, died in 2024. Her sister, Joanne Wilson, has spent over a year chasing Debbie’s pension. Solicitors were promised escalation and contact within 12 weeks, but alas no contact came. Repeated calls throughout December and January led to the same assurances, but still no resolution. Joanne has described feeling utterly frustrated and just worn down by it all.

Let me be clear: these are not complex claims. I know that many Members here have some really complex claims to deal with. The ones I am referring to are not disputed claims. They are from bereaved families, who are being left without answers, without dignity and without money. To be absolutely frank, I am apoplectic. It is unacceptable for workers or families to be left in this position.

Let me echo colleagues by asking the Minister: what immediate steps are being taken to prioritise bereavement cases? More broadly, when companies such as Capita repeatedly fail public services—let us be frank; it has done that not just in relation to pension schemes—why is that not considered during procurement processes? I used to work in procurement, and I certainly considered previous performance when I was awarding contracts. It is baffling to me that a contract was awarded to Capita when it had such a record of non-performance. Will the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), say why that was not considered when the previous Government awarded the contract?

10:23

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

As so many colleagues have said, at the heart of this debate are people who have worked as public servants, many of them for decades. Everything that I am getting in my mailbox relates to hard-working people who have tried to do the right thing—it is just not fair, is it?

I have constituents who are afraid of losing their homes because they cannot pay their mortgages, their credit card bills, or their electricity and gas bills. But herein lies a bigger issue, I think. It is on stuff like this that the public have lost faith in us, because it is not the first time that something like this has happened. There needs to be accountability.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) said, Capita has a record of incompetence and crisis under its belt, including on public service pensions, so why was it awarded this contract? What advice was given to Tory Ministers, and by which officials, when the contract was awarded? What commitments has Capita given this Government about resources to clear the backlog, and what firm timelines has it given for that? Crucially, what will be the consequences if it does not hit those targets? Will it just get away with it, with a fine, a slap on the wrist or maybe a newspaper story? If this is not already failure, what constitutes failure?

As I said at the start, at the heart of this situation are people’s lives. If the Government do not get to grips with it, we will be back here again, as my right hon. Friend said, and I can foresee an ITV series starring Toby Jones in a few years’ time. I thank the Government for the sticking plaster in the form of loans for those who need them most, but the taxpayer is once again stepping in because of failure, incompetence and maladministration. I urge the Cabinet Office to do the right thing and make sure that everything is done for people who have worked hard all their lives so that they get their pensions paid.

10:25

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this important debate on a crisis affecting thousands of public servants who find themselves without the pension they have earned and, in some cases, without any income at all. These people have paid into a scheme throughout their careers with the reasonable expectation that when they retire they will get their money—it is their deferred salary. Instead, we have witnessed from MyCSP and Capita nothing short of a shambles.

The previous Government awarded Capita a seven-year contract worth £239 million to administer the scheme, even though the warning signs were there. Where are Conservative Members today to answer and apologise? It is shameful. The result has been chaos. I want to highlight the human impact and share the experiences of some of my constituents who are bearing the brunt of the failure.

One, a former Ministry of Defence employee, was medically retired on 11 December. His lump sum and monthly payments were due to start on the 12th, but he has received nothing. Another constituent retired from the Office for National Statistics on 27 November after giving four months’ notice. He was told his lump sum would be paid within one week, but he has received nothing. A constituent who has worked for HMRC for 26 years is due to retire but cannot get a pension quote from Capita, so she cannot plan her retirement or make informed decisions. A constituent who retired from HMRC on 30 December is waiting for a lump sum of £94,000. Capita has confirmed receipt of his documents, but he has received nothing. Finally, I want to mention a constituent who worked in naval fleet support for 38 years. He decided in June 2025 to retire. Since then, the communication has been abysmal and he has received not a single penny of his pension.

Those are not isolated cases. These delays are causing genuine hardship. People are unable to pay their bills, depleting their savings and borrowing from family members, and some are borrowing from other sources, which is costing them even more. The stress that this situation is causing is horrendous. I acknowledge that the Government have appointed an expert recovery team led by Angela MacDonald and I welcome the hardship loans plan. However, that does not address the fact that a flawed procurement process selected a contractor that was not ready to go live.

I am calling for transparency—Capita must publish detailed performance data—and accountability. The Cabinet Office must make full use of its contractual rights. If Capita fails to meet recovery plan milestones, there must be serious consideration of whether it should continue to hold the contract. Finally, there should be compensation for those who have suffered financial hardship because of Capita. This crisis raises fundamental questions about how we contract out the administration of critical public services.

10:28

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. All credit to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for securing this important debate. She can so often be found calling out injustice. As is clearly the case for many MPs, recent weeks have brought forth an abundance of correspondence from constituents frustrated by unsatisfactory communication from Capita, with the anxiety borne of missed pension payments. Many of those who have experienced missed pension payments have given years or even decades of their lives to public service across key Departments, not least the Ministry of Defence and Crown Prosecution Service.

One such constituent of mine expressed that she had completed her MyCSP application in July 2025, but had then received no further communication until discovering in November that the portal had closed. Having then created a Capita account in December, she has sent three messages via the portal and attempted to call the hotline four times—to date, all without a response. Another is a retired Ministry of Defence civil servant who had worked at RAF Innsworth, now Imjin barracks, home to the Joint Casualty and Compassionate Centre. She told me that she submitted all her documentation as required, but at the end of November all telephone lines were ceased, her emails bounced back undelivered and the portal was closed. She said that her experience only worsened when Capita reopened the portal, which was apparently untested and did not allow her to log in at all. The absence of meaningful communication significantly compounded my constituent’s stress. Those affected still have no timeline for seeing their pensions paid.

Capita’s initial explanation—that these symptoms were merely teething troubles—should do nothing to convince any of us that the organisation fully understands the implications of the missed payments. It has more recently admitted to serious issues: the true scale is apparently a backlog of 86,000 cases. None of that should surprise the Government or anybody else here. I recall significant delays in the armed forces recruitment process during a period in which Capita mismanaged medical assessments. Issues similar to those faced currently were reported in the administration of the teachers’ pension scheme, again by Capita. In October 2025, the Public Accounts Committee warned the Government of a clear risk that Capita would not be ready to take on full administration in December, and it called on the Cabinet Office to explain how it would ensure sufficient staffing and resourcing.

At the heart of this issue are 1.7 million current and former civil servants who just want peace of mind from knowing that the pensions they have earned through years of public service will be handled fairly, with dignity and, if at all possible, with a base level of competence. The Liberal Democrats therefore have questions for the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). I hope that in their closing speeches, they will answer some of the following.

In the light of this situation, what steps are the Government taking to support individuals who have mortgages to pay, families to feed and all manner of expenses for which they are currently being denied payment? Perhaps the shadow Minister will tell us how his Government assessed Capita’s role in the administration of the teachers’ pension scheme, where similar issues were reported. Will he explain whether Capita’s role in the administration of the teachers’ pension scheme factored in the awarding of this contract? Capita claims that the backlog it inherited was more than twice the size that it anticipated. Will the Minister tell us who is responsible for that—MyCSP, Capita, this Government or the last one?

Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, the solitary Conservative representative, will answer the following. The value of the contract is £239 million over seven years. Given Capita’s history of mismanagement, by what metrics was it determined to have won the contract? Could the Minister answer this question? Hauntingly, the contract includes an option to extend it from seven to 10 years. Will this mismanagement factor into the Government’s determination about whether to extend it?

My final question is for the Government. We can all sit here, empathise and complain about Capita, but we must learn the lessons. What lessons will the Government take from this fiasco?

10:33

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on securing this important and timely debate. The situation is an entirely unforced error by Capita, and it has caused real and significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants—people who dedicated their working lives to serving this country. The people affected are individuals who planned responsibly for retirement and relied on the integrity of the civil service pension scheme, but have been left anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperate.

Like other hon. Members, I have had several constituents contact me to say that they have been left without any income to fall back on. Mark contacted Capita several times at the start of this year without any reply at all, and he now finds that none of the links in the previous letters and emails from MyCSP work anymore. There was no transition.

In many of the cases reported by colleagues from across the country, those affected are suffering missed mortgage payments, unpaid bills and the indignity of having to borrow money simply to get by. That should never happen to anyone who has served the public in good faith.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman sets out many of the hardships and challenges, as other hon. Members have in this debate. Will he take some responsibility? Under the previous Government, when this contract was let, these problems should have been foreseen and the contract never awarded to Capita.

[Mike Wood]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that because I was not a Minister in the previous Government, I did not have access to the tendering process, and do not have the details of the bid. However, there was a clear failure by the previous providers and there have been many opportunities since the last general election to review that contract in light of the clear failure—

[Cameron Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is probably quite right to note that there were significant failings by the previous provider. Does he accept that there were clear failings by the previous Government?

[Mike Wood]

No. The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to hide from the fact that his party was part of the Government that awarded that contract in 2012 to the mutual joint venture. He may wish to look at his own party’s part in that if he thinks that it was a mistake. Sadly, the information provided by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to the House last week fell well short of what is required. It failed to address the fundamental question of how the Government allowed Capita to take over the contract in December despite the repeated warnings and the signs that it had clearly failed in its key milestones.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I must continue, because I have only a short time; I have given way twice. We know that in November 2023, Capita was awarded the contract to administer the civil service pension scheme, but we also know that the previous administrator, MyCSP, had its contract extended until December 2025 specifically to allow for a two-year transition period that was meant to reduce risk, not create it. The National Audit Office investigation report published in June 2025 made it clear that MyCSP had failed to meet agreed service levels in the final year of its contract, with complaints more than doubling towards the end of that contract. That is a large part of the reason why the contract was awarded elsewhere.

If I may briefly refer to the tragic case of Philippa—not a constituent but someone who I had the pleasure of meeting because she was the long-term partner of a member of staff of one of our colleagues.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Member give way? He should not be allowed to get away with this.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. It is obvious that the Member does not want to give way.

[John McDonnell]

He is not giving way because he will not admit responsibility.

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. It is up to the Member if he wishes to give way; he has made it clear that he does not wish to.

[Mike Wood]

I have already given way twice and I may give way later, but I need to get through my speech so that the Minister can reply, because I know that hon. Members will want to hear her response.

Philippa retired in May and suffered a nervous collapse triggered by pension delay. Tragically, Philippa died on Boxing day, so that is the very real human cost. Of course, the National Audit Office report did not stop with the failings of the final years of MyCSP’s contract. It also highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that were due by March 2025, all relating to scheme design and operational readiness. In other words, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for serious problems, and of the consequences that those problems would have for pensioners, for at least the final half of 2025.

[Leigh Ingham]

Does the hon. Member agree that the warning signs were there when Capita failed on the TPS?

[Mike Wood]

As I have said, I did not see the details of the bid. Obviously, with any bid, it is right to look at previous performance. There will be some causes for concern with any of the bidders for large Government contracts because of the complexity of those contracts.

[John McDonnell]

Maybe the Ministers at the time did not see Capita’s Army recruitment fiasco, its primary care fiasco that put patients at risk, the near-collapse of the teachers’ pension scheme or the cyber-attack in which Capita exposed the data of 6.5 million people and was fined millions. Does the hon. Member not think that Ministers might have taken those into account before awarding this contract?

[Mike Wood]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not always been an uncritical friend of the current Government, but he has to recognise that his party has been in government for more than a year and a half, during which there were opportunities to take action if they were unhappy with our contract.

As I said, the warning signs were there in black and white. Ministers were on notice of the potential for problems and their consequences. Despite that, on 7 July last year—a full year into this Government—the permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that the Cabinet Office would decide in December whether Capita should take over administration. On 14 November 2025, the Cabinet Office wrote to trade unions confirming that Capita would indeed take over from 1 December, stating that it was satisfied—this Government, this permanent secretary and this Minister’s Department were satisfied—that Capita had taken on board the findings of those reports.

Serious questions have to be answered. What assurances were provided by Capita to Ministers before that final decision was taken at the end of last year? What scrutiny was applied to those assurances and by whom? Why, in his letter to colleagues, did the Minister for the Cabinet Office claim that these issues had only come to his attention “in recent weeks” when both the National Audit Office report in June and the Public Accounts Committee report in October warned of a “clear risk” that Capita would not be ready? The Public Accounts Committee was clear that Capita had missed seven out of its eight key transitional milestones to deliver its IT system and said:

“The Cabinet Office needs to fully develop contingency plans”.

If the Minister is right that he was only made aware of these problems in recent weeks, should the Government not have known far sooner and acted far sooner?

Although it is welcome that interest-free hardship loans are now available, this action has clearly come too late. Those loans should have been made available on an emergency basis from 1 December—the same day that Capita took over administration—so that people were not left in financial limbo. Instead, some pensioners have reported being forced to take out costly commercial loans or to borrow from friends and family simply to cover basic living costs. That is unacceptable. Can the Minister guarantee that no one affected will face further disruption beyond the end of this month? Can she guarantee that pension payments will be stabilised fully and permanently?

The warning signs were there for months, and the failure to act decisively after the publication of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports is stark. Although it is deeply disappointing that the Government failed to prevent this from happening, we can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest—

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mike Wood]

I have given way four times; I really ought to conclude.

We can all agree that it is now in everyone’s interest for operational stability to be restored as quickly as possible, for the Government to ensure rigorously and transparently that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced to allow for compensation to be paid to those affected. Above all, we owe it to those affected—public servants who did everything asked of them—to put this right and ensure that such a failure does not happen again.

10:39

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I have a civil service pension, having started my career in the Home Office in 2001.

It is tradition to thank the Member who secured the debate, but I want to place on record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) on behalf of my constituents affected by this issue and on behalf of all the constituents we have heard about today. This is a perfect example of bringing to Parliament voices that have not been heard. They have been sat in queues on phone lines, but everyone has brought their stories powerfully to Parliament and the heart of Government today. I thank my hon. Friend for that public service, which is much appreciated.

I thank all hon. Members who have raised issues on behalf of their constituents. It has been troubling to hear those stories, but it is also a testament to the system that an MP can bring the experience and voice of constituents to Government. I also want to thank and pay tribute to all the fantastic public servants who give so much in service to our country and communities.

When a civil servant retires after decades of public service, they deserve a seamless transition into the next chapter of their lives, and recognition of the contribution they have made over their career. They deserve a system that is accurate, responsive and, above all, timely. I state clearly for the record that the service experienced by members of the civil service pension scheme is absolutely unacceptable.

As the 10-year contract was signed by the previous Government in 2023, I could talk about another disastrous inheritance, but I will not. I will take responsibility and apologise because that is what today should be about: the people affected by this service. I have read the accounts of members, many of whom wrote to their MPs. I have seen that correspondence, heard the concerns and listened carefully to the individual cases raised today.

I am deeply sorry for the worry and distress this has caused so many people, particularly those dealing with bereavement, ill health and financial hardship. This is a failure: there are no two ways about it. Resolving it is a matter of utmost urgency for the Government. We are taking direct action to intervene and put things right, doing so as quickly as possible while ensuring accuracy. In response to questions raised by colleagues, I will set out our steps to undertake that.

To understand how to fix this, I want to say something quickly about how we arrived here. As I mentioned, the decision to transfer to Capita with a 10-year contract was made in 2023. The Cabinet Office will undertake a full review of the award and the management of previous pension contracts, as colleagues have asked, once we have resolved the immediate issue of service delivery. I am sure that hon. Members will share our view that the priority is to get people their money and resolve the immediate problem.

On 1 December 2025, the administration of the scheme transferred from MyCSP to Capita. Although the core payroll for 730,000 existing pensioners continues to be paid correctly and on time, the transition for new retirees has been a mess, with a large number of members significantly impacted. The main driver of the delays is the high volume of work that Capita inherited from MyCSP, approximately 86,000 work in progress cases, which was more than twice the volume planned for and anticipated during the due diligence and planning period.

In addition to the work in progress cases, the handover included 15,000 unread email messages. There were delays in loading and correctly mapping the vast amounts of data transferred from MyCSP to Capita. Technical issues were identified in setting up and receiving data interfaces between employers and the new administrator. As of the week commencing 19 January, Capita reporting showed approximately 8,500 recently retired members are waiting for their first monthly pension payment.

Although some of those individuals have now received their one-off tax-free lump sum, the delay in implementing regular pension benefit payments is causing genuine hardship, especially for those relying on their pension payment to pay for basics such as rent, food, mortgages and heating, as we have heard. Shockingly, the report also showed 6,300 open cases relating to deaths, where members have passed and bereaved families are trying to understand and settle financial affairs. I do not underestimate the trauma for many families of having to deal with that. That includes 300 sensitive death in service cases, adding huge financial worries for grieving families, which is simply unacceptable.

Member data is held by employers and fed through monthly to Capita via a secure interface. That enables pension records to be updated for any changes to personal data, employment terms and contracts. A transition of that scale requires the handover of huge amounts of complex personal data. More positively, Capita has now received the data required from the previous administrator. However, the switch of provider means that members are now required to register on a new portal. As colleagues have highlighted, there have been huge problems with the portal.

In addressing all those live issues, we must also understand the complexity of the civil service pension scheme. It is made up of five different pension schemes, and it has approximately 1.7 million members and 320 employers. It is the third largest public sector scheme, and it deals with an average of more than 3,000 retirements and more than 2,700 bereavement cases every month. That is the scale of the challenge.

Let me outline exactly what we are doing to address the problems as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Although it is a corporate failure, the Government are stepping in, and I thank the many civil servants who are working hard 24/7 to resolve this issue. My officials, along with expert colleagues from across the civil service, are working closely with senior leaders at Capita and have agreed a way forward with a full recovery plan. I am grateful to them for their hard work. We have appointed Angela MacDonald, second permanent secretary and deputy chief executive of HMRC, to lead a recovery taskforce. The team is working alongside Capita and departmental leaders to execute a plan organised into intensive three-week sprints.

On resources, we are deploying a 150-person civil service surge team specifically to clear the correspondence logjam. Capita therefore now has more than 650 staff dedicated to this contact, an increase of more than 50% in resourcing compared with the previous provider. Since 26 January, the recovery team has received data on all outstanding cases.

On the transitional help loans, we have authorised Government Departments to provide interest-free bridging loans of £5,000 and, in exceptional cases, of up to £10,000 for those in immediate need. The Department is working to get the money to those impacted within days, not weeks. We are prioritising the most urgent cases. We are working with Capita to ensure that the systems and resources are in place to deal with ill health, bereavement and financial hardship cases, alongside arrangements to clear the backlog. Those cases are our absolute priority.

On the member portal, there was already a plan to roll out greater functionality. That includes “track my case”, which allows members to see the end-to-end progress of their queries; digital requirements processes, which includes the facility for members to track the progress of their retirement application; and a lifestyle modeller, an interactive calculator to help members under the age of 55 to plan for the income they need in retirement. We will provide regular updates on the portal so that scheme members and MPs can see the progress being made to improve the service. I endeavour to ensure updates are made regularly to the House.

We expect to restore service levels for death in service cases and ill health retirement cases by the end of February. I make that pledge to Members. More widely, our current plan is that we are working to bring most aspects of the service back with expected service levels by June, but we will keep that under constant review and continue to look for opportunities to accelerate progress.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the Minister before the debate started, and she indicated that hon. Members might have an access number and an email address. Will she provide those?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s flagging that point, and I was coming to that. I have taken the quite unusual step of bringing a print-out for colleagues, which will be available at the end of the debate and will be shared with colleagues more widely. It has an email address on it. I am keen that hon. Members bring their cases directly to us. Of course, we are addressing the wider issues, but it is a cause of great concern to me that, where cases are raised with Members of Parliament, they should be brought straight to our attention.

The McCloud pension sector remedy work was raised. We know how important it is for the many members awaiting an update. We have agreed a separately resourced project to deliver the remedy with Capita. Many of these cases are very complex, and we hope the majority will be issued by April ’27. We are working with the Pensions Regulator, and we will provide progress updates to the members affected and to MPs.

The new contract with Capita includes a number of key performance indicators, which colleagues have rightly raised, with financial penalties to be applied where they are not achieved. We reserve all commercial rights at present. We have already withheld millions of pounds of payments for failure to meet transitional milestones. We continue to contractually monitor service level key performance indicators linked to payments, and we have refused to waive service levels, ensuring that Capita remains contractually liable for performance.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there was a cause for termination. There is an option to terminate in any contract of this kind. These are complex and commercial requirements, and terminating the contract and moving to another provider would mean another massive upheaval of data and everything else. I am sure colleagues share my view that the priority right now is to resolve people’s immediate concerns and issues, make sure people get their money and undertake a review of exactly what happened. However, everything is on the table. As I said, we will do a full review of these contracts, but our priority is to get people the support that they deserve. It has now been two months since Capita took on the new contract, and we are very clear that members of the pension scheme deserve so much better. Our focus is on taking fast action to resolve the most critical issues for impacted individuals while simultaneously ensuring a detailed recovery plan that brings the commercial contract back within service level agreements as quickly as possible.

I want to reassure every member of the pension scheme that their pension is safe and their data is secure. We are working, and will continue to work, tirelessly with Capita to support the recovery programme until such time as we are wholly satisfied that the service is fully recovered. We are committed to ensuring that every member is treated fairly and with respect, and that no one suffers a permanent financial loss due to these administrative failures. We are holding Capita to account and are going to kick backside, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. We are making sure that members are at the heart of the recovery plan, and we will use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that Capita delivers effectively.

I thank all hon. Members who brought the voices of their constituents to the Chamber today. I have brought a handout for colleagues, and I urge anyone with constituency cases to raise them with us. We will do our best to accelerate them, but I am conscious that we have to resolve this matter not just for those who are brought to our attention but for absolutely everyone. We will hold further drop-ins to assist hon. Members and their teams, and we are doing our absolute best to make sure people get their money as quickly as possible. The House has my word, and that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office that we will not rest until the service is stabilised and our civil servants receive the support that they have earned after so many years of dedicated service—for which, once again, we thank them.

[Anna Dixon]

On a point of order, Ms Lewell. I would like to apologise. I need to declare an interest: I also hold a civil service pension and would like to put that on the record.

10:56

[Lorraine Beavers]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Lewell. I thank all Members who attended the debate this morning.

I called this debate because constituents of mine in Blackpool North and Fleetwood, and others across the country, suffered stress, uncertainty and serious financial difficulties because of Capita’s poor administration of the civil service pension scheme. This situation is not acceptable, and it is clearly a failure. Although I appreciate the Cabinet Office’s action of offering interest-free loans of up to £10,000 and bringing in additional civil servants to help fix the problem, this situation should never have been the case in the first place.

It is essential that the process is accessible. Only yesterday, I heard that the DWP is asking applicants for personal financial information. No scheme member should have to go through that; it is not their fault that the scheme has not been managed properly. I am grateful to the Minister for her answers, and want to remind her again of the commitment that our party made before the election to begin the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. This situation should serve as a reminder of precisely why we made that promise.

Civil servants like all of those who have written to me and visited my office in the past few months have worked immensely hard throughout their careers and delivered for our country on a daily basis. It is right that we now work urgently to remedy this situation for them by clearing the backlog and compensating those impacted in the short term, and by ensuring that this disgraceful failure never happens again in the long term. I hope that the debate has gone some way towards making clear the strength of feeling amongst our constituents and that it will ensure that they get the service that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.

Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

I will call Christine Jardine to move the motion, and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of fast-track visas for skilled US citizens.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I would like to share an email I recently received:

“All I’m asking for is a direction to march in, as I am in fact a refugee seeking asylum from a tyrannical, fascist administration which is utterly destroying the nation I once loved and protected. The feeling of turning my back on the democracy I swore an oath to defend feels much more as though I’m ending a long relationship with someone I still love, but am unable to live with anymore. America has broken our hearts and reconciliation is more fantastic than a Rudyard Kipling book.”

I was elected eight years ago, but sometimes I am still taken aback by a reaction to something we say or do in this place. This time, part of the shock comes from the fact that that email is not from someone in a third-world country or a warzone, but from a citizen of the United States who is living in the United States.

In April last year, I put a proposal to my Scottish party conference to offer skilled US workers a visa route to enable them to live and work in the United Kingdom. The proposal was accepted and became party policy, and that news—again, somewhat surprisingly—made it across the Atlantic. I was then inundated with messages from those in America who no longer wished to live under a Trump presidency. They wanted to feel safe and to contribute to a country much more in line with their values than the country they were born into increasingly is.

Those people felt that a lifeline had been offered. I cannot express how relieved the nearly 200 people who wrote to me were that another way might become possible for them. Some just wanted to thank me, as if no one had been thinking of them until that moment. Some laid out their CVs to prove they would be worthy of applying. Some told me they were visiting London and going to the US embassy to try to find more information. It was genuinely upsetting to tell those people that they could not apply, and that this is only an idea at the moment. There was such strength of feeling.

For me, there was also the guilt that this is not entirely altruistic, because I firmly believe that those people have something vital that we need in our economy and that could be a benefit to our country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady, because this is such an important issue; I am aware of it in my constituency, although there are not the numbers she referred to—those 200 email requests. With Belfast receiving a high level of investment from US companies that wish to avail themselves of our superior cyber-skills, and our low rent and business rates, it is essential that there is a swinging door for our US allies and for US investors and individuals. Does the hon. Lady agree that visa systems are not one size fits all, and that tailoring the US visa system makes perfect sense?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. We need a system that allows people to come here—not just from the United States, but more generally. People in the United States have the skills we need in the industries that so much of our economy will be dependent on: artificial intelligence, cancer research, pharmacology, science and the growing space sector. In Edinburgh, we are working hard to create that sort of environment, so I completely agree.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

A constituent has written to me in very similar terms about coming to the UK from the USA to “flee Trump”, as he puts it. He did not come here to steal jobs; he came to create them. He came here to start a business, at great sacrifice and financial cost to himself, but he feels betrayed by the changes in the indefinite leave to remain arrangements. When we are thinking about attracting people and their skills, we have to think about how those people are supported. Does the hon. Member agree that when people come here under an agreement, we must uphold our side of it?

[Christine Jardine]

I completely agree. There is a danger to our international reputation, as well as our economy, if we become somewhere people cannot trust that. If they make the life-changing decision to come here, invest in our country, work for our economy, and contribute through tax and national insurance, we should not turn around decades later and say, “Sorry, we have changed our minds.” That is vitally important.

Some of the people who wrote to me told me of their visceral fears, and their worries for their children or for the LGBT community they are part of or work with. Some are terrified they will lose their jobs in the swingeing cuts of the Trump Administration. There are so many real-life stories from people in the United States.

But there are also the people in this country. We can only be the best representatives we can be if we listen, and I want to highlight something I was told by someone who wrote to me in this country. Speaking of their trans partner, they said:

“I have to say, I’m glad someone is speaking up about this. I see the genuine fear and anxiety he has about being sent back to the States. He told me recently that he has his suicide plan all ready and goodbye letters to family already written, as he’s ‘never going back’.”

It terrifies me that people should be so afraid of going back to the world’s largest democracy because of what it has become. That person went on to say:

“Thank you for maybe finding a solution that saves US LBGTQI+ lives in our current political upheaval. They and any non-white male here are in terrible danger.”

That came from someone from the United States. People have told me that they fear for their family’s safety and for their children.

We have to look at why this is happening, and how we can help people who are living in fear. The idea of fast-track visas was born of two issues. The first was the election of a President who does not represent my values or the values of so many in this place, and the consequences of that election for his own people. We have all seen the news and seen the unnecessary loss. For so many in the US, it is no longer the land of the free. According to official figures, there were more than 1,000 anti-LGBTQ incidents across 47 states and Washington DC in the past year—a 5% increase from the 984 incidents in 2024. Over half of those targeted transgender and non-conforming people specifically.

The second point was our skills shortage, and the way this Government are getting immigration under control: it will be much more difficult for people to come and stay here, to make their lives here and to feel confident, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) mentioned. They want to contribute to our economy, our public services and so many important sectors: space, education, oncology and science. So I thought, “Here’s an opportunity.” Those who know me would say that I am a solutions person, and I saw an opportunity. It is about not just saying there is a problem, but actually coming up with an idea that is beneficial to those people and to us—to both sides of the pond.

For me, it is also about creating a positive case for immigration; it is about looking up and out, and saying that for our country to be successful, we might need to encourage people to travel here from beyond our shores. That is not because I am doing this country down, but because I believe in our future and I know that that is the reality of the current situation. We are better when we work together and learn from our different experiences.

Why not offer sanctuary to those who want to flee, if they can make our country a better, more prosperous place for our people in the process? As I said, I am a solutions person. For many, the American dream is now a nightmare, but we could turn that around and offer them a fresh dream.

11:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing the debate, and I am grateful for her contribution and the others we have heard.

When it comes to detailed examination of foreign policy and the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States of America, colleagues will appreciate that such issues lie outside my remit as a Home Office Minister. However, I reiterate that the UK and US are close allies and partners; the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it.

Let me begin by addressing the hon. Member’s proposals. We are not considering a fast-track visa for skilled US citizens, and I do not believe we need one. Our immigration system already offers a broad range of routes to target talented individuals who want to come and work or study in the UK. Alongside that, our increasingly digitised border—with priority fees for quick visa transactions—means that people can come to the UK quickly and easily.

I will talk now about visas and processing in general, and then move on to routes that attract global talent and skilled workers. On visa processing, the UK immigration system already provides a rich offering for people coming to the UK to work and study, with fast-track visa options for those who need them. UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for making millions of decisions each year about who has the right to visit or stay in our country.

The visa service is underpinned by an uncompromising focus on national security, but also a commitment to provide applicants with the best possible service. All applicants can and should expect UKVI to offer a simple online visa application process. A biometric appointment is usually available within five working days in one of our overseas network of more than 250 visa application centres, which cover more than 140 countries. Decisions are made within 15 working days of someone attending the VAC, and come with an online record of immigration status that is secure and that can be easily accessed, checked and shared with employers, landlords and carriers.

The UK service is competitive in terms of the speed at which the whole process can be completed. Those choosing to pay for our priority or super-priority services—which have recently been expanded across most of our routes—get decisions within five working days or the next working day respectively. In practice, if the super-priority service is chosen, a skilled worker visa application could be made on a Monday, and the applicant could attend the VAC on the Tuesday and have the decision by the close of business on the Wednesday. That is our fast-track service, and we stand out from our competitors on this.

Since January 2025 US nationals looking to visit the UK for up to six months on business can apply for an electronic travel authorisation. The quick application process using the ETA app offers fast decisions—usually on the same day—and lasts for two years, allowing for flexibility of regular travel and smooth border crossings.

The issue of attracting talent was raised. As set out in our immigration White Paper and modern industrial strategy, both of which were published last year, the Government are focused on attracting talented individuals to the UK to work and study. From business leaders and entrepreneurs to top-end researchers, our commitment is clear: we want to bring those with expertise, ambition and creativity to the UK, where they will find a unique environment to thrive and innovate and can help our economy grow further.

[Dr Arthur]

Earlier I gave an example of an entrepreneur who came to the UK from the USA. He spent a lot of money coming here, and he feels he has spent an important part of his life in the UK—when he could have spent it elsewhere in the world—but he feels betrayed now, because of the review of the ILR arrangements for him and others. Does the Minister accept that that will make people more reluctant to come to the UK? I am talking about entrepreneurs and people whom we actually need to come here and support our economy.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I cannot comment on the individual case, because I am not aware of that. The ILR changes that we are making are broad. We had a long debate on that the other day, but it is not there in any way to dissuade talent. Actually, post consultation, we are highly likely to see discounts for talent, to ensure that those people can settle in the UK faster; they are earning that through integration and contribution. That will be laid out in due course, following the closure of the consultation on 12 February.

In a volatile world, Britain stands out, as this Government make the UK the premier destination for business and top international talent. We have all the ingredients for exceptional talent to thrive. We recognise that the immigration system, which prioritises the skills that this country needs rather than nationality, has an important part to play in that, helping to ensure that we remain competitive in the global recruitment market. That is why we have established routes that focus on attracting those with the skills and talent to support the growth of our economy.

I will move on to the global talent system. Our global talent route for leaders and potential leaders in the fields of science and research, digital technology and the arts is the most flexible offer to the world’s top talent, including many from the US. Published research shows that this visa influenced four in five global talent visa holders to apply to live and work in the UK. Our high potential individual route gives recent graduates of the world’s top universities the opportunity to build their careers in the UK without the need for a prior job offer. More than 40% of universities whose graduates are eligible for that route are based in the US. It means that employers have access to the most highly sought-after international graduates, as well as to the pipeline of top talent from our own universities.

A world-class visa system is essential to attracting and retaining the best international talent. Our system is just that, but we are committed to going further and have already introduced pro-talent reforms. That includes expanding eligibility for the high potential individual visa to the top 100 global universities; enabling international students to transition seamlessly from study to entrepreneurship on the innovator founder visa; simplified access for top science talent; and a broadened list of eligible prizes for the global talent visa.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

The biggest challenges facing the world now are global: climate change, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. These are global challenges, but also science challenges. The US Administration have an anti-vaxxer running the Health Department and a President who seems not to believe in climate change. Do the UK Government recognise that as an opportunity to really fly the flag for being a pro-science country and to offer refuge to scientists who want to help solve some of these huge global problems, but also help grow our economy?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his points. We are world leading in science. The visa system that we have created in the Home Office is there precisely to attract the top talent from across the whole world, and of course that includes the USA. We are committed to going further, as I have already laid out.

To support the Government’s efforts in targeting global talent, we launched the global talent taskforce last year. It will bring in specialist private sector headhunting expertise, and establish new functions to support individuals to relocate and companies to set up UK offices at pace. It will embolden its concierge offer to the world’s elite talent, starting with a dedicated focus on international AI talent.

I want to mention the skilled worker route because I believe it is relevant to this debate. US citizens can make use of the main work route for skilled workers. This route has a broad range of high-skilled occupations that individuals sponsored by an approved employer can use to come to the UK. In the year ending September 2025, more than 5,000 Americans used our skilled worker route to come and fill roles in the UK.

In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and all Members.

[Dr Chambers]

It is really encouraging to hear that 5,000 Americans came in on skilled worker visas. We are concerned that companies, especially AI and tech companies, are setting up in the UK, but not growing here, because they then relocate, particularly to silicon valley, and become multimillion or multibillion dollar companies, employing a lot of people and paying a lot of tax. Do we know, because I actually do not know, the number of people leaving to go to the US to work in tech compared with the number coming to the UK, so we can see the direction of gravity?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for that good point. I do not have those numbers to hand, but I will write to him with that data, if we have it. We do have data for those leaving the country in general, but I will certainly look into that.

The UK and the USA are connected in myriad ways. As we know, the ties between our two countries are deep, long-standing and strong. A large number of Americans come to our country every year to visit, work and study. We greatly value their contribution to our country, and as I have set out, a comprehensive range of visa routes is already available to them.

Question put and agreed to.

11:18

Sitting suspended.

Postal Services: Rural Areas

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

14:30

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered postal services in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Residents of rural areas such as South Shropshire deserve access to good postal services, which keep families and friends connected, businesses alive and people informed. The cost of a first-class stamp has almost doubled since 2020, and is now £1.70 a stamp, but my constituents believe that they are paying more and getting less for their services. I will therefore approach the debate in two parts: post offices, which are vital to my towns and villages; and the delivery services of Royal Mail.

I will start with the Post Office, which is a vital part of the rural economy in South Shropshire. It provides a lifeline for many towns and villages. In some areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and, increasingly, given banking closures, the only way to access cash. Post office services are available in branches such as Acton Burnell, Broseley, Alveley, Aston-on-Clun and Bishops Castle, as well as many more of my towns and villages. They play a central role in keeping rural communities connected.

Since the election, I am delighted to say that I have campaigned successfully against the planned closures of post office services in South Shropshire, including Clunton and Clunbury—beautiful areas.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will know my constituency well, because he was previously the MP there, and that it is a largely urban area including a city centre. Even my constituents, however, have had serious problems with bills and birthday cards not arriving, and hospital appointments being missed because of the post being late, while one constituent confirmed that his business has been affected adversely. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s speech and that rural areas have particular challenges, but does he agree that poor postal services are a nationwide issue affecting all communities, and that we need to address it as such?

[Stuart Anderson]

I look back fondly on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and I realise that this is a problem across the country. It is a nationwide issue, as he rightly pointed out.

I have also campaigned for the resumption of postal services in Cleobury Mortimer, which were closed in 2023, leaving the town without vital services. News on this front comes in no small part thanks to the efforts of a local resident, Ruth—I was delighted to meet her at an advice surgery recently. The efforts of Ruth and many others secured hundreds of signatures for a petition to keep the post office open in Cleobury. I am delighted to say that it was successful.

The post office network is relied on to fill the gaps left by bank closures. As many services shift online, the post office has served as a lifeline for residents in rural areas who are not able to use the internet to pay bills or to access cash. A post office is vital for our nation’s elderly, helping the 2.3 million without internet access to stay connected to their family and friends. I will also continue to campaign against bank closures, and I look for more banking hubs in areas such as Church Stretton, which has just lost its Yorkshire building society branch and could really do with a banking hub.

A few days ago, I was pleased to meet the residents group in Broseley. They wanted to discuss the changes that have happened to the post office on the High Street, which are concerning local residents. There have been a lot of changes, and the people of Broseley told me that they believe that the changes have had an impact not only on safety, in particular for elderly residents when withdrawing cash, but with a reduction in services, on the number of trained staff on the premises. I am asking the owners of Post Office to meet me and the Broseley residents to discuss that in more detail.

I want to point out to the Minister that I have concerns about the Government consultation on post offices, which could have unintended consequences. That open-ended consultation, which closed on 6 October 2025, could remove the minimum branch requirements and leave the size of the network up to the Post Office. The last Labour Government cut the number of post offices by 38%: 7,166 post offices were closed between 1997 and 2010—more than one every single day. I have already said that they are a lifeline for my constituency and many others. The Conservative-led Government then introduced a 11,500 minimum service requirement in 2010. Since then, the post office network has remained at roughly 11,500. Now that Labour is back, it looks like our post offices could be under threat again. The Government’s consultation could lead to half of Britain’s post offices closing, including 19 individual branches in South Shropshire. The proposed changes could remove the requirement for 95% of people in rural areas, such as South Shropshire, to live within three miles of a post office. The changes could also phase out part-time mobile outreach services, which are vital in my constituency. They typically make up 14% of the total network in the areas that they serve, although they are open on average only seven hours per week.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this very important debate. He mentions mobile services, from which my constituency benefits greatly. Does he share my concern that the Post Office tasks individual postmasters with an ever greater number of mobile spots? Although we are very grateful for their effort, that leaves the network vulnerable. If a postmaster falls ill or wants to retire, we lose significant coverage.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a brilliant point about an issue that affects rural areas, and I will come on to how Bishop’s Castle was impacted. There is no resilience in the system. If somebody is ill for a week, that area will not get those services.

Data published by the Financial Conduct Authority shows that 93.5% of people in rural parts of South Shropshire live within three miles of a post office, but that falls to 86.8% when the mobile outreach branches are excluded. If those services are cut even more in my 700 square mile constituency, that will leave a huge gap.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about mobile outreach services. One of the things that concerns me is that when the Post Office closes a bricks-and-mortar branch, it is required to carry out a six-week consultation with the community, but when it closes a mobile outreach service, there is no requirement for a consultation, even though that service may have been put in because of a branch closure. Does he agree that, regardless of whether we are talking about bricks and mortar or a temporary desk in a village hall, the Post Office should be under the same obligation to consult with the community?

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Lady makes a brilliant point, and I would like the Minister to feed back on the Government’s approach because these services are vital lifelines for our rural communities.

Despite last week’s sticking plaster U-turn, shops face a huge increase in their business rates bill, and next year alone many businesses in South Shropshire will be hurt. The Government have already taxed jobs with the increase to employers’ national insurance and have made it harder to hire through the Employment Rights Act 2025. That means that shops such as post offices are in grave danger.

I will give an example from my constituency. One of my post offices will see an increase in rateable value from £47,500 to £49,500. Its business liability will go from £14,221 to £18,909 in the first part of 2027, so in a little over 18 months it will see a 33% increase. That directly comes off its bottom line, and will make its very small bottom line even smaller or unprofitable.

The Government committed in their manifesto to strengthen the post office network, and I fully support that, but these changes could cut access to post offices for the elderly and rural communities, pushing thousands of postmasters who have served local communities for decades out of work. I will continue to support hard-working postmasters and their customers through my campaign to protect and enhance rural public services, given their importance to local communities.

I said that in the second part of the debate, I would move on to Royal Mail and the delivery service in South Shropshire, and I will do that now. The Royal Mail is a great establishment that was founded by King Henry VIII in 1516. It has heritage. I said I would come on to Bishop’s Castle, which is a great local town. When I was a candidate, I met a group of farmers—tenant farmers, landowners and everybody in the agricultural sector—just outside Bishop’s Castle. We were talking about connectivity, such as 5G and high-speed broadband. One of the farmers said, “I’ve got a problem with my letters.” Everybody said, “What do you mean?”. He said, “I’ve got a problem with post not getting through.” We were looking at connectivity for the digital space. He said, “This is of vital importance; this has kept me awake at night.” I said, “This sounds like a really serious issue.” He said, “Yes, I’ve bought thousands of pounds’ worth of goods off the man over there; I posted the cheque a few weeks ago, and I am sure he’s not had it yet.” He brought to light, and made a joke of, a very serious issue. From there, I found out that there was one person who was delivering in the area. Nobody else knew the route so, when they were away on holiday, the area could not have mail for a week. It was a big issue.

In the Christmas period, many MPs like to go to the sorting office and thank the postmen and postwomen for the great job that they do in and around our constituencies. I have done that over many years; for the last three years, I was in Bridgnorth, Craven Arms and, this year, Ludlow. But I have seen a huge change in public opinion on the posts that I have put out on social media. People are writing, “Where’s my letter?”. Before, people would write, “Great; they do a great job.” We have all delivered leaflets in bad weather. Postmen and postwomen do that day in, day out, all year round, and I want to thank them for their service. But people are upset. They are angry.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I have had reports of my constituents receiving hospital appointment notices after the day of their appointment, so they have missed vital medical care, and people receiving bank cards and PINs at the same time, when they are supposed to be delivered separately for security reasons. An Evri driver dumped loads of parcels in a field because it was impossible for him to get around the route in the time given by his employer. People are using private delivery services because they do not trust Royal Mail, and we are seeing serious failings. Does the hon. Member agree that Royal Mail has questions to answer about the sustainability of its network in rural areas?

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member raises a really important point. Out of respect for my constituents and what they have been through, I will come on to highlight some of their concerns. When using Evri or other delivery services, everybody has learned what the whole street’s doorsteps look like when they see the photos from the delivery service. What is happening at the moment is not acceptable.

A decade ago, Royal Mail was delivering about 20 billion letters per year. I talked about 1516, when it was first founded. It got to a point of 20 billion letters. That has fallen to about 6.7 billion, and is expected to drop to 4 billion in the next four years. Under the Postal Services Act 2011, Ofcom is responsible for ensuring that the firm carries out its functions under its universal service obligation. The latest results show that the company did not meet its delivery targets for first or second-class post from July to September 2025. In October, Royal Mail was fined £21 million for missing its annual delivery targets.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I am grateful to my constituency next door neighbour for allowing me to intervene. Some of the post that goes to the southern part of his constituency may well be sorted through the Kidderminster postal sorting office. He mentioned that people are not getting their letters, and we have heard from other Members that urgent mail is not getting there. I too have raised this on Facebook and, independent from my residents in Stourport, Kidderminster and Bewdley—towns that should be well served—I have had 700 uninvited comments from people who are thoroughly fed up with the postal service in our part of the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that this Ofcom requirement is not being met in any way, shape or form?

[Stuart Anderson]

I do; my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I share the same concerns. Actually, I shamelessly looked at his Facebook post, thought it was a great idea and pushed it out to my constituents, among whom there is sheer anger about the lack of delivery.

In July 2025, Ofcom announced changes to the universal service obligation. Royal Mail now only needs to deliver second-class mail every other day, instead of six days a week. The changes also drop the requirement for Royal Mail to deliver second-class letters on Saturdays. The changes have not yet come into effect in the UK, with Royal Mail planning to roll them out nationwide by early 2026. From April—this is where it gets even harder—the target to deliver second-class mail within three days will be reduced from 98.5% to 95%. The target for the delivery of first-class mail within one working day will also drop, from 93% to 90%. Royal Mail is not even meeting the current targets.

On 28 January 2026, Citizens Advice revealed that 16 million people—or 29% of UK adults—had experienced postal delays over Christmas. That figure has doubled in a year and is at its highest in five years. As we have heard, 5.7 million people have missed letters about important matters like health appointments and benefit decisions, along with legal documents. Enhanced protections are needed for rural areas, where many people continue to depend on postal services.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I conducted a survey in my constituency, to which over 700 people responded to raise a whole range of issues around health, finance, legal and other types of communication, but less than 20% of them had contacted Royal Mail itself to say they were having problems. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister needs to put pressure on Royal Mail to be honest, investigate its own problems and demonstrate that to us as Members of Parliament?

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I have launched my own survey today—I will push it out later—to hear more details from residents. There is a need to be honest about this issue. More often than not, people will contact us as MPs; it is not always easy for someone to find out why they are not getting mail, or they believe they will not be told what they need to know, or will not receive an answer, and they believe MPs can follow up and get answers.

In recent weeks, mail has been delayed in 68 postcode areas in the west midlands. I know I have a big constituency, but there have been cases of missed mail in at least 30 postcode areas there. Let us consider what missed mail means: it is not just that a letter has not arrived; it has a serious impact on residents in South Shropshire. I have chosen examples of casework regarding people who have written to me about their issues. From what I have seen, the biggest area of missed mail in my constituency is around the WV15 and WV16 postcode areas, which cover Bridgnorth and Highley—which currently has a huge problem with receiving mail—and the surrounding areas.

The pain is being felt across the constituency, but let me highlight some specific areas. In Claverley, there was no mail for one constituent between 2 January and 16 January. When it eventually arrived it included car finance letters dated mid-December. Much Wenlock has been voted the happiest place to live, but there was no mail for a constituent there between 5 January and 7 January. Then, on 8 January, 15 items were delivered at the same time. A constituent in Church Stretton said they have been told that parcels are being prioritised over letters, and hospital letters are not being delivered on time.

At Linley, near Bishop’s Castle, post is not being delivered to a constituent’s address because it is too far down a lane, so she is having to collect it from a neighbour. That is not about delivery on time; it is just not an acceptable service. A birthday card posted on 16 January in Oreton, going second class to Ludlow, has still not arrived. In Bridgnorth, a constituent must generally wait between one and two weeks for post to arrive. More often than not they have to go to the sorting office to collect it. That is not a delivery service; that is a collection service, which is very different.

Let me highlight the cases of some individuals who feel strongly about this issue and who I have been helping to support. Maureen said:

“Not fair when you get taken off a waiting list for not turning up at a hospital appointment you haven’t received the appointment for.”

Mark believes that poor delivery is

“damaging business reputation for customers without email address”—

I will come to internet access in a moment—because they are getting certificates from his business three 3 weeks late. It does not look professional and there is nothing he can do about that.

Russell highlighted:

“Late hospital appointments, usually received a week or more after the appointment date.”

This case is very concerning. Sarah was on a waiting list, and the hospital admission letters for surgery, and other information, arrived 10 days after the operation date, causing her more issues than we would care to believe. Ian had had only two deliveries since Christmas until three days ago, when two deliveries then arrived in two days, which is inconsistent. Ada receives her doctor’s appointments a week late at the best of times.

Jill says:

“We have mail delivered once a week—Friday—if we lucky. However, Royal Mail delivers parcels to our postcode on a daily basis.”

I am hearing time and again that parcels are getting delivered but letters are not.

Lynn says it is dreadful that

“post has been taking 8 days to arrive that is posted…in this country. Cards I posted to America got there in 6 days.”

The system is failing if the post takes eight days here but is far quicker internationally.

Amanda posted an important parcel with medical cream for a relative and it took seven days, although she had paid for a 24-hour tracking service. She also posted a birthday card with a first-class stamp that took nine days to be delivered. Danil had mail come four weeks late, and Janet posted a card for her grandson, only to Staffordshire, which is the neighbouring county, and it took 15 days. She got mail to Australia more quickly than she got it to the neighbouring county.

Constituents in Highley repeatedly tell me that they are exceptionally lucky if they get service once a week. Dank’s elderly mum has waited since new year’s eve for a PIN code—the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) talked about bank cards and PIN codes not arriving at the same time—and she has still not received it. She is cut off from accessing cash.

[James Naish]

A gentleman in my constituency missed a couple of letters about a parking fine, and he has now had a county court judgment against him. He did not have the opportunity to contest the fine in the first place, which he wanted to do, and he now has to deal with the CCJ. This is having real-life consequences, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not acceptable.

[Stuart Anderson]

I definitely agree: is not acceptable at all. As the Minister is listening, and I am pretty sure Royal Mail will be watching, let me say that we need the service to change. People are getting penalised through no fault of their own, and it is having a damaging and detrimental impact on many people.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Royal Mail staff in my area tell me that, apart from having to focus on first-class post, a big cause of the delays is poor recruitment, which leads to unachievable workloads. Does the hon. Member agree that it is no surprise that our rural post service is struggling when Royal Mail officers and postmen and women are paid only a little above the minimum wage?

[Stuart Anderson]

Recruitment is a serious issue for Royal Mail at the moment. Some people have worked there for years, and when I go to sorting offices they tell me how they delivered far less five years ago and how it was a completely different service 20 years ago. We certainly need to ensure that they are looked after, and that we have the right packages to retain people at Royal Mail.

It is clear from the stories I have outlined that postal services in rural areas are an absolute mess. Cards, serious medical appointments, fines, invoices and legal letters are being missed because the bare minimum standards are not being met in South Shropshire. I am not asking for anything new; I am asking that the minimum standard is met for my constituents.

It is all well and good saying that we are moving into the digital age, but only 40% of South Shropshire residents are on 5G, and 43% of homes do not have high-speed broadband. I can guarantee that those among the 40% and 43% are in the same areas, which are the remotest parts of the constituency that do not have connectivity, so they cannot get on the internet or on their phones to access services, and they are not getting their mail. They are completely excluded from the modern-day way of life, and that is not acceptable.

Physical letters do still matter, and many of my constituents are rightly angry, and actually livid, that Royal Mail has prioritised parcels over letters—I have documented evidence in many cases—to the detriment of my constituents. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what can be done to improve the delivery of letters in South Shropshire as urgently as possible.

Postal services in rural areas matter, and the residents of South Shropshire are rightly angry at the lack of good and functioning services in some of my area’s towns and villages. Rural areas are sick and tired of being ignored while urban areas are, at times, prioritised. The chipping away at rural areas is starting to hurt my constituents. We need to protect the post office network and hold Royal Mail to the standards that my constituents expect. Right now, it is just not good enough.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they need to bob at the end of every contribution if they wish to be called to speak. There are 12 people standing; I intend to call the closing speeches at 3.30 pm, so I will impose a time limit of three minutes, which does not leave very much time for interventions.

14:55

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

My constituency is part of the rural county of Nottinghamshire. Many of my communities are feeling the impact of poor service by Royal Mail and facing unacceptable inconsistencies with delivery. I have received correspondence from constituents across Mansfield who say that their post and letters are going undelivered, and they are rightly angry about that. My constituent Jim says that his grandson missed out on an invitation to a job interview because the letter did not arrive. Another constituent, Gail, said that several pieces of her mail have gone missing, including letters for local hospital appointments. It is becoming all too familiar, and I think many Members will recount similar issues.

Whether it is a birthday card from a loved one or a bill, everyone needs their mail. Government agencies such as the Department for Work and Pensions, banks, hospitals, the police, courts and many other organisations communicate only by post. The consequence of getting one of those letters late can be hugely damaging in many ways. Having spoken to postal staff in Mansfield, I know that they are under huge pressure. I pay tribute to them, because they all work incredibly hard in all weathers to deliver our mail. It saddens me that Royal Mail has, in correspondence to me, blamed the issues on staff sickness.

I am meeting Royal Mail bosses in the very near future, but postal workers have already told me, on the condition of anonymity, that they have been instructed to prioritise parcels over letters. They have also mentioned that staff retention is difficult because newer recruits are paid less than their colleagues, and that management are not hiring enough people to get the job done. That is the credible reason for the problems we are witnessing, and it is not good enough.

Royal Mail has to step up. If it does not, the regulator, Ofcom, should get involved to guarantee that Royal Mail meets the universal service obligation. Communities in Mansfield and across our country are sick and tired of the excuses. They just want their mail delivered on time. That is not too much to ask. My message to Royal Mail is therefore very clear: get this mess sorted out, get your house in order and get your act together, or we will make you do so.

14:58

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on his excellent speech. He described many circumstances similar to those in my constituency, so I will try to keep my comments brief.

Rural services—whether that is transport links, mobile phone coverage or access to banking—are not good enough across the piece, and postal services are now going in the same direction. Last year’s Post Office Green Paper consultation caused particular concern for rural areas. There was a suggestion that the statutory minimum network size of 11,500 branches, which protects communities, could be removed. That would compound an already acute access problem. Villagers in Trefonen in my constituency were devastated when their post office shut, while across North Shropshire outreach services have been withdrawn in Cockshutt, Clive, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton-XI-Towns.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

In November last year, Henstridge post office closed, leaving a rural village without a vital service. Luckily, local resident Barry is working with the Post Office to reopen the facility as soon as possible. Does my hon. Friend agree that, following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must now commit to rural-proofing the Post Office?

[Helen Morgan]

I could not agree more. If someone living in Cockshutt takes the bus to the post office in Ellesmere, they would have to wait three hours to get the next bus home. We can imagine how difficult it is for people in nearby villages who have no bus service at all. Jean, who lives in Weston Rhyn, said:

“I now live in a village where there is nowhere to buy stamps and no access to an ATM. I am 88 and can no longer drive. I am completely isolated.”

These cuts have a grave impact on people’s lives and wellbeing. How can we justify leaving vulnerable people isolated in that way in 2026? Post offices and outreach services act as more than a postal service. Communities rely on them for access to cash and banking, Government services and parcel collection. That is crucial, given that 73% of North Shropshire bank branches have closed since 2015, with Oswestry the only remaining market town in the constituency with a functioning bank branch.

Many constituents, particularly older people and small businesses, depend on post offices to access cash and banking. It is no good pointing to online banking as a solution for those living in Welshampton where there is no mobile signal and no full fibre. We need to save our local post offices to prevent financial exclusion and to support the small businesses that will deliver the growth our economy needs.

Not only is access to the vital services provided by the Post Office limited, but the delivery of post, as we have heard, has become extremely unreliable. First and second-class post are meaningless categories in my area. My post comes in two bulk deliveries each week. Constituents have reported going three weeks with no delivery. Meanwhile, post box collection times have been changed without notice. It is very frustrating at the best of times. As we have heard, for those relying on Royal Mail for their NHS correspondence or time-sensitive post, such as legal documents or parking fines, it can be extremely costly to their health, time and finances.

Several constituents have told me that they missed NHS appointments because letters took a week to reach them. Last month, a constituent who is diabetic missed correspondence about an appointment for 22 January and now needs to wait until March. I have received reports of people being charged with contempt of court for not returning papers in time, even though the papers did not arrive until after the due date.

In my latest meeting with Royal Mail, representatives explained the challenges they are facing with recruitment and retention. Addressing those issues requires investment in rural services across the board.

Given the reliance of so many people on the post for vital services, I am sure everyone here appreciates the need to protect and support our rural services. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline what the Government are doing to hold the Post Office to account for meeting its universal service obligation, and what steps the Government are taking to protect not only postal services but banking and public transport in rural areas, as people are desperately badly isolated.

15:02

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be part of this debate, Mr Stringer. I will begin by declaring my interest. I started at Royal Mail in 1986 on an apprenticeship. I have walked the rounds, sorted the frames and stood up for postal workers, prior to coming to Parliament, but I have never seen postal services in such a crisis as today. Some of that is structural, but apart from that, it is to do with the workforce. I have been to see them on many occasions and morale is down. They want to deliver the service that the customer demands, but they are being prevented due to cost-cutting exercises throughout Royal Mail. That is what needs to stop.

Last week, nationally, Royal Mail delivered just 76% of first-class quality and 86% of second-class quality. Those are not abstract numbers, as has been said. They are missed hospital appointments, missed legal deadlines and missed chances to pay bills on time. Workers are telling me that they will have a scheduled day off during the week, say a Wednesday, but when they walk back into work on Thursday, all their Wednesday work is still there and they now have to deliver it with their Thursday work. They are then told, “You’re not getting any extra time to do it.” That leads to delay after delay, which is impacting our communities.

I have had representations from Oundle, Thrapston, Raunds, Stanwick and Corby telling me about the problems that people are having. I have to say: the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. That is the fact of the matter, because Royal Mail is prioritising parcels for delivery, which also has to stop. People deserve a service. This is a service—a unique service. It keeps our communities connected, and it has a legal obligation, under the universal service obligation, to make sure that is done.

Another problem is cherry-picking from the competition. Final-mile delivery is the most expensive part. Competitors will go in, pick up the bulk mail, spread it and sort it, and then give it back to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver it, because we can’t afford to do that—there ain’t no money in it.” In addition, they take parcels, give them to Royal Mail and say, “You deliver the final mile,” because they cannot afford to do that in rural areas. Either that has to stop, or those private companies can start paying towards the universal service obligation, so that we can protect services for people and make sure that all those accessing that service do so on the basis that they are paying towards it.

Postal workers want to deliver the service that customers want. They want to serve their neighbours and their communities. But they can do that only with fair and honest discussion and with harmonised conditions, working together as one organisation, and with workers treated with dignity. That is how we are going to deliver and take Royal Mail into the future.

15:09

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this timely and much-needed debate. I had a 10-minute speech, but I think that has gone by the wayside with the three-minute limit.

What we have heard today is the strength of our constituency parliamentary system: Members across this House listening to their constituents—through emails, telephone calls or the occasional letter, when it arrives—and being told from the ground up about the catastrophic failure of the current Royal Mail delivery service. Why is that happening? We have heard already that Royal Mail is prioritising parcels, and I have heard that, too. Clearly that is because it makes more money from parcel deliveries. We heard from the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—again, it shows the strength of Parliament, for all its flaws and faults, that we all come from different backgrounds and draw on those experiences—that, in his experience, this is the worst it has been.

In my 21 years in this House, I have never had to raise a point of order, ask an oral departmental question, attend a debate like this or meet with the Minister, as I will next week, to talk about Royal Mail and postal delivery services—never. By the way, that is high praise for Royal Mail and all the fantastic posties we know in our communities. We can all agree that this is not about posties; it is about the senior management of Royal Mail and corporate decision making at the very highest level, which I believe is perhaps a deliberate strategy to upset the Government and Ofcom so that Royal Mail can be in a position to discard the letter delivery service, because it is not profitable enough.

As we have heard from hon. Members, there are real-life consequences. I do not have time to mention all my examples, but I will mention the following, relating to health: “Your letter”—my letter—

“informing us of what steps you have taken took nine days to arrive from the date on the letterhead. We appear to only receive three or four deliveries”

a month. Another reads as follows:

“A hospital letter has not been received although being sent second week in January—from the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital.”

Another reads:

“I am still missing a Test Results letter from the NHS posted on 13th January. They confirmed it was posted by the department when I called after 2 weeks.”

My constituents in Muxton, Newport, Wellington, Shifnal and Albrighton are affected, and there are real-life consequences—important legal documentation, health documentation, cancer results. Time matters. That is why this is a very serious issue. It needs to be investigated, and I hope that the Minister and Ofcom will investigate it urgently.

15:09

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing this important debate. I have heard from many constituents about the challenges they face in receiving reliable and consistent postal services, so I am grateful to him.

Far too often, those living in rural and semi-rural areas feel that they are expected to simply accept a less efficient service than more urban communities, and the consequences of that disparity are clear. To be clear, I salute the staff of our postal service, who work unbelievably hard, but are sadly being let down by management—I say that as the son of a postie and mum who worked for Royal Mail.

The modern challenge is very real. In Shoebury, for example, a small town bordering Southend, my constituents have long endured a postal service that feels disjointed and dysfunctional. I have spoken to residents who have had Christmas presents arrive months late and legal letters lost, and who have missed vital medical appointments due to letters arriving after their allotted date.

That is just not good enough. Being located at the end of a railway line or beyond the boundaries of a busy city cannot be a justification for substandard service. Residents of Shoebury and across the UK feel that they are being punished on the basis of their geographical location. We also know that, in many cases, the most rural parts of this country have older populations, for whom a reliable postal service is even more crucial. Although many people are moving away from paper communications, that is not the case for everybody. We cannot allow those who rely on traditional post to be neglected.

I welcome the Government’s decision to launch the first comprehensive review of the Post Office in 15 years, and I look forward to seeing how investment will improve services across the country.

15:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for allowing us the opportunity to speak in this debate. I say well done to him for setting the scene incredibly well, although it does not give us any joy to highlight Royal Mail’s failings in communities, particularly rural communities.

I wish to preface my remarks by highlighting that my own Royal Mail workers are great. I spent some time with them at Christmas, and I know most of them—I probably grew up with most of them. I know where the problems lie, and it is not in the staff, but in the surroundings. The building is not fit for purpose; there are parking spaces for 30 vans, but there are 50 vans that need to park; and there is not enough space for sorting, so it is little wonder that the post in some of my areas is taking up to a month to get through. There is a priority for parcels, which Royal Mail does not try to hide. I understand that it puts them first and the delivery of letters is downgraded as a result.

On staffing levels, which the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) spoke about in his intervention, when I spoke to the Royal Mail guys, they told me that one of the problems is maintaining and holding on to staff. If Royal Mail gives staff members the minimum wage and no more, it is not going to keep them, because they will always be looking for a different job that will give them better payment. That has to be addressed as well, and I know that the Minister does his best whenever it comes to addressing these things.

In my constituency of Strangford, all the villages have problems. To give one example, in Portavogie, one gentleman had no mail at his house for a month, and then got 29 letters the next day, which included three about hospital appointments—he missed them all. His health has unfortunately been poor, and that had a detrimental effect on his health. It is not just a matter of not getting a monthly bank statement; in some cases, health is at stake. I believe that it is necessary that Royal Mail makes an investment in sorting offices to be able to get facilities in place and once again facilitate a routine post service that is fit for purpose.

To give another example, the heater in my office broke over Christmas, and it amazed me to see that one of my staff had ordered a heater and it was delivered the next day. I did not pay one penny for that delivery. I do pay £7.99 a month for unlimited free delivery, but it astounds me that I pay more than £1 for one letter, and it takes weeks to make it, but other things can be delivered in a short time. It cannot just be the facilities in Newtownards that are not up to scratch, because I have listened to every other Member present saying the same thing. We need root-and-branch changes, and we need the Minister to stand firmly with us as we press for those changes.

Officially, the Royal Mail website says that it is reducing second-class delivery to alternate days—Monday, Wednesday and Friday one week, and Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday the next week—and that first-class letters will continue to be delivered six days a week. The service we are seeing is nowhere near that, and Royal Mail must be held accountable. It is not easy to answer all these questions, but I look forward to what the Minister has to say in his response.

15:14

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate, and on his excellent speech.

Last year, postal services became a source of real frustration, anxiety and, frankly, anger in Radnorshire. Across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, and right across rural Wales, we saw serious problems in the run-up to Christmas. Parcels were marked as delivered but never arrived, items were left at farm gates, on main roads or in full view of passers-by, Christmas presents went missing, and essential items were delayed for days or even weeks, and then marked as lost. When things went wrong, people found it almost impossible to speak to a real human being to sort it out.

I want to be clear that, in my opinion, those problems stem from the corporate leadership of Evri. The problem is a systemic one within their business model, and rural areas are feeling the consequences first and hardest. Constituents of mine in the Teme valley tell me that their experience with Evri was awful. One constituent told me that they

“have never received a single Evri parcel on time, most never ever arrive, and those that do are weeks or months late.”

My constituents tell me that they often pay extra for faster shipping, but they then have to spend significant time processing refunds and working with credit card companies to recover some of the lost money.

A frustration for customers is that they often cannot choose their delivery company. It is chosen for them by the retailer they are buying from. When a parcel company performs badly, consumers are simply stuck with the consequences. Consumer bodies back that up, and companies like Evri consistently rank bottom for customer satisfaction, yet too often nothing seems to change. That is where regulation matters. There must be clear, enforceable service standards for parcel deliveries, including in rural areas, on safe delivery practices, accurate tracking and proper access to customer support when things go wrong.

Consumers who have no choice over their courier should not be left navigating automated systems or vague updates when a parcel is lost or delayed. If companies repeatedly fail customers, especially in rural and hard-to-serve areas, there must be consequences—not just guidance or warm words, but real accountability.

For many of my constituents, Evri’s failures have meant money lost, ruined Christmases, wasted time and a growing sense that rural communities are once again expected to put up with worse service. Rural Wales deserves reliability, respect and accountability, not excuses. I urge Ministers to take this issue seriously, and ensure that parcel delivery works for every part of the country, not just the easiest ones to serve.

15:17

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), and to the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) for a useful tip; perhaps if I had put my grandson Theo’s birthday card in a parcel, it might not—even though posted first class from Moffat to Troon—have taken three weeks to arrive. Fortunately he is only two, so he has not held it against me, but my constituents have had similar experiences.

First, we have to pay tribute to our posties, because what is happening is not their fault. It is the direction that is coming from above that is at fault, and the obsession with parcels. Royal Mail is meant to deliver mail, not just parcels. It is not a parcel delivery company. I hope the Minister can reinforce that message. In my constituency, Royal Mail has taken many steps to make it less attractive for people to post mail, particularly, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) mentioned, the surreptitious introduction of early collection times. If someone wants to post a first-class letter, in many parts of my constituency they have to do it before 9 am, otherwise they have to travel an inordinate distance.

In rural communities in particular, people still often suffer from poor broadband and mobile reception, and are generally older. That is the group of the population for whom the Royal Mail and its services is most important. I pay particular tribute to Barry Knock, the chair of the Quothquan and Thankerton community council in the Clydesdale part of my constituency, who has constantly held Royal Mail to account for its failures. As we have already heard, if someone is off or sick, the mail is not delivered.

The Minister is an experienced campaigner, and he knows that it is quite different sending somebody out into a modern housing estate to deliver something than sending them into a vast rural area. We need people who know those localities to do that job. I want the Minister to take away a specific issue: we are heading into elections for the Scottish Parliament and other elections, and a large number of people in these rural communities have a postal vote. I want the Minister to be able to tell me that he is satisfied that Royal Mail has the capacity to deliver the postal votes and return them to the election officers, because that is a very significant issue. Those deliveries did not go well, certainly in my constituency, during the 2024 general election. When Members raise issues with Royal Mail, they just get excuses; hopefully the Minister can put a rocket up the company.

15:20

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this important debate. As every postie and every Liberal Democrat deliverer knows, rural delivery is hard. Homes are harder to find, walks between addresses are longer and journeys to sorting offices take more time. That reality means that our posties work incredibly hard, particularly during peak periods, and they deserve better support to deliver their services.

Royal Mail’s performance shows the scale of the challenge. In the Dorchester postcode area, performance was 79.2%, and in the Taunton area, 74.4% of first-class mail was delivered the next working day, against a target of 93%. Ofcom has fined Royal Mail more than £37 million over the last three years and has demanded a credible improvement plan, but rural customers are still waiting to feel the change.

Alongside delivery issues, post offices themselves are under pressure. Post offices are the heart of rural communities, providing access to cash, banking, and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services. They are often small village shops and offer foreign exchange services. Nationally, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed in the past three years, so post offices are often the last remaining place for in-person banking, especially for older residents and those without reliable digital access. In Halstock, my constituents are deeply concerned that Lloyds Bank will soon stop allowing cheque deposits at their local post office. With the nearest Lloyds branch miles away and others closing, that change risks undermining both the community and the long-term viability of rural post offices.

Parcel delivery companies such as Evri present a huge problem for many. Ofcom research shows that 68% of customers in the south-west experienced delivery issues in the last six months. Say what you want about Evri, it is consistent: consistently bad and consistently among the worst performers. It is also very egalitarian, in that I get no more response from my parliamentary email address than the public do from any other one. In Sherborne, a café owner described repeated contradictory tracking messages, parcels failing to arrive and no meaningful customer support. Residents of Cattistock and Maiden Newton have contacted me about parcels being delivered to the wrong village altogether, or simply disappearing.

One constituent put it plainly: rural areas appear to be outside Evri’s business model, yet customers are never told this up front. Most people would happily pay more for a reliable service, but instead they are left guessing which courier will be used, and powerless when things go wrong. That points to a clear imbalance: Royal Mail is tightly regulated and fined for failure while private parcel firms face far weaker oversight.

The Government could make two changes: first, they should strengthen Ofcom’s powers over parcel delivery firms to bring them much closer to the standard applied to Royal Mail; secondly, vendors should be required to clearly state, before purchase, which courier will deliver an item. Transparency would allow consumers to make informed choices and would protect rural customers from the repeated failures that they are experiencing.

15:23

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for bringing attention to this important issue. Pressure has been building on postal services for decades. In my former career in advertising, I worked on behalf of the Irish post office, An Post, to try to at least slow the decline in volumes. That was 20 years ago, and of course the challenge is much greater now. Royal Mail is in danger of turning into a parcel delivery service with the occasional letter attached.

I visited my local delivery office in Horsham just before Christmas. The team there seemed to be doing a great job and I want to support them in every way that I can. Fundamentally, postmen are expected to cover wider areas than they ever were in the past. The problem is obviously more acute in rural areas because, just like our bus services, mail deliveries do not come as often as they used to. One couple contacted me to say that they never received my postal invitation to my MP surgery in their village. Now, one might say that missing the chance to talk to me face to face is not the end of the world, but it did leave them unsure about what else they might be missing through lack of notice.

More seriously, my constituent Alison, who lives in Horsham, lost her job, income and driving licence because critical court correspondence did not arrive. She works in domiciliary care, driving between patients’ homes carrying out time-critical visits involving medication, catheter care and support for bedridden clients. She also cares for her 93-year-old disabled mother and is the next of kin for her 96-year-old aunt. In late December, she received a letter from the magistrates court, dated weeks earlier, warning of a proposed driving disqualification. It was the first correspondence that she had received on the matter and she responded immediately. Despite that, a court summons, which was also delayed, arrived too late for her to attend. She was disqualified in her absence. Her attempts to reverse the decision—swearing on oath that she had not received the letters—made no difference and she lost her job. That is unacceptable.

In the end, this is about people’s lives, responsibility to family and ability to earn. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for rural business and the rural powerhouse, I feel a responsibility to speak up when rural villages and businesses in Horsham and across the UK are not being treated fairly. The universal service obligation exists for a reason, and it must work not just in theory but in practice, for the people who depend on it most. Rural Britain does not ask for special treatment, but it does demand a postal service that is reliable and fit for the realities of rural life. That is the standard that our constituents deserve and that the Government must insist on.

15:26

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Representing the biggest and most remote mainland British constituency, I know that my constituents understand the challenges faced by Royal Mail, including inclement weather and huge distances. I want to give one example of an issue that infuriates my constituents: a pot of paint from the Scottish Borders was ordered by one of my wonderful constituents. It cost £40 to deliver it. That seems absolutely shocking for one pot of paint. I do not lay that necessarily at the door of the Royal Mail.

My next example is my wife’s flowery dress. In the last months of last year, she ordered a special flowery dress for Christmas, and it was the same old story: it did not come, it did not come and it did not come. My erstwhile colleague from Holyrood, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), spoke of the two-year-old who did not really mind a delay; I promise him that my better half minded the delay hugely. I have experienced at first hand the irritation that constituents feel at the standard of delivery. Of course, in the end, it never came. I was instructed to go out in the snowy weather and check all the neighbours’ garden sheds. If an MP knocks on the door and asks, “May I look in your garden shed?” they get a very interesting reply. Then we had to wait for the refund, which did eventually come. I see it as a punishment for my constituents simply because of their postcode. It makes life very difficult for them. For those trying to run a small business, it is a real old slap in the face.

Royal Mail is going green. We understand the necessity for that—net zero and so on—but now it is not going to take the mail up to the highlands by aeroplane. It is going to take the mail in a diesel lorry on a very long journey on the A9. Anyone who has seen 007 go up the A9 in “Skyfall” knows what a long way that is. Is it really green to use all that diesel going up the road? I do not know. I ask for that to be passed on. Can we please think again?

Finally, I am so glad that other Members have given the posties praise. They are wonderful people. I will end on a light note, as the last Back Bencher to speak in this debate. Some years ago, a letter was sent from a religious organisation in the United States. It simply said on the big envelope: “To the personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ, Highlands, Scotland.” Someone in the Royal Mail wrote on it: “Try Jamie Stone.” I wish I had kept it. On that light note, I hope word will be passed back to our posties that they do a smashing job, and I thank them.

15:30

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) for securing the debate and for his excellent opening speech, which highlighted so many of the everyday frustrations and difficulties experienced by people who are not getting their post. I thank all hon. Members who have shared examples of their own.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I am very proud to represent some fantastic small businesses in my rural constituency. Mr Barclay, the owner of CardByMeLove in Tiverton, has been left to shoulder an administrative burden that is not of his own making, chasing missing parcels and placating disgruntled customers. To make matters worse, he has faced an unresponsive Royal Mail. Does my hon. Friend agree that such instances of abject failure actively undermine the ability of small businesses to operate, and cause serious reputational damage in already trying circumstances?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is right. We have talked a lot today about the implications for individuals and I particularly want to highlight the example from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne). That was really appalling and I send my best wishes to his constituent who suffered that unacceptable incident. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) is absolutely right to point out the impact on businesses, too.

Post offices across the UK play a vital role in our local communities, with millions of people depending on them. They provide critical services on our local high streets, such as community banking, foreign exchange and the provision of DVLA services. Often those services act as a lifeline, especially for the elderly, as we have heard so many times today, and for those with limited transport options or in areas without reliable access to online services.

Currently, 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office and 4,000 branches are open seven days a week. Last July, the Government launched their consultation on the future of the Post Office and the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps to put post offices on a more sustainable footing. However, it is essential that the reforms protect local services and post office jobs and that no post office is closed without proper consultation with the local community.

Digitisation can improve access for some users and increase efficiency, but the Government must ensure that post offices remain financially viable and continue to offer face-to-face services for those who need them, particularly in rural areas with limited broadband or internet access, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out. Rural communities face compounded challenges, including poor digital connectivity, cuts to public transport and the loss of local services, all of which make access to alternatives more difficult when post offices or banks close.

The decline of high street services in rural areas has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. Just last week, Santander announced the closure of 44 of its branches. That has significant consequences for residents, particularly older people, those with limited digital access, and small businesses. That pattern places increased importance on the role of a local post office. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 bank branches have closed across the UK, including hundreds of rural branches, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now lack a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services. Those challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out. We believe it is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I urge the Government to prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. Alternative solutions, such as banking hubs, are emerging, but there are not enough of them; the Government should facilitate more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them and to prevent digital exclusion for people in rural areas.

Royal Mail provides the universal postal service: it must deliver letters to every address in the UK six days a week at a uniform price and deliver parcels five days a week. Royal Mail’s performance is measured against quality-of-service targets, which are set out by Ofcom. The vast majority of those targets are not being achieved; in 2024-25 Royal Mail delivered only 76.5% of first-class mail within one working day of collection against a target of 93%. It also missed its target for second-class mail to be delivered within three working days of collection, as well as its targets for daily delivery routes. Last July, Ofcom announced that Royal Mail will start to deliver second-class letters on every other weekday and not on Saturdays to help cut costs. That is a deeply worrying decision and it could leave countless people who rely on those deliveries in the lurch. People need to know that their post will arrive on time so that they can go about their lives; the move flies right in the face of that.

The sorry saga of Royal Mail delays has been going on for far too long, despite the tireless work of staff members. I wish to add my comments to those of other hon. Members about the excellent work that posties do. I was privileged to visit Mortlake and Barnes delivery office just before Christmas. Its staff work incredibly hard, and I am happy to say that they are doing really well on their targets, but that is obviously not the case across the country, so more need to be done. People are rightly disappointed with the service provided. Instead of giving Royal Mail a free pass, Ofcom needs to step in and act by fully holding this failing service to account. Ofcom needs to think again and not let Royal Mail off the hook at the expense of people who expect, as a bare minimum, for their post to arrive on time.

For many rural communities, the pattern of the closure of services has been compounded by rural public transport being cut, making it even harder for residents to reach alternative services. Bus route reductions leave some villages with little to no public transport, worsening isolation. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country, and they are particularly crucial in rural areas, where accessibility is an issue and local amenities and services are greater distances apart. If the Government are serious about growth, they will invest in services that will boost our struggling town centres and high streets. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes the most.

Rural areas of the UK face a distinct set of challenges compared with their urban counterparts. Although Government support exists through various grants, loans and initiatives, several issues, including infrastructure challenges, the phasing out of EU funding and higher costs related to transport, energy and supply chains can disadvantage rural businesses more severely.

I thank the hon. Member for South Shropshire for securing this debate. I look forward to hearing what steps the Minister is taking to ensure that communities in rural areas will be able to benefit from the vital service that post offices provide.

15:36

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing this debate and on the incredible persistence with which he has fought for his constituents.

As my hon. Friend made clear, a functioning postal service is not a nice-to-have in rural Britain; rather, it is part of the vital infrastructure of daily life. The post is how people receive medical letters, time-sensitive official correspondence and the things they cannot simply pick up on the high street. For small businesses, farms and sole traders, it is how goods, invoices and documents move. We should not underestimate the harms when this important service fails.

I want to cover two linked issues: the resilience of the post office network; and the reliability of deliveries and the way that failures fall hardest on rural areas. As of October 2025, there were about 11,638 post office branches in the UK, and the company is committed to maintaining about 11,500 branches. The Post Office is publicly owned, but the vast majority of branches are run by independent postmasters inside local shops. In my experience, that is why they are so deeply woven into rural life, and why, when a branch closes, the town or village feels it immediately and deeply.

The network is supposed to be underpinned by access criteria, including a requirement that 95% of the rural population should be within three miles of a post office, and that 95% of the population of every postcode district should be within six miles of one. Even remote communities have a minimum level of access. Those are sensible measures of access, and it is therefore deeply concerning that the Department for Business and Trade Green Paper on the future of the Post Office explicitly asks whether to keep the existing requirement, remove the minimum 11,500 branch requirement or replace it with a different framework altogether. Rural Britain has heard that language before: “a different way of meeting obligations” is often a Whitehall euphemism for a quiet downgrade under which the network looks stable on paper but becomes thinner in practice, with reduced hours, reduced services and longer journeys for those without cars.

Although the Government appear to be drifting, the Conservative party is clear about what the Post Office is for. It is more than a business; it is part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, especially in rural areas, and especially as bank branches continue to vanish from our high streets. For many communities, the post office is now the most realistic place to do basic banking, withdraw cash or deposit takings.

There is also a straightforward point about support. The nationwide network, especially in rural areas, will not always be commercially viable based on pure retail footfall alone. That is why public funding has played a role. The Conservative Government provided more than £2.5 billion in funding in the past decade to sustain the nationwide network, including support for branches in uncommercial areas. That turned out to be money well spent, in the light of the ongoing use of the post office network. Post office data shows record levels of cash deposits at branches and significant use by both personal and business customers, alongside the roll-out of banking hubs operated in partnership with Cash Access UK.

When the Minister responds, I hope we will hear some reassurance about the support for the post office network. Can we have a commitment today to retaining a minimum network size of at least 11,500 branches? Will we keep the rural and postcode district access criteria and will sub-postmasters be properly supported so that rural branches do not become financially untenable?

I now turn to deliveries, which is where constituents, including my own, are impacted when the service breaks down. The universal postal service is a promise that has been repeatedly broken. In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million for missing its 2024-25 delivery targets, finding that only 77% of first-class mail and 92.5% of second-class mail was delivered on time, far below the long-standing universal service targets. Ofcom has since moved to reform parts of the universal service obligation, including allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays Monday to Friday and adjusting headline targets while introducing new backstop measures designed to prevent extreme delays. There is a legitimate discussion to be had about sustainability and falling letter volumes, but reform must not become cover for a two-tier Britain where rural residents simply wait longer as a matter of course.

The focus must now be on delivery offices, staffing and day-to-day operational reality. In my own Reigate constituency we face ongoing concerns about the standard of postal services in the village of Banstead. Constituents have raised this with me repeatedly since the general election, and with good reason. A key issue appears to be staffing. Royal Mail has admitted to higher than normal levels of sickness and vacancies, and when I visited the delivery office that serves Banstead it was clear that morale there was extremely low. Meanwhile there is an operational inefficiency built in. Banstead is served by a delivery office based in Epsom, meaning staff travel before rounds even begin. I think we can all guess what that leads to. One constituent received 10 items of post on 30 January after receiving none in the preceding 10 days. Others report the same pattern of long gaps followed by sudden floods. If that is the experience of a well-connected part of Surrey, it should shock no one that deeply rural areas are hit even harder.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire highlighted severe delays in his constituency. The frustration felt by his constituents is wholly understandable. So what should happen next? First, the Minister should make it clear that regulatory fines are not the end of the story. Ofcom’s enforcement action was accompanied by requirements for Royal Mail to take corrective steps. The Government should press for transparent reporting at delivery office level with a particular focus on rural performance so that communities can see whether their service is improving and where the problems sit.

Secondly, Ministers must ensure that any future changes to the universal service protect rural users. If second class is delivered less often, that should not translate into worse outcomes for rural areas. Backstop measures are welcome, but they must be enforced and felt in places that have been left behind. People do not care about clever statistics if their letters still arrive late, in clumps, or not at all. Thirdly, the Government should recognise the interdependence of the system. The post office is not a shop counter; it is part of the national postal infrastructure, so any reform must be judged by a simple test: does it improve the lived experience of rural users?

I will end by returning to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire, who has done what good MPs should do: listened locally, engaged with the operators and brought the issue to Parliament for debate. To be clear, neither he nor rural Britain are asking for special treatment. They are asking for fairness and competence. A letter posted in this country should arrive when the sender is told it will arrive. A rural post office branch should not be quietly allowed to wither. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope we will hear some meaningful commitments on the issues today.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Minister, I would be grateful if you could leave a couple of minutes at the end for a wind-up speech from the mover of the debate.

15:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) on securing the debate and on making such a passionate case on behalf of his constituents. As the Minister with responsibility for postal services, I was interested to hear him talk about how that dates back to the time of Henry VIII—a political figure who was hated in Scotland, who was dangerously overweight and who had trouble with his wife, so postal services are in much different and safer hands today.

As so many Members have said, postal services in rural areas and, for that matter, across the country are not simply an administrative matter. If it was simply a case of a bank statement coming late, few of us would be so passionate about it. The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) set out how devastating the consequences of the postal service not working can be. Postal services are a lifeline, a point of connection and a cornerstone of communities.

I know from my relatives in highland areas in Scotland just how essential that connection is—to reassure the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), I will raise the issue of his wife’s missing dress and the diesel lorry with Royal Mail—and that is as true in the south of Scotland and rural areas as it is all over the United Kingdom. I say to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) that I am sorry that his grandson’s card did not arrive, and perhaps I can put a belated happy birthday in Hansard for him to in some way make up for that.

All our constituents place immense value on reliable postal deliveries, accessible post offices and the assurance that even the most remote households remain firmly connected to the rest of the country. I pay tribute, as others have, to the posties and the postmasters and postmistresses across the UK who serve their communities well over and above the level of compensation that they get. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) put it best in reminding us that whatever criticisms and complaints hon. Members have, they are in no way directed at those extraordinary staff members who work so hard.

[Helen Morgan]

I think we all agree that our posties work really hard, but one of the problems that has been described to me in Shropshire is recruitment and retention of posties, because their conditions are poor. Royal Mail promised me that it would put in extra rounds in North Shropshire to alleviate the problem. As far as I know, that only happened last week. Why is it acting so slowly, and what pressure can the Minister bring to bear on it to improve the conditions for our posties?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. Being a postie is a good job and we need to make sure that it is an attractive job. I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail on those and other matters shortly.

Others have mentioned the broader technological changes in society that have reshaped how people live and work and created challenges for Royal Mail and the Post Office. It is important to remember that these institutions create a sense of continuity in a time of change. We are committed to the universal postal service—the guarantee that letters and parcels will be delivered at a uniform price to every address, however remote.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am glad that the Government are committed to that, but I am not sure that Royal Mail is, and that is the problem. Ofcom fines are clearly not working, because Royal Mails keeps repeating the same mistakes. I hope the Minister will note this moment in time—this debate—because I am very concerned by a situation in which Royal Mail is making the same mistakes and just paying the fines, and baking that into their business plan, and the Minister is saying, as he no doubt will later on, that he has limited powers because it is now a private company. If that is the case, then it is likely that all our constituents will see a further decline in letter delivery services. Will the Minister at least commit that, in those circumstances, the Government will apply for a judicial review on the grounds of failure to disclose necessary documents at the point of sale and failure to deliver the universal service obligation—a legal obligation? If the Government do not intervene, I believe that we will see a complete collapse of the letter delivery service.

[Blair McDougall]

I will come to my discussions with Royal Mail shortly. I know that the right hon. Member and I are due to discuss this issue face to face in a few days’ time. I share the deep frustration that has been voiced today and agree that Royal Mail has not just a legal obligation, but an obligation and a responsibility in our democracy. There are special measures in place around postal votes. Royal Mail has traditionally taken on additional staff and done sweeps of post boxes during elections, and we would absolutely insist and expect that that happens in the elections that the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale raised.

I met Royal Mail’s chief executive and senior management yesterday, specifically to raise concerns that Members across the House have shared with me in recent weeks. Royal Mail knows that it has not always delivered, and I was given an absolute commitment that it will work to deliver the best possible service to customers, while accepting that there have been service challenges.

The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all mentioned concerns about NHS appointment letters not getting through. That is a particular issue that I am pursuing in conjunction with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, because there is an ability to make sure that those get through.

I know that South Shropshire suffered widespread disruption in early January after storms, and as a result there were times when the rotation of mail processes could not be followed and deliveries were affected. The hon. Member for South Shropshire engaged with Royal Mail, and it told me that it welcomes such engagement; it thinks that it is important for hon. Members to continue to engage with it. I know that hundreds of hon. Members will have visited their local sorting offices over Christmas.

I will personally ensure that every single issue that has been raised by hon. Members here today is communicated back to Royal Mail at a senior level, because customers, particularly those in rural areas, must see visible and sustained improvements in reliability, timeliness and delivery office performance. The discussions that we have had today will inform every engagement I have with Royal Mail. As I have said, yesterday I made it clear that people not getting their mail is simply not good enough.

[David Mundell]

The hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) made a very important point about the last mile. Something that really concerns me and my constituents is the sustainability of the Royal Mail in that context, because delivery companies are taking on deliveries, but they leave the hard bit—going up the track, or the miles into the valley—for Royal Mail to do. I cannot see how that can be sustainable.

[Blair McDougall]

I will come to that point on other parcel delivery providers shortly.

Before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured commitments from its new owners, EP Group. In addition to retaining a golden share in Royal Mail, we secured a commitment to prevent further value from being taken out of it until the quality of service improves.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for responding to all the questions that we posed. One of mine was about the minimum wage. If a business wants to retain staff, it has to pay them a decent wage. The problem in Newtownards is that some of the staff who have been there for many years are not getting the minimum wage, so if something better comes up, they are away. We cannot blame them; if someone has to pay bills, they have to do that. Instead of Royal Mail paying a fine, which could be used to pay wages, would it not be better and more sensible for it to give workers a decent wage, retain them and improve the service from the bottom up? Is the Minister in any way able to encourage it to do that?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about staff retention. Obviously, management and the workforce are working on implementing not only reforms but the pay deal. Hopefully, that will play an important role in helping to tackle what he has just spoken about.

In addition to my discussions with Royal Mail, I have had detailed discussions with Ofcom, which has an essential role in improving standards. As the hon. Member for Strangford has just pointed out, Ofcom has told Royal Mail that it must publish a credible improvement plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement, and made it clear that, without such a plan, it is likely that fines will continue to be imposed.

The hon. Member for South Shropshire mentioned the context for this debate, which is the change in consumer behaviour and communication. The average household now receives only four letters per week, down from 14, yet the number of addresses in the country has risen by 4 million. To protect the USO for the long term, Ofcom has introduced reforms that are projected to deliver up to £450 million in annual savings, helping to get Royal Mail on to a more financially sustainable basis. We now need Royal Mail to work with its workforce and unions to deliver the service that we all expect.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about now slightly notorious parcel providers other than Royal Mail. Ministers and Ofcom have made it clear that the way they are operating is not good enough and that they are on notice.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous. On the point about the golden share and Royal Mail having been put on notice, what powers of intervention or sanction does the Minister have? Can he provide to my constituents who are listening to this debate the solution they are hoping for? We have not heard it yet.

[Blair McDougall]

As I mentioned a moment ago, when Royal Mail was taken over, the deed included all sorts of assurances about making sure that the owners cannot take value out of the company until they improve service. Their financial interests are deeply tied to the service that our constituents receive.

Turning briefly to the rural post office network, we currently have a network of 11,500 post office branches around the country and most people live within 3 miles of one. However, as Members have pointed out, those averages do not paint the full picture. The Government have invested significantly in the post office network precisely because it provides essential services. Although it is publicly owned, Post Office operates as a commercial business with its own board of directors. It must have the commercial freedom to deliver the branch network within the parameters that we set.

Several Members raised concerns about the Green Paper process and whether we would continue with the current level of service. Our starting assumption was that we would, but we thought it was right to have a debate given how long it has been since we had that conversation. Just finally, we absolutely recognise the importance of banking services and the Post Office, which the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) spoke about. That is why I and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury held a roundtable last month to talk about continuing that relationship.

15:57

[Stuart Anderson]

Thank you for your excellent time management, Mr Stringer. It is great to be able to wind up the debate. I thank every Member who attended, particularly those from Shropshire and the surrounding area: the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), with whom I have really enjoyed working. He has run a tenacious campaign on this issue and is now following up with the Minister.

We have heard today that most of us are asked about this issue in our constituencies, so why don’t we all work together to find a solution? There is cross-party support. Everyone has identified that there is a major failing and a problem. The Minister would do very well to follow up with the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) and look at how his huge experience in this area could be brought into Government. We are not asking for anything new; we are asking for a minimum service level to be delivered to rural constituents. Across every constituency, our constituents are suffering from not getting their mail. We have seen the detriment from missed cancer appointments and screening, missed bank or legal letters, and isolation. This is causing problems for all our constituents, so I thank everyone for coming together today.

I say to my constituents that I will continue to follow up with Royal Mail, as the Minister outlined—I thank him for summing up today. I will raise every single case. Even if a constituent has missed just one letter, they should get in touch with me—my survey opened today—because I will follow it up. I want Royal Mail to know that I am an exceptionally tenacious person who goes after everything and will not accept no for an answer. I will campaign with many hon. Members here so that every one of our constituents gets the service they are promised and every single letter is delivered on time. I will not stop until that happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered postal services in rural areas.

Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and of the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the use of CCTV for safeguarding purposes in nurseries and early years providers.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I have now been a public servant for 15 years, initially as a local councillor and then as a local MP for nearly 11 years. A lot of people who see me doing my job will know about the bits relating to voting, legislation and making decisions on national policy, but most will not know about my casework. That casework is often on matters of life or death, whether helping women fleeing domestic violence, people fleeing persecution, or my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was imprisoned in Iran for a crime she did not commit.

Some of the most harrowing examples of my casework have been about children. Very early in my career, I dealt with a young boy who was abducted from his mother, and taken overseas by his estranged father. I then dealt with a man who was grooming his step-daughter, and had to step in to help get him away from her. Finally, I have dealt with parents whose children have been abused, either sexually or through neglect or cruelty, in nurseries. It is very difficult to put into words what those casework surgeries are like, because they are every parent’s worst nightmare. Parents have put their child in a nursery at a time when they are unable to speak, walk or talk and entrusted it to look after them, only to find that that very place, rather than being a safe haven, has abused that trust, and that their children have been subjected to violent acts or sexual cruelty.

For six years, I was a shadow Minister for early years and early education, and I am an absolute champion for the sector. I want to emphasise that every time I spoke to early years educators and practitioners, safeguarding was the focus of all their work and they wanted to make sure children were protected. Many of the conversations I had were about strengthening security so that nurseries could do their job properly, whether that was through the mandatory two person per child rule, ensuring that Ofsted can examine digital devices or having a proper whistleblowing system in case anything problematic was happening. In particular, those conversations were about whether mandatory CCTV should be a safeguarding tool for nurseries across the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for all she has done over the years. In the short time I have been here, I have found her to be assiduous, committed and dedicated on all these issues. As she knows, I have tried to support her in all her campaigns. Today, she is talking about another massive campaign, and I commend her for it. Child safety is core and imperative, and every one of us—including me, as a father and grandfather—worries about our children and grandchildren. CCTV could be the norm in affluent areas, but does hon. Lady agree that all those who provide care, in all areas, should be able to access affordable systems to meet this need? There is a cost—a financial factor—but it is really important that the No. 1 priority is safety.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for all my campaigns throughout the years. He has hit on a point I will definitely comment on. However, as he said, we cannot put a price on a child’s safety.

I said that I have been a public servant for 15 years, but I have been involved in the world of politics for 25 years, and I know that campaigns and legislation cannot be done on a whim. We have to look at all sides of the argument, which is why I spoke to a lot of the nursery managers and early years practitioners in my constituency before the debate to ask what they thought about a mandatory policy of installing CCTV in nurseries.

Legitimate concerns were raised, and I want to discuss them because we need to be aware of the obstacles we will face if we want to implement this policy. One of those legitimate arguments concerned price and diverting resources. Another question was whether someone would end up exploiting what we were trying to do to safeguard children. For example, would the CCTV be hacked? Would someone use artificial intelligence on that material in a manner we would not want and distribute it illegally? Those are legitimate concerns, which I will address, because if we want to change the landscape, we have to tackle the obstacles head-on, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing, particularly on behalf of constituents who have been so badly traumatised by their recent experience. I am grateful to some of those parents for recently meeting the Education Committee privately to discuss the change they wish to see. On Tuesday, my Committee will hold a public oral evidence session to explore safeguarding in early years settings. Does my hon. Friend agree that in addition to practical measures like compulsory CCTV, which can strengthen safeguarding in nurseries, we need to explore the operation of the inspection and accountability framework in the early years, so that every parent can be sure that when they entrust their precious child to an early years setting, they will be safe?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree. As elected officials, we must ensure that we protect our constituents and that when they trust a nursery or childminder with their children, they know they are doing the right thing.

I have some examples in which CCTV has helped to secure convictions, but I warn everyone that the details are quite distressing. The first is the very sad case of Genevieve from Tiny Toes nursery in Greater Manchester, which some people will have read about. While being placed down to sleep in the nursery, Genevieve was tightly swaddled in a blanket. She was strapped face down on to a bean bag without being checked by nursery staff. The nursery worker responsible was convicted of manslaughter using the CCTV footage obtained from the nursery. The footage also disproved the nursery worker’s claim that she had checked on Genevieve every few minutes, and later led to the conviction of one of the perpetrator’s colleagues for the deplorable neglect of four other babies. Tiny Toes nursery, where Genevieve was killed, was rated “Good” by Ofsted five years earlier, but the trial heard evidence suggesting it was run shockingly. On the day Genevieve died, only two members of staff were looking after 11 babies. The previous weekday, there were 16 babies—far in excess of the 1:3 ratio for under-2s in England. If Ofsted had watched the CCTV footage, it would have picked that up.

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. As a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament, I know that the important issue of mandatory CCTV in nursery settings is a critical part of the campaign for Gigi. There is also the issue of allowing parents to access CCTV footage. I have raised before in Westminster Hall the case of my constituent Frances, who found it extremely difficult to access the CCTV footage of an incident in which her daughter was seriously mistreated at her nursery, in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such cases show that, as well as having mandatory CCTV in nurseries, parents need greater rights to hold providers to account and access the footage they need?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am very sorry to hear about that case. I fully agree that if we are to have CCTV as a safeguarding tool, we must be able to access it in incidents like the one my hon. Friend described.

Another case I want to mention is that of Riverside nursery in Twickenham, where the local MP has been doing a huge amount of work. Roksana Lecka was convicted of abusing 21 babies at that nursery after footage showed the worker pinching and scratching children, and kicking one boy in the face. As in the case of Genevieve, which I just mentioned, CCTV was essential to the prosecution in the case. The Metropolitan police went through CCTV from the nursery, which showed Lecka pinching and scratching children, all aged 18 months to two years, under their clothes and on their arms, legs and stomachs. The Crown Prosecution Service put forward compelling evidence that clearly showed her targeting children when colleagues were either out of the room or had their backs turned. It also called on experts to prove that the injuries the victims sustained were consistent with pinch marks.

Another horrific case happened in Bristol, where a nursery worker sexually abused five toddlers in his care. The prosecutor told the jury that some of the evidence against the perpetrator came from CCTV from inside the nursery, and she used CCTV showing the nursery worker’s predatory behaviour towards young children. That nursery worker was initially caught because the nursery manager witnessed him on CCTV putting his hands down the trousers of a child. She immediately sent him home and got in touch with human resources, but he would not have been sacked, and then ultimately convicted, had the CCTV not been there.

The final example is from Australia. Some hon. Members will be aware that last August Australian federal and state education leaders signed off on plans to begin a trial of CCTV for childcare centres, in which 300 childcare centres across the country will install purpose-built daycare CCTV systems. The trial is part of a larger $189 million Government-funded initiative to enhance safety, security and reporting in the childcare sector. Funds will be released over four years to help small and medium-sized operators purchase and install CCTV cameras for childcare centres.

The Australian childcare CCTV trial is taking place as part of federal reforms to enhance safety in the childcare sector, particularly in response to a high-profile allegation of misconduct in which a childcare worker was charged with more than 70 child sex offences, including rape, after working for eight years at several nurseries, many of which did not have CCTV. During the announcement, the Australian Education Minister stressed the importance of CCTV as a safeguarding measure, referring to daytime security cameras as

“an essential component in what we need to do if we want to keep our children safe”.

He went on to say that police suggest that CCTV cameras

“can be an important aspect in deterring bad behaviour”

as well as in helping police with their investigations.

Some nursery chains in our country do use CCTV, but there is no consistent national standard. That raises questions about whether current safeguarding arrangements are sufficient. If we consider implementing this proposal, we need to consider a number of issues. One is the security of CCTV systems: whether footage is monitored, whether it is stored locally, how secure the footage is and whether there are controls around remote access. We also need to think about whether and in what circumstances we can view the footage in the case of an incident, and how that access is recorded. We could consider role-based auditable access, and also whether there is a case for authorised access for Ofsted inspectors as part of routine inspections.

Another area is data retention. How long should footage be kept? When should it be deleted? How should it be preserved automatically if a safeguarding concern is raised? Clear guidance would need to ensure compliance with data protection law and prevent inappropriate access. We need to look carefully at wider digital safeguards in early years settings and the potential benefits of introducing technical controls, such as restricting devices in early years settings to approved apps and systems, or even limiting camera or gallery functions where they are not required. Routine audits, spot checks and clear escalation processes would need to form part of that picture, alongside appropriate staff training on digital governance and responsible use.

We should also be open to emerging technologies that could help to strengthen safeguarding processes further. That might include harnessing specialist tools designed to detect illegal content quickly and automatically —for example, Project Arachnid, developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is used to identify known sexual abuse material online.

I do not claim to have answers to all the questions, but if we work collectively with the Government, we could implement this measure to safeguard the future of children in nurseries.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate; she makes a compelling case for CCTV in this area. It is difficult to listen to the harrowing stories, and everybody listening will be horrified at what has gone on. In terms of how CCTV could make an impact, does my hon. Friend believe that more needs to be done to ensure that the role of Ofsted and local authorities in safeguarding is more effective, so that incidents can be addressed faster?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am coming to my questions to the Minister; I know she is highly focused on the early years sector and has done an enormous amount for it. One of those questions is about Ofsted; I will get to that in a minute.

The Secretary of State talked about appointing an expert panel on CCTV. Can the Minister give an update on that panel, and is there an opportunity for me to sit on it as a representative of the parents in my constituency? I ask the Minister for her response to the Lullaby Trust’s Campaign for Gigi. One of its three objectives is mandatory CCTV in nurseries, stating that CCTV

“should not only be checked once there has been a serious incident. CCTV can give staff the confidence to speak up when they see something that is concerning, and could help Ofsted to monitor regular practices in nurseries even before there is a concern.”

In addition, the Lullaby Trust is

“calling for Ofsted and the Department for Education to explore reviewing CCTV footage as part of Ofsted inspections. This can act as an active safeguard, revealing concerns that may not be visible during a short, scheduled inspection.”

Cost is an issue, which we are all aware of. Will the Minister commission a study to look into the costs for nurseries to install CCTV?

Before I finish, I want to make it clear that although I have talked a lot about keeping our children safe in nurseries, I am a huge champion of the early years sector. There are thousands of workers out there who work really hard to love, protect and look after our children. I sent my children to Pinocchio nursery in my constituency; it looked after them better than I did, and they still call their nursery manager Jana their second mother. In no way is this debate a slight on the people who work hard to look after our children. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

My focus today has been on the safeguarding crisis in some of our nurseries. There were almost 20,000 reports of serious childcare incidents in English nurseries in the five years to March 2024. That was up 40% on the previous five years. Meanwhile, the number of legal claims involving injuries to children in nurseries has increased tenfold over the past decade. I spoke to the late Genevieve’s father John last night. He told me categorically that, without CCTV, the investigation into his little daughter’s death would not have opened. It would not have taken place, the case would not have gone to trial, and the deputy manager of the nursery would not have been convicted of manslaughter.

I am not naive to the challenges; I do not think CCTV is a silver bullet, but I do think it is one step closer to safeguarding our children in the future. If there is any Government who should put forward policy to look after the most vulnerable, it should be a Government with Labour values.

16:18

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank all hon. Members for attending and contributing to this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the debate, and on her excellent speech. She has fought hard for her constituents following the horrendous case in her constituency, and I thank her for that. She is a true champion for children, for her constituents and for those working in the early years sector who, she rightly says, spend every day thinking about how to keep children safe. I am grateful to her for sharing the views of providers in her constituency with whom she has taken the time to discuss the issue of CCTV, and grateful to her for sharing the harrowing stories that she has shared in this debate, which underline the urgency and significance of the action that we must take. She has made a very powerful case for the use of CCTV.

I look forward to reading and hearing about the outcomes of the important inquiry of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) will be considered by the panel that we are currently getting under way, which I shall say a bit more about. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) talked about the role of Ofsted. That is at the front of the Government’s mind. We have increased the frequency of Ofsted inspections in early years settings, and in our review we will continue to consider the points that she raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate asked a number of questions that I address in the speech that I have prepared; I will come on to those answers.

Nothing is more important, for me and for this Government, than the safety of our children. The Department for Education is constantly working to ensure that children in early years settings benefit from the highest possible safeguarding standards. In September, we strengthened the rules to cover safer recruitment, what to do in the event of child absences, whistleblowing procedures, safer eating and paediatric first aid training. We also introduced new mandatory safeguarding training requirements, so that all early years educators must complete training that meets our statutory criteria.

On CCTV, we are acting with the urgency that every hon. Member in this debate rightly expects. In December, the Secretary of State for Education announced that she would appoint an expert advisory panel to review how digital devices and CCTV are used in early years settings, from a safeguarding perspective. I can now go into further details on the expertise that the panel will hold, how it will operate and the panel’s objectives.

The panel will meet monthly, with the first meeting planned for later this month. It will consider key points including, but not limited to, whether CCTV should be mandated in early years settings, CCTV’s role as part of a setting’s wider safeguarding measures, how CCTV and digital devices should be managed to ensure that children’s privacy is protected alongside their safety, and what systems, training and safeguards are necessary to address concerns such as cyber-security and the possible misuse of images. We must remember that, sadly, image-generating technology can be used for harm as well as for good, and we have seen, in some of those awful cases, that the presence of CCTV has not prevented harm. Digital devices within settings have been used to generate unlawful images and perpetrate abuse. We have seen that nurseries and early years settings face risks from hackers, such as in the case faced by a nursery chain last year. For those reasons, we are working across Government to ensure that all possible angles are considered, and that any recommended changes, including those relating to any mandatory CCTV requirements, have a unified cross-Government response so that any changes are brought in with the utmost care.

The panel will consist of representatives from both the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and from the Home Office, along with relevant bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. In addition, the National Police Chiefs’ Council will be invited, so that CCTV’s use as evidence, best practice and potential misuse are covered. It is also key that the voices of all early years providers are heard in our review, along with those of academic experts in early years safeguarding and surveillance technology. Most importantly of all, I want the voices of parents and of hon. Members advocating in this debate to be at the heart of the review. I will be in touch with any hon. Member in this debate who would like to know more about how they can be involved as soon as possible.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I want to publicly thank the Minister for attending a roundtable with the parents of Twickenham Green nursery victims last year. The perpetrator is to be deported tomorrow, and many of those parents feel that justice has not been served, but the best justice would be to make sure that such a case does not happen again, so I welcome the panel. Will the Minister assure me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), who represents the parents of baby Gigi Meehan, that we can feed into that panel on behalf of those parents to make sure that their concerns and views are heard, and that we have learned the lessons from the CCTV pilot rollout in Australia?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for her campaigning for her constituents, and for the powerful roundtable that she invited me to. I can reassure her that, as I just said, any parent or hon. Member in this debate who would like to contribute to the work of that panel will have the opportunity to do so. I will be in touch to explain how that will happen.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a word about safer sleep. In addition to calls for mandatory CCTV, the Campaign for Gigi has called for clear, statutory safe-sleep guidance for early years settings. My policy officials have worked with safe-sleep experts, including the Lullaby Trust, on proposed new wording for the early years foundation stage, which will add more detail without providers’ needing to refer to other guidance. We plan to make those changes as soon as possible.

In closing, I again thank all hon. Members for their passion and dedication.

[Munira Wilson]

I know we are talking about CCTV, but another important thing that the Australian Government have just introduced is a register for early years providers, so that perpetrators can be stopped from going on to hurt other young victims, as happened in the Twickenham Green nursery case of Roksana Lecka. Will the Minister and her Government also look at having a register for early years practitioners in the UK?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for that important intervention. We do have a few more moments, if anyone else would like to intervene on these topics. We are considering all the evidence; nothing is off the table for me as I think about how to keep our children safe.

[Rachel Blake]

One issue I would like explored is the role of local authorities in safeguarding. That issue has come up in some work I have been doing on this subject, where a gap or lack of communication is perceived between the different roles of Ofsted and local authorities. I welcome the fact that the Minister has been clear that Ofsted inspections are increasing and are part of the review. It is important that local authorities are clear about their roles with early years settings.

[Olivia Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is something the Government are focused on. In addition to frequency, we have also increased funding for Ofsted. There are also ongoing local reviews of some of the horrendous cases we have seen, from which we will also learn lessons.

I hope that the ongoing and planned work that I have highlighted today provides reassurance that, across Government, we are working urgently to implement the most effective and evidence-based changes to early years safeguarding, to ensure the most important thing of all—that our children are safe. I thank everyone for their contributions today.

Question put and agreed to.

16:27

Sitting suspended.

Armed Conflict: Children

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children and armed conflict.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and it is a privilege to bring this topic, which I know is an important one for many of my constituents, to Westminster Hall today.

I open the debate with an uncomfortable statistic: today one in five children across the world are growing up in conflict zones. I am sure we can all agree that that is not a statistic we should accept or ever ignore. From Gaza to Ukraine to Yemen, children are paying the highest price for conflicts they did nothing to create. Between 2020 and 2024, nearly 50,000 have become casualties of war—the equivalent of 200 full passenger planes. Those figures are just the tip of the iceberg of the true scale of violations, are limited to incidents it was possible to record and verify, something that can be extremely challenging in situations of active conflict and where access restrictions are in place. UNICEF reports that more than 100 children have been killed in Gaza alone since the ceasefire in early October 2025. That is an average of one child killed every day—and that during a ceasefire. Is the Minister considering children’s distinct needs and vulnerabilities, and their additional rights under international law, in the context of assessing Israel’s compliance with international human rights law?

The United Nations children and armed conflict agenda makes abundantly clear what has been documented: the very youngest victims of war are being caught in its merciless machinery. Children face indiscriminate harm, including killings, maiming, recruitment, abductions and attacks on schools and hospitals, at levels not previously seen and Gaza figures among the worst-affected contexts. Currently, the Occupied Palestinian Territory is the most dangerous place on earth to be a child, obtaining that title for the second year running, with grave violations committed at an extraordinary scale and pace by the Israeli forces. Most verified incidents were of the killing and maiming of children caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. It must be noted that children are seven times more likely than adults to die from blast injuries. Concurrently, we are witnessing the destruction of spaces dedicated to children’s education, development and play. Armed conflict exacts its heaviest toll on children.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. As she has just mentioned education, does she agree that education for children in very difficult settings can provide them with a lifeline and a place where they can feel safe, make friends and build up their self-confidence and self-esteem, while at the same time, giving them a sense of hope and aspiration for the future? For those reasons, does she agree that it is important that the Government continue to fund education in those settings and to fund education research into what works best in trying to help and educate our children in very difficult conflict zones?

[Sarah Smith]

The hon. Member raises an incredibly important point. Children absolutely deserve the right to continue to have even the tiniest opportunity for some form of normality—something that helps them to imagine a world beyond the conflict that they are currently living in. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how our Government are supporting children in conflict zones, including Gaza.

Children are not simply collateral damage. With schools, hospitals and residential neighbourhoods struck, children are not just incidental casualties; they are front and centre in the decimation of armed conflict. Their places of safety, education and play are being mercilessly destroyed. Those children are forced to grow up faced with the daily nightmares of armed conflict and the impact that it has on their homes.

More than 60% of child casualties in recent conflicts are due to explosive weapons. The Occupied Palestinian Territory, including Gaza, is among the deadliest places for children. We must remember these injuries cast a long shadow: a wounded child today becomes a young adult tomorrow, scarred physically, emotionally and psychologically. Many face a lifetime without adequate rehabilitation, prosthetics or even basic medical care because restricted humanitarian access and damage to hospitals make proper treatment nearly impossible.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important topic. She talks about the trauma of children living in war zones. According to UNICEF, 100% of children in Gaza face mental health challenges, and are in need of mental health and psychosocial support. Does she agree that that is a crucial part of protecting children during conflict and helping them to recover from it?

[Sarah Smith]

Absolutely. I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise: she worked in this area prior to coming to this place. Unfortunately, that statistic is no surprise, given the situation that children face in Gaza.

This Parliament has repeatedly affirmed that human rights are universal, that the rights of the child are not suspended at borders or battle lines, and that international law must be upheld consistently and without double standards. The convention on the rights of the child obliges us to protect children from all forms of violence, including during armed conflict, yet in Gaza that obligation is being flouted with impunity. The United Nations continues to verify grave violations, and keeps parties that violate children’s rights on its monitoring list—a solemn reminder that we cannot look away. I ask the Minister whether the Government will push Israel to agree to and implement a UN action plan to reduce harm to children, and ensure it remains listed in the report until that has been fully achieved.

I commend the work of the Labour Government. The latest figures show that they have provided £241 million in official development assistance to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including £154 million in humanitarian funding, between 2023 and 2025. That has enabled more than 500,000 medical consultations, food for about 647,000 people and sanitation for another 300,000. I pay genuine tribute to the important work that my hon. Friend the Minister does, and I thank him for his dedication to the region, both before coming to this place and since he has taken on these responsibilities. He has made huge diplomatic efforts since the horrific and unforgivable events of 7 October.

It is important to return to the United Nations children and armed conflict agenda. I know the Government champion it and have committed additional funding to support its mandate. Its yearly report identified the five most dangerous places to be a child in the world—the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Haiti and Nigeria—and is an important tool, acting as a catalyst for behaviour change.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that children are often used as tools, and even child soldiers, in many areas of conflict? In Sudan, for example, the conflict between the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces has affected more than 10 million children, 200 of whom have been raped. Wherever possible, we must hold Governments to account, whether in India—where children are being deliberately targeted in Kashmir—Yemen, Sudan or Gaza. We cannot allow these situations, where children are the biggest sufferers, to go on. In my constituency, I see many young men from Afghanistan with mental health issues who are here seeking asylum or as refugees. We must give them the help that they deserve and need.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that the time for this debate is tight, so interventions should be short and to the point.

[Sarah Smith]

Unfortunately, the official numbers no doubt do not represent the full situation yet it is devastating to hear what my hon. Friend says. His intervention also points to a broader challenge, although it is not part of this debate, about the need for the international or global human rights order at the current time, and the importance of organisations such as the International Criminal Court and the UN in upholding that order and campaigning on these critical issues.

What matters now is whether we act on what the research from the UN’s children and armed conflict agenda makes unmistakably clear. Childhoods are being destroyed and places of learning, safety and sanctuary are being decimated. We need to uphold international law and be a country that is promoting peace.

It is welcome that Gaza’s key Rafah border crossing is gradually being reopened. According to local hospitals and the World Health Organisation, about 20,000 sick and wounded Palestinians are waiting to leave Gaza for treatment. Can the Minister inform parliamentarians what discussions have taken place with the Israeli Government on the process for the evacuation of all severely sick children now that the Rafah crossing is beginning to open? Does that allow for humanitarian and medical specialists, UN agencies and civil society organisations to gain access to the Occupied Palestinian Territories to support the unobstructed monitoring and reporting of grave violations against children?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. That gives us just under 30 minutes, and seven Members are standing; I think three and a half minutes each would be appropriate, but please try to keep interventions brief. I remind Members to keep bobbing before I call somebody to speak.

16:41

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this important debate.

There is no period of greater importance than childhood. Every child deserves dignity, protection and the support needed to give them the best possible start in life. Yet today, more than 500 million children are living in active conflict zones around the world. Every day, we are confronted with the human cost of war on children: the 20,000 Ukrainian children abducted and taken to Belarus and Russia, many of whom may never see their families again; the 10.8 million children in Yemen denied food, clean water, healthcare and education; and the millions of girls in Sudan facing displacement, starvation and the constant threat of abduction, exploitation and enslavement.

The scale of trauma being inflicted on children worldwide is both incomprehensible and intolerable. Ending this suffering requires two things from a Government such as ours—adequate humanitarian and development assistance to meet children’s immediate needs, and the political courage to prioritise human rights and the prevention of harm over political expediency. On both counts, unfortunately, this Government have failed, in my view. At a time when children’s suffering has never been more widespread, the Government chose to halve the overseas aid budget. That was not an unavoidable necessity, but a political choice, and one that has stripped millions of children of access to food, healthcare, education and protection. Now is not the time for retreat; it is a time for leadership. Instead, the Government have turned away from their responsibility to uphold the most basic human dignities.

However, this failure goes beyond aid. The Government have also failed to take the political action necessary to prevent and halt the conflicts that devastate children’s lives in the first place. Nowhere—nowhere—is that more evident than in Gaza. For over a year, this Labour Government stood by as Palestinian children were bombed, shot and starved, and as their schools, hospitals and homes were destroyed. Through their inaction, the Government have been complicit in the destruction of the conditions children need to live, learn and grow. They stood by as their lives were reduced to bare survival, or taken away altogether.

We cannot soften the reality of the physical, emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on these children. A recent study led by the University of Cambridge found that constant bombardment and starvation have left children in Gaza

“too weak to learn or play”,

and convinced that they will be “killed for being Gazans”. These children have lost not only their homes and health, but their hope and their faith that the international system will protect them.

Children in Gaza will have lost the equivalent of five years of education since 2020. Rebuilding education across Palestine is going to cost billions. As a result, children will depend on foreign aid for decades, not because this was inevitable, but because the Government failed to stand up for international law when it mattered most. We must be honest about our role in this devastation. The suffering did not occur in a vacuum, and our silence and inaction were not neutral. Lives were destroyed because it was politically convenient to look away.

16:45

[Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing such an important debate. The effects of war on children are devastating, as often seen in the media, but we must look beyond what we see. We see humanitarian disasters; we do not see the recruitment of child soldiers beforehand, the mental trauma and the loss of education. What we do see we must take seriously, as it reflects a sad reality that many children live in. That should never be overlooked.

That is why the Government must invest in conflict prevention and peacebuilding strategies. We need to address the root causes that make children vulnerable, such as poverty and lack of support within the community. We need to lead the way in preventing humanitarian crises. The UK humanitarian framework is committed to doing that, but I ask the Minister whether the Government are introducing or considering any new strategies. We need to act early and take precautionary and preventive measures. There needs to be investment in the way that children can report grave violations, and the stigma associated with them must be addressed. I ask the Minister to liaise with other leaders in the UK and internationally on how that can be done. In developing these strategies, we must find a way to give children a voice to express what they need, for they are very often the silent victims. I therefore ask the Minister: how are the Government giving children a voice in a safe, supported way, and will they liaise with charities such as Save the Children, which has conducted a vast amount of research on this topic and how to improve this?

The UK, as a member of the UN Security Council, donated £450,000 to UNICEF’s monitoring and reporting mechanism in 2025. Do the Government intend to increase that donation, given that, in 2024, less than 2% of global security funds went towards peacebuilding and peacekeeping? That is a small sum compared with the weapons of war that are produced every day. The way to combat issues such as displacement, child soldier recruitment and denial of humanitarian aid is not to decrease spending on peacebuilding. Only recently, The Independent stated that nearly 23 million additional deaths are expected by 2030 as a result of cuts in overseas aid. Many of those will be children. They will be denied a future. What could they provide if they were allowed to live, and not live in these warzones? That is the tragedy of these cases.

There needs to be more long-term investment to minimise the life-changing effects on children living in armed conflict. Just because war ends, it does not mean that the effects do. Children are left with mental trauma, with a lack of support, infrastructure and community, and, tragically, a lost education. We need to use our leadership and diplomacy to find new ways to protect children. The grave violations against them are rising, and it is imperative that our framework keeps up with that. This is not a political question; it is a moral one, and we should not be found wanting.

16:48

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for setting the scene incredibly well and for all the work she has done on the issue over the years and in her time in Parliament. She has championed the protection of children in armed conflict in the past and has done well to set the scene today.

We must confront a deeply troubling reality. Children are not only being drawn into armed conflict; they are increasingly becoming its direct victims. According to a 2023 United Nations report on the recruitment and use of child soldiers, tens of thousands of boys and girls worldwide, some as young as eight or nine, are recruited and exploited by armed forces and armed groups, with their roles ranging from combatants and cooks to spies and messengers and, most disturbingly, victims of sexual slavery. Of growing concern is the use of children to plant explosive devices, which reflects the brutal evolution of modern warfare. As conflict continues to escalate across the globe, we must ask ourselves, “What more can we do?” What more can the Government do to protect children from lives that no child should ever be forced to endure?

[Chris Evans]

The hon. Gentleman speaks from experience, himself knowing conflict, and he knows that Belfast is now a vibrant European city, with education on the rise. Can he give some advice on what can be done to address the matter of children who grew up in that conflict and how they have adapted to modern life?

[Jim Shannon]

I was talking to the Liberal Democrat Northern Ireland spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), last night, and he asked me a similar question. We have the urban and the rural: in the urban areas—Belfast, Londonderry and the big cities—the influence on people is perhaps more direct and harder to get away from. If people are living in the smaller towns or villages, as I have, there is not the same direct influence. Government collectively are trying to work to ensure that we can deliver a better life. Some of that involves such things as Catholics and Protestants playing together, going to school together, and playing football and other games together. Lots of things are being done, but there is more to do, and we have to influence that. There is a role for churches to play as well. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) Gentleman for that intervention.

I draw the House’s attention to the particularly harrowing context of Nigeria. Boko Haram’s sustained campaign of violence, particularly against religious minorities, has devastated countless lives. Children have been forcibly recruited into armed groups, while many more have lost parents, families, access to education and even their own childhoods. Some girls have borne children while still children themselves, as a direct result of captivity and abuse.

In 2024, the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, and our secretariat, the Freedom of Religion or Belief Foundation, had the privilege of leading a parliamentary delegation to Nigeria, alongside other hon. Members and Julie Jones, the director of the foundation. We worked with the Gideon and Funmi Para-Mallam Peace Foundation, and met women and girls who had survived Boko Haram captivity. The Gideon and Funmi Para-Mallam Peace Foundation continues to work tirelessly to secure the release of those still held by the group, often at great personal risk.

One of those children is Leah Sharibu. I pray for that wee girl every day. Leah is now in her eighth year of captivity, having been the only student not released following the abduction of 110 Dapchi schoolchildren by Boko Haram on 19 February 2018.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that kidnap is increasingly being used as a tool of war in areas of conflict, whether Ukraine, where thousands of children have been abducted and torn from their homes, or in Nigeria and Sudan? This is becoming more prevalent, and it is causing immense worry.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In Ukraine, some 30,000 children have been kidnapped and taken away from their parents—that cut-off between parents and children is devastating.

In Nigeria, young Leah has given birth to three children. Her freedom, and the freedom of many like her, remains unresolved. Too often, children affected by armed conflict are forgotten once the headlines fade, yet their suffering does not end when the world looks away.

I am therefore grateful that we can use our voices as Members of this House, in this debate and others, as well as on the global stage, to advocate for the protection of these children and to press for accountability, rehabilitation and long-term peace for them. I say honestly to the Minister and the Government that I am proud to support a Government who recognise that every child, wherever they are born, has the right to grow up in a safe, healthy and protective environment. We should be encouraged by a Government who state that.

Finally, to those children who, in the face of relentless adversity, continue to hope for a better future, I end with scripture. John 16:33 says:

“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”

16:54

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing the debate. I know how interested she is in these issues, and how much she cares about them, so it is good that we are having this debate today.

I make no apologies for enumerating some figures that I think we would all do well to remember. As we have heard, for the second year running, the Occupied Palestinian Territory was the most dangerous place in the world to be a child. In 2024, Israeli armed forces were responsible for 7,188 grave violations against Palestinian children. That means that Israeli forces were responsible for more than one in five of the total number of verified grave violations committed globally in 2024. The verified number of Palestinian children killed and maimed by Israeli forces in 2024 was 3,867. Most instances were caused by the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. As of July 2025, over 40,500 children in Gaza were estimated to have been injured. The occupied Palestinian territory is now home, shamefully, to the largest cohort of child amputees in modern history.

As of July 2025, at least 21,000 children were living with permanent disabilities, which included traumatic brain injuries, burns, complex fractures and hearing loss. The Save the Children report, “Children and Blast Injuries”, explains that the reason for that is because children are uniquely vulnerable to blast injuries, as they are more likely to die as a result of attacks, or to suffer more severe physical harm, in comparison with adults. The situation is compounded by the rise of new weapons technologies such as cluster munitions, and the increase of conflict being conducted in cities, with bombs and drones often striking—in fact, targeting—schools, hospitals and homes. The report makes a number of calls on the Government, one being to publish what would be the first-ever cross-departmental children in conflict strategy. I hope the Minister will address that in his winding-up speech.

I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) mentioned education in conflict zones. It is an issue that the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown raised a number of years ago. He said that those living in conflict zones have the right to expect medical care, and that children in conflict zones should have the right to expect an education, in spite of what is going on around them, no matter how difficult that might be.

I am sure that we all have a view about the board of peace that has been created to look after Palestine and Gaza. I have many concerns about it, but I want to talk about one today: the fact that there is only one woman on the board of peace. I do not for one moment suggest that men do not care about children, but I think that women have a particular perspective. They are often the people who are now left to look after children with no support, often having lost their breadwinner. The Government could use any influence they have to advocate—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

16:57

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. My thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this debate.

For me, the most depressing and terrifying departmental questions that we have in this place are Defence questions. We had a session on Monday this week, and it was no exception. There always seem to be questions from nearly every corner of the Chamber about increasing military spending: about more money for more bombs and more weapons—“Let’s make Britain a defensive industrial powerhouse.” Respectfully, if anyone thinks that the route to improving living standards for millions of people in this country is making drones, weapons and the like, I am confident that they are wrong.

When we watch the news and see what is happening in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Syria and other places across the globe, do we think that what the world needs right now is more killing, more death and more weapons? I do not. I categorically think that we need less. When I watch the news and see children in warzones, sitting in rubble, traumatised, starving and orphaned—the victims of the horrors of war—I feel overwhelming sadness.

But should we not also think about the weapons that have been used to create this appalling humanitarian situation? In Gaza specifically, we have seen parents carry the bodies of dead children. Doctors have come to Westminster to tell MPs about tending to children who have been shot in the head by Israeli drones. Millions of people have taken to the streets all across Britain to protest at the deaths of innocent civilians. Save the Children—not a fringe organisation—says that more than 20,000 children have been murdered. On average, one Palestinian child has been killed every hour by Israeli forces over nearly 23 months of war. More than 1,000 children killed were under the age of one, while at least 42,000 children have been injured and 21,000 have been left permanently disabled.

During so many urgent questions and statements in the main Chamber, Foreign Secretaries have said that arms sales are a complicated issue, but thousands of children being massacred is not complicated.

[Tahir Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should cease all arms sales to Israel, given that the Israel Defence Forces general, Aharon Haliva, is on record as saying that 50 Palestinians must die for every death that happened on 7 October, and

“it does not matter…if they are children”?

[Brian Leishman]

I am in complete agreement. I have said that many times in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber, and in the media as well. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct: there is no justification for arms sales to Israel.

It is important to talk about that because, in the wider scheme of things, history will absolutely judge politicians in this place. Politicians will be judged on their complicity in this genocide by continuing those arms sales to Israel. Keeping global pools and supply chains stocked is no justification for killing children and other innocents.

A ceasefire in name only is no cause for celebration because the killing has continued. This week alone, Israeli airstrikes killed at least 32 Palestinians, including several children. We must get our heads around the truth because it is important. The truth is that the genocide has not stopped.

17:01

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, not least as a neighbouring colleague. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this valuable debate.

In Gaza, aid workers and medical teams have become used to using the world’s most heartbreaking acronym: WCNSF—wounded child, no surviving family. The phrase was born in Gaza’s hospitals as overworked trauma surgeons had to deal with so many injured, unaccompanied children that they simply scrawled WCNSF on their files. As Kieran King, head of humanitarian at UK charity War Child, told us at a briefing in Parliament last month, Gaza is the first conflict where such a term has been needed because of the sheer number of wounded children.

The UN’s child protection agency UNICEF cited Gaza’s Health Ministry statistics from last September, recording that 2,596 Palestinian children had lost both parents and a further 53,000 had lost at least one parent, of whom 47,000 will grow up with no father and 5,920 will grow up with no mother. Those are not just ordinary statistics. Gaza has the highest rate of child amputations of any modern conflict. Those are all individual human beings whose stories need to be shared.

The powerful new film “The Voice of Hind Rajab”, which was screened for MPs in Parliament last month, bears witness to one of those stories as it follows the Red Crescent response during the killing of a six-year-old Palestinian girl by the IDF. Those of us who saw that film will never forget it.

I was proud that within days of the Gaza ceasefire, the Government, working with Labour MPs, brought over 50 children to the NHS to be treated for their complex injuries. But there is much, much more we can do to rebuild the healthcare, schools and social services that children desperately need in Palestine.

The other often forgotten conflict that involves children is of course in Sudan, where a civil war, now in its third year, rages between Sudan’s army and the RSF rebels. The scale of the suffering is enormous: in 2026, a staggering 17 million children are expected to need urgent aid. More than 5 million children have been forced from their homes—the equivalent of 5,000 children displaced every single day—many of them repeatedly, with attacks and sexual violence often following them as they move. Only yesterday, five more children were killed in another drone strike by the paramilitary RSF on a health centre in the city of Kadugli.

UNICEF has been clear:

“Children in Sudan are not statistics. They are frightened, displaced and hungry, but they are also determined, resourceful and resilient. Every day, they”—

like the children of Gaza—

“strive to learn, to play, to hope”.

Ending the child suffering in both countries, through all the powers that we have in diplomacy, aid and trade, is a moral necessity. Those responsible for that suffering should be held accountable under international law. The reckoning will come. It may not come this year, but it will come one day.

17:05

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her campaigning to return the stolen Ukrainian children. Worryingly, children are increasingly the deliberate targets of violence, including in the severe disaster unfolding in Sudan.

The UN Secretary-General’s children and armed conflict mandate has documented a severe escalation in grave violations against children, most of all by the RSF. The RSF, which controls most of south-west Sudan, has nearly 1,200 attributed violations against children in the past year. Those violations kill and maim children every single day. Sexual violence, abductions and recruitment are used as routine weapons of war. They are not sporadic acts but a systematic campaign of terror against children.

Forces in Sudan are using hunger and sexual violence as weapons to target entire ethnic communities. UNICEF and local non-governmental organisations have reported widespread sexual violence against women and girls, and against children as young as one year old—a baby. The children of Sudan will carry the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives. As they rebuild and reconcile, they will need unprecedented support to overcome injuries, including the injuries of those who have lost limbs, and to overcome traumatic stress and the collapse of their entire world as they knew it.

I believe that we have a human obligation to support the Sudanese people, but also to account for our long and complicated relations with Sudan. I was contacted by a constituent concerned that British-made military components could be diverted to the RSF. Given the RSF’s atrocities, I want the Government to resolve that any diversion of military components would be morally indefensible.

I am grateful for the Minister’s recent response to my letter on that point. He confirmed that officials have reviewed over 2,000 licences, considering the allegations of diversion, and stated that there are no current licences for the reported equipment and none has been issued to the United Arab Emirates in recent years. I would be grateful if the Minister reiterated that reassurance, because vigilance is essential—we cannot stop. Our commitment to prevent British-made components from fuelling atrocities must be absolute and we must act with urgency, transparency and determination.

17:08

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing this vital debate. As we have heard, today one in five children live in areas affected by armed conflict, displacement or related violence. Such children face a daily threat to their lives, their health and their education. Such children are forced to flee their homes, are pulled out of classrooms, are separated from parents and are exposed to violence that no adult should have to endure, let alone a child.

The damage does not end when the fighting pauses. Trauma, lost education and broken health systems follow children for decades. Britain has a proud history of leadership in this space. It has saved the lives of millions of children through vaccinations, nutrition, clean water and frontline healthcare; through support for UN monitoring and reporting for accountability; and through funding programmes that have helped to secure the release and reintegration of child soldiers. But at a time when the number of armed conflicts is at the highest level since the end of the second world war, the UK is choosing to look away: cutting aid to its lowest level this century with devastating consequences for children.

I will speak briefly about the conflicts that are bringing this issue into sharp focus. In Ukraine, children are growing up under constant missile and drone attacks from Russia. Tens of thousands of Ukrainian children may have been abducted and taken into Russia or Russian-controlled areas without consent and under coercive conditions.

In Gaza, the impact of the conflict on children has been devastating, as we have already heard. Hospitals and schools—places that should be sanctuaries—have been systematically and repeatedly struck. I will never forget the testimony given to the International Development Committee, on which I serve, by a doctor working at a Gaza hospital who was treating children targeted by drone attacks.

Save the Children estimates that over 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza, which is one every hour during the two years of war. Of those children who are still alive in Gaza, UNICEF tells us that there is a ton of emptiness and deep sorrow that can be seen in them. Some 39,000 children have been orphaned and 17,000 children are unaccompanied. Children in Gaza often play in areas that are at risk from explosive ordnance, putting them at high risk of injury or death. In turn, that is leading to high rates of disability; many children have had hands and legs amputated.

These children are suffering from hunger, disease, displacement and cold. Eight infants have died of hypothermia this winter alone, and over 100 children have been killed since the ceasefire. Some children need urgent medical evacuation, which is simply not happening at scale, while others are growing up with trauma that will shape the rest of their lives.

As Israel moves to tighten and in some cases end the registration of international non-governmental organisations, it risks forcing dozens of those INGOs to halt lifesaving operations across the Gaza strip and the west bank. The lifeline agency for Palestinian refugees, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which runs over 700 schools, has had its ability to function curtailed.

In Sudan, one of the world’s most severe and—tragically—most overlooked crises affecting children is unfolding in the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe. UNICEF has warned that nearly half a million children are now at risk of acute malnutrition as the conflict intensifies. That is a stark reminder that for many children in Sudan, survival itself is becoming increasingly uncertain. Checkpoints are armed by boys—teenagers—while girls are at risk from endemic sexual violence.

The United Nations continues to verify thousands of cases each year of children being recruited and used by armed groups, which is a grave violation of international law. Children are deployed not only as fighters but as guards, scouts and messengers, exposing them to extreme danger and lifelong trauma. In camps in north Darfur in Sudan, survivors describe how RSF fighters killed parents and abducted children as young as nine, blindfolding them and driving them away. Some were told that they would “look after livestock”, which is a euphemism for enslavement.

The persistence of child recruitment across multiple conflicts reflects the collapse of protection, education and accountability, and preventing it must remain a central test of the international community’s commitment, and indeed of our commitment here in the UK, to the laws of war. Across all these different contexts, the pattern is the same: children are not a sideshow of war, but are among its primary victims. That is why the Government must commit to treating the protection of children not as a secondary concern but as a central pillar of their foreign policy.

First, our diplomacy must put children at the heart of peace efforts. The safety of children—their access to schools and hospitals, and the reunification of families—must be built into peace processes from the beginning. Britain has both the responsibility and the leverage to lead, as a major international actor and as the penholder at the UN Security Council.

Secondly, our humanitarian response must go beyond survival alone. Education must be protected, and schools must be treated as humanitarian spaces in a conflict zone. Mental health support for children affected by conflict should be provided for by core funding. A child who survives war but who is left traumatised, uneducated and unsupported is still a casualty of conflict. If we ignore that trauma, we should not be surprised by the consequences. Entire generations growing up with grief, anger and abandonment become a fertile ground for radicalisation, with many children and young people ending up in terrorist groups such as Hamas.

Thirdly, accountability matters. We must make every effort to ensure that crimes are recorded, that journalists are allowed into conflict zones and that we call out breaches of international humanitarian law wherever they occur. That must apply to allies and adversaries alike, because selective outrage weakens international law. We must name violations consistently, support independent investigations and back consequences when the law is ignored. Finally—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:15

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) on securing this important debate. I also thank colleagues across the Chamber for their thoughtful contributions and interventions, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), who is not in her place now, but served as the special envoy for girls’ education during the last Government. I thank her for that.

Children are not incidental victims of war. Increasingly, they are its deliberate targets. Whether through forced deportation, indoctrination, recruitment into armed groups or the destruction of schools and healthcare, children are being used as instruments of conflict. That should shame us all and it should compel action.

I want to start with Ukraine, where the abuse of children has been systematic and calculated. Thousands of Ukrainian children—some estimates put the figure at more than 20,000—have been forcibly taken from their families and deported into Russia or Russian-occupied territory. Some were taken from orphanages and others removed from parents at gunpoint. Many are subjected to so-called re-education—stripped of their identity, language and nationality. Behind every statistic are a child, a family torn apart and a future placed deliberately out of reach.

The UK has rightly condemned these crimes, but condemnation alone is not enough, so I ask the Minister these questions. What practical steps is the UK taking to support efforts to identify, track and return abducted Ukrainian children? Through which international partners are the Government principally working? What progress has been made on sanctions enforcement against the individuals and entities responsible for these deportations? We know that evidence exists, so what is holding up further designations? Finally on Ukraine, will the Minister update the House on how the UK is supporting international accountability mechanisms, including the ICC, to ensure that those who have committed crimes against children are brought to justice—not in theory, but in practice?

I now turn to the middle east and an issue that requires care, seriousness and balance. Israel faces a real and ongoing security threat from Hamas, a terrorist organisation that cynically embeds itself among civilians and has itself committed grave abuses against children, including hostage taking and indoctrination. At the same time, children in Gaza have suffered enormously. Many have lost family members, homes and access to education.

If we are serious about breaking cycles of conflict, we must look beyond the immediate crisis to what comes next. I want to touch on reconstruction and education. Schools are not just buildings; they are foundations of stability and hope, so what is the UK doing to press for the rebuilding of schools in Gaza once conditions allow? Which organisations and mechanisms are the Government principally working through, and how are they ensuring that planning for education recovery is happening now, rather than being left to become an afterthought?

Education must never be a vehicle for hatred. There have long been serious concerns about elements of the Palestinian curriculum that risk inciting violence or glorifying extremism. UK taxpayers rightly expect our aid not to entrench these problems, so I ask the Minister this directly today. What pressure is the UK applying to the Palestinian Authority to secure root-and-branch curriculum reform? What specific benchmarks are being used, and what evidence, if any, is there of meaningful progress to date? How are UK-funded education programmes monitored to ensure that they promote peace, tolerance and co-existence?

I now turn to Sudan and a crisis that all too often slips from the headlines but which represents one of the gravest humanitarian catastrophes in the world today, particularly for children. Children in Sudan are being killed, displaced, recruited by armed groups and denied access to basic healthcare and education. We know that girls face heightened risks of sexual violence. Entire communities have been uprooted. Humanitarian access remains dangerously constrained. The UK has spoken about leadership on Sudan, so I ask this. Where is that leadership now, and what concrete steps are the Government taking to secure humanitarian access?

More broadly, across all these conflicts, children are paying the price for impunity. I ask the Minister about the Government’s overall approach to children in armed conflict: how is the UK ensuring that the protection of children is embedded in its diplomatic, development and defence policy—not siloed, not rhetorical, but operational?

Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the long-term consequences of failing these children, not just for them but for global stability? Children who are denied safety, education and justice today are far more likely to inherit conflict tomorrow. The Conservative party has long been clear that protecting children in conflict is not optional; it is a moral duty and a strategic necessity. The UK has the diplomatic weight, legal expertise and moral standing to lead. Leadership requires consistency, urgency and follow up, and I urge the Government to match their words with decisive action.

17:20

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for securing the debate. I hope Members will bear with me; a lot has been raised. I will make progress covering Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, and make some general remarks on children in armed conflicts before taking interventions, which I will endeavour to do before the end of the debate.

We are clearly witnessing a deeply troubling trend. Not only is conflict spreading but, as many Members have said, it is becoming more dangerous for children. We must keep their welfare in the spotlight as we respond to these crises. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore) would have been glad to participate today, but he is unavoidably travelling on ministerial duties. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions, and will try to respond to them in the order that they spoke.

According to the United Nations Secretary-General, grave violations against children surged by 25% in 2024. Children are being killed, maimed, abducted and abused at staggering levels. That is, clearly, absolutely indefensible. We will keep pushing, loudly and consistently, to protect children wherever we can. We are focused on preventing these crimes, stopping them when they happen and pushing armed groups to follow international law. We are a party to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and we take our responsibility seriously. We play an active role in the UN Security Council working group on children and armed conflict, calling out abuses and pushing for accountability. We will keep championing the UN children and armed conflict mandate as well as UN monitoring.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) pointed out that, this year, we are spending £450,000 on UNICEF’s monitoring and reporting mechanism. That is on top of £250,000 spent last year. We are working to boost global efforts and, on the question raised by many hon. Members about the Government’s strategy, we are looking closely at whether a dedicated children in conflict strategy is the right next step. I can confirm to the House that that work is well underway. We are also considering how we can strengthen our expertise on children in armed conflict through developing a new practical toolkit for officials.

I will turn to the specific conflict zones that have been raised. I must, I am afraid, repudiate almost everything said by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan). We have been many things, but silent is not one of them. We have not looked away; we have taken tangible action in relation to the crisis in Gaza from the very moment that I became a Minister and we became the Government. I have seen for myself the horrific impact of that conflict on children in Gaza; I have seen it in the region, and on the faces of the children who I am proud we have assisted here in the UK.

I was asked an important question by one of my hon. Friends about the partial opening of the Rafah crossing. At the moment, that is being prioritised for those most medically vulnerable. There are still small numbers crossing on foot—mostly into Egypt, although there is some two-way traffic. It is absolutely vital that that crossing opens to the scale that it operated at before June 2024, and we need to see all the crossings opened so that medical assistance and vital reconstruction materials are in place to provide children in Gaza with the support that they need.

We cannot shy away from the scale of devastation in Gaza. Our assessment is that, since October 2023, at least 20,000 children have been killed. That includes 100 children who have been killed since the ceasefire was announced nearly four months ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) pointed out, thousands more children are now living with life-changing injuries. It is a grim statistic that Gaza now has more child amputees than anywhere in the world.

Unexploded ordnance will continue to threaten lives even after the ceasefire, and it also prevents access to humanitarian assistance. That is why the Foreign Secretary has announced £4 million for the UN Mine Action Service in Gaza. We are providing £81 million in humanitarian early recovery support for Palestine as part of our £116 million package, but clearly the questions of access that so many hon. Members touched on are absolutely vital. About £10 million of that will go straight to UNICEF for infant formula, clean water, sanitation, mental health support, and assistance for families.

To date, UK-Med teams have supported more than 950,000 patients with consultations. We have provided nearly £30 million to UNRWA to try to keep education and healthcare moving. I will not provide too much commentary on the status of UNRWA, but I recognise the points that the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), made about the education curriculum. We are engaged with UNRWA on those questions, which we have discussed with it and indeed with the Palestinian Authority.

I want to address the deeply concerning reports of mistreatment of Palestinian children in detention. We continue to raise the matter repeatedly with Israel. Due process must be followed when children are detained, in line with international justice standards. The International Committee of the Red Cross, which has extensive experience of these issues, must have full access to all detention facilities.

As so many Members rightly pointed out, the crisis in Sudan is destroying the lives of children. We are showing the UK leadership that the Conservative shadow Minister asked for. This morning, after visiting the Chad-Sudan border, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £20 million in new support for survivors of conflict-related sexual violence and for women and girls facing violence. Our humanitarian support should help more than 2.5 million people to access food, clean water, medicine and shelter. UNICEF has grimly assessed that nearly 90% of Sudan’s school-aged children are no longer in school due to the conflict. Some 200,000 children in Sudan and neighbouring countries have received help to stay in school, but knowing the region as I do, I know the extent of the trauma that those children will be suffering.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has unleashed some of the most shocking abuses that we have seen. Reports show that around 20,000 Ukrainian children have been forcibly taken to Russia or Russian-controlled territory. Another 1.7 million children live under occupation, and many are subject to efforts to erase their identity. The shadow Foreign Office Minister asked about who our primary partners are. We have committed nearly £3 million to help Ukraine to return these children home and support their recovery. Our primary partner is the Ukrainian Government, but we work internationally with our partners. The Minister for Europe is chairing such a meeting this afternoon to ensure there is continued attention on these issues.

I want to touch briefly on wider issues, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale—

[Jim Shannon]

What about Nigeria?

[Mr Falconer]

I will come to the matter of Nigeria in a second.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale touched on the importance of explosive weapons and de-mining, particularly in relation to children. I want to be clear that we stand firmly behind the agreements that will reduce these threats: the mine ban treaty, the convention on cluster munitions and the convention on certain conventional weapons. We also back the explosive weapons in populated areas declaration and the safe schools declaration. We are funding de-mining and education on the risks of explosives in 12 countries including Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan. Since 2024, we have helped clear 26 million square metres of land, helping to make life safer for more than 94,000 children.

Where we can, including in Nigeria, we seek to help children injured by war to ensure that that aid reaches all children affected by conflict across lines, including in Nigeria and the conflicts that I have referenced. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn for bringing us together for this debate. I know the degree of her personal commitment to these issues, and indeed the commitment of my other Labour colleagues who have worked on these issues both in this place and in their previous lives. This work could not matter more. We will continue to push for action to protect children caught up in warzones, because no child should have their young life wrecked by conflict.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered children and armed conflict.

17:29

Sitting adjourned.