Civil Service Pensions

Mike Wood Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for the briefing she gave last week to me and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and for early sight of her statement. I note that it arrived in unusually good time and hope that other ministerial offices will learn from her good example.

The latest figures in the Government’s 5 October update are deeply concerning. As of the end of last month, more than 1,900 cases in four priority categories were more than 100 days old. Of those, just over 1,500 were labelled non-workable, with a further two death-in-service cases in data triage. That includes 1,049 bereavement cases and eight ill-health retirement cases, all classified as non-workable. That is not acceptable.

Recent reporting also raised the prospect of bereaved families facing severe tax consequences because of delays to death-in-service benefits. Reports have suggested that the Government plan to make those bereaved families claw back this money via the Pensions Ombudsman, rather than preventing His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from taxing delayed claims. To make matters worse, the Pensions Ombudsman itself estimates an 18-month wait to resolve cases. Will the Minister reassure the House and all those watching outside that this is not the case and that bereaved families will not have to proactively claw back that tax?

The Minister mentioned the delivery of surgeries to many Members of this House. Last month, my casework team had a surgery with a member of Capita staff. They were expecting to come away with updates to pass on to affected constituents, but for all the cases that were discussed, there were no updates whatsoever, leaving them feeling that the surgery was a total waste of time. I know that other hon. Members have reported similar experiences. What hope do affected constituents have when reaching out to Capita if it is prepared to tell our teams that nothing has been done on their cases?

The warnings about Capita were there in black and white, and not only from earlier this year, as the Minister suggested. The contract of Capita’s predecessor, MyCSP, was extended to December 2025 to allow a two-year transition nearly 18 months of which was under the current Government. There were several milestones during those 18 months that Capita failed, but the new Government chose not to act. The National Audit Office’s June 2025 report identified many missed milestones and risks around operational readiness and data transfer. The Public Accounts Committee subsequently warned of further missed milestones and the need for contingency plans, but still the new Government chose to allow the new contract to go ahead and gave it that final go-ahead.

Issues with Capita have been reported across several Government contracts. Under the new provisions in the Procurement Act 2023, the Government could refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation to prevent it from winning further similar contracts. Does the Minister plan to do so?

The people affected by these failings did everything asked of them. They paid into the scheme, and they served this country as civil servants. They should not have to chase their own pensions, borrow for basic bills or wait months for basic updates. I ask the Minister to give the House clear deadlines and to set out how every affected member will receive their payments, and to explain why she is so confident that the assurances that Capita now gives her will deliver results when the assurances of improvements so repeatedly given to this House by her predecessor have amounted to so very little for those retired public servants, who cannot wait any longer.

Finally, I agree with the Minister that Capita should be made to put things right. Cancelling the contract would result in more disruption, but surely there is only so long for which she will put up with failed targets and broken promises of improvements, so what preparations and contingencies will her Department put in place if it is necessary to cancel this contract, and what criteria will she use for deciding when we reach that point?

[Sally Jameson]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his questions. Let me start by saying that I am not making excuses for Capita, and I am not here to defend its triaging of workable or unworkable cases. I made it very clear to the Capita CEO when I met him on two occasions that I do not recognise those categories—it is either done or it is not, frankly. I will not make excuses for that.

In relation to the cases of bereaved families, particularly the families of those who have died under the age of 75, the Cabinet Office has identified that a very small number are at the 18-month point. There is huge focus on ensuring that those cases are resolved before the two-year point, and we will continue to do that with any cases that might fall into that bracket, so that we do not find ourselves in a position where anyone would end up paying tax as a result of having to wait two years for these pension issues to be resolved.

In relation to the casework surgeries, I understand that sometimes the answers people get back are not satisfactory, and that is because Capita’s performance overall is not satisfactory. All the casework surgeries can do is let people know where they are in the system. For a lot of people, that is not good. We are continuing to work to improve the service through the rectification plan. Over time, that should mean that people have a better experience with casework surgeries—as, frankly, the answers should be getting better.

I think this rectification plan will be different from previous plans that Capita has set out because this time the Cabinet Office has access to all the data and to the Capita systems. It has taken the advice of the remedial adviser and worked alongside Capita to help produce this rectification plan, meaning that it is of a better quality. We can now hold Capita to account in relation to that plan, using its systems and using the numbers and data in the correct way, and we will not be quoting things like “unworkable cases” or having all sorts of different triaging mechanisms that make no sense to anybody else.

On the “go live” issues referenced by the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), by November 2025 assessments indicated that Capita had made significant progress since the Public Accounts Committee hearing in July. The only alternative would have been extending the contract with the incumbent, MyCSP, but anyone who had any involvement with MyCSP would have known it was equally abysmal. The comparative risk assessment conducted in October 2025 concluded that an extension would have been commercially and operationally unacceptable, and presented a significantly greater risk than transitioning. Let me gently say that if, in the 14 years prior, the Conservative party had not stripped our public services to the point where we were reliant on companies like Capita all the time, we might have found ourselves in a different position.

On the question of other contracts in the future, the hon. Gentleman rightly identified that the Procurement Act 2023 will allow Government Departments to look at previous poor performance. It would not be right for me to comment at this time on whether anyone is subject to, or being looked at in relation to, debarment.

Finally, as with any contract of this size, the Cabinet Office always has contingency plans in place should they be required.