Afternoon summary
• The lobbying bill is due to become law without any further changes after the government won two votes on it in the House of Lords. Attempts led by Lord Harries, the former Bishop of Oxford, to amend the bill to relax the rules on spending by third-parties in individual constituencies and to exempt some staff costs from campaign spending limits failed - although the government only won the second vote on a technicality. Lord Bichard, a deputy Lords Speaker and the person in the chair when the vote was declared, said that, in the event of a tie, the government position stands under Lords rules. (Bichard, a crossbencher, actually voted for the Harries amendment.) The government won the first vote by a majority of 18.
UPDATE: Earlier I said "the government only won the second vote on the casting vote of the deputy Lords Speaker, Lord Bichard, after the vote was tied". I've changed this, because Bichard is just a deputy Lords Speaker, and he did not actually cast a vote for the government in his capacity as chair.
• Peers have started debating a Labour amendment to the children and families bill to make sex and relationship education compulsory in state schools. Lady Jones, a shadow education minister, opened the debate for Labour. In a blog, she explained why she was backing the move.
Our amendments to the children and families bill address the growing and worrying evidence of the sexualisation of children, with associated patterns of abuse. The widespread access to the internet, social media and smart phones is fundamentally changing the way young people relate to each other and girls, in particular, are suffering as a result.
A recent Cardiff University study showed that even primary school children were becoming obsessed with body image and appearance; many of the girls had boyfriends and they used the language of ‘fancying’,’ dating’ and ‘dumping’. However, many also experienced being passed around among boys and were subject to coercive or controlling behaviours. Other studies of teenagers showed sexual abuse and physical harassment becoming commonplace in schools ...
Our amendments would ensure that the sex and relationship guidance issued to schools was updated to confront the impact of the internet and social media. More fundamentally, they would, for the first time, require SRE to be taught as a foundation subject in all key stages, in all state funded schools, in an accurate, balanced and age appropriate way. Pupils’ religious and cultural backgrounds would be taken into account, and there would be a parental opt out for pupils under 15. The emphasis of the teaching would be about the complex emotional rather than physical aspects of relationships, and would also include information on same sex relationships, sexual violence, domestic violence and active consent.
• A businessman who gave £10,000 to the UK Independence party hastaken out an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph describing "sodomy" as a crime and saying there is no such thing as "homophobic". As Rowena Mason and Esther Addley report, Demetri Marchessini, who gave two donations of £5,000 to Ukip last year, paid for an open letter to be published in the newspaper attacking Times columnist Libby Purves after she wrote about Russia's "bashing" of gay people in the run-up to the Sochi Olympics. In the advertisement, which appeared the day after Ukip leader Nigel Farage said he wanted to distance his party from barmy types, Marchessini declared "sodomy has always been a crime" and claims homosexuality has been a sin for 2,000 years.
• George Osborne, the chancellor, has announced a £67m push to get cutting-edge technology products on to the market as part of a "city deal" to boost Oxford's economy. As the Press Association reports, he said the cash - £30m from central government and the rest provided by local councils and universities - would go to four "incubator centres". They are designed to help innovative small firms take the step up to marketing and selling to the rest of the world.
• Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has said that what he described as the "mansion tax for tax dodgers" has raised five times as much money as expected. Speaking in the Commons, he said the measure, aimed at people who buy property through offshore companies, had raised five time more than the £35m originally anticipated. He said:
The House might like to be updated on one of those measures, the annual tax on enveloped dwellings - the mansion tax for tax dodgers - which in fact is raising five times as much as we thought it would.
That's all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
That means the lobbying bill is going to become law as it now stands.
The government won both votes. Not much excitement there.
But it only won the second on a technicality. I don't think I've ever seen a tied vote in parliament before.
I'll post a summary shortly.
The vote had been tied - 245 votes each.
The acting chair says, in accordance with standing orders, the Harries amendment must fail.
Updated
While they vote, this is worth flagging up.
Jonathan Gray at Our Kingdom has posted a powerful blog attacking today's bill. Here's an extract.
Far from shining a light on the activities of the influence industry, the proposed registry would exclude the vast majority of commercial lobbyists, covering as little as 5 per cent of all lobbying activity. Among the excluded, all ‘in-house’ lobbyists — those based at major corporations, banks, consultancies, law firms, accountancy firms. Even the registered lobbyists would not be required to give the public information about what they are asking for, who they are meeting with, or how much they are spending.
How do the government's proposals compare with a real statutory register of lobbyists? Here's an illustration from The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency:
And here's the illustration.
Updated
Lord Harries is summing up now.
The bill as it stands is "too vague to be enforced", he says.
He says he is putting his amendment to a vote. Peers are voting now.
Summing up for the government, Lord Wallace of Tankerness says most charities have not tried to promote specific candidates in elections.
Addressing Lady Williams' point about volunteers (see 4.37am), he says they would be excluded.
He says the Harries amendment could "drive a coach and horses" through what the bill is trying to achieve if, for example, it were used by a charity to justify hiring someone to organise rallies.
Speaking for Labour, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town says the Lords should send this bill back to the Commons. The government's proposals on staff costs are "unworkable", she says.
Lord Martin of Springburn, the former Commons Speaker, says he has got a great deal of respect for charities. But he is also concerned about how single-issue organisations could influence elections.
Some charities are more than 100 years old. But a charity could be set up tonight with the aim of defeating an MP.
In the Commons an MP was defeated by a candidate standing for a "save our hospital" campaign.
Martin says we live in a democracy. But, if a single-issue organisation of this kind is set up, they should be accountable.
A single-issue organisation could spend more than an individual candidate, he says.
He says MPs have to be accountable. If an MP wants to save a hospital, he must explain what other spending he would cut.
But a single-issue campaign to save a hospital would not face these questions, he says.
He says he worries how campaigns like this could "distort" an election. What the government is proposing is "a safer bet", he says.
Lady Williams, the former Lib Dem leader of the Lords, says she regrets the fact that staffing costs have not been excluded from the bills.
Many charities rely on unpaid volunteers. Will they be covered, she asks?
Lord Tyler, the Lib Dem peer, says he has more sympathy with Lord Harris on this one. But there is a small difference between Harries and the government, he says.
Peers are now debating the second lobbying bill amendment.
It has also been tabled by Lord Harries of Pentregrath.
Here is an extract from the Commission on Civil Society briefing note explaining what it is trying to achieve.
Staff costs were already part of non-party controlled expenditure for published materials. The Lobbying Bill proposes to include staff costs for a new range of controlled activity.
Charities and campaigning organisations have provided evidence to show this would be bureaucratically burdensome and impossible to implement.
Staff costs are specifically excluded from controlled expenditure for political parties which is equivalent regulation. Political parties have strongly rejected the inclusion of staff costs within their own spending limits, on the basis of how difficult it would be for them to separate staff time between regulated and unregulated work. Staff costs are included for candidates for a very limited period directly prior to the election ...
This amendment is a compromise. It would include staff costs for a subset of controlled activities that are directly relevant to communicating with voters, and excludes difficult to define ‘background’ staff costs.
Lord Harries is explaining his amendment now.
The government has won, by 249 votes to 231 votes - a majority of 18.
Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has urged the government to think again over the lobbying bill. He is quoted in this Christian Today article. Here's what he says.
There is remarkably widespread resistance from charities and voluntary organisations to some aspects of the lobbying bill currently going through Parliament, and this should give the Government reason to pause.
The problem identified in the parliamentary debates is that a bill designed to increase transparency in our democracy, and to curtail unaccountable and potentially corrupt influence, could have the unintended effect of burdening and weakening these civil society agencies in a way that is seriously bad news for democracy.
We hope that the government will think again about the potential danger of this legislation for the freedom of civil society groups to participate in public debate in the run-up to elections.
Peers are now voting on the constituency spending amendment tabled by Lord Harries.
Here is an excerpt from the Commission on Civil Society briefing note explaining what it would achieve.
The lobbying bill introduces constituency-level spending limits for non-party campaigning. Ministers argue this is important for transparency but also to avoid concentrations of campaign money unduly influencing candidates’ chances.
However, most charities and campaigning groups are not set up to account for spending on a constituency basis, and this would require major changes on accounting processes. Some campaigning activities cover multiple constituencies or cannot easily be allocated to one or another.
The Electoral Commission warned that the proposed constituency regulation may be unenforceable’ except in extreme cases.
The spending limit for constituency regulation is £9,750 ...
The amendment means that only activity targeted at specific constituencies is covered – not campaigning activity that happens to take place in a small number of constituencies because that is where the members live, or other reasons unrelated to the election.
Updated
Lord Wallace of Tankerness is now summing up for the government.
He says that when the bill went to the Commons, the government accepted 94 of the 97 amendments made when the bill was in the Lords.
He repeats the point about most of what is in the Harries amendment on constituency spending being in the bill. And the new elements do not add to the bill's clarity, he says.
Lord Harries says he is not backing down. He is pushing the matter to a vote.
Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, a shadow minister, says Labour is supporting the Harries amendment. The government told us yesterday it wants to cut red tape, it says. Yet this bill would impose extra bureaucracy on charities.
The government's rejection of the Harries amendment is not worthy of a government that professes to believe in the Big Society, she says.
Lady Mallalieu, a Labour peer, says she is backing Lord Harries. His amendment is a compromise, she says. It does not obstruct what the government is trying to achieve.
Lord Tyler, a Lib Dem peer, says imposing constituency limits on third-party spending at elections, is one of the most important features of this section of the bill.
Lord Cormack, a Conservative, says that he has sympathy with Lord Harries, because this bill needed pre-legislative scrutiny. Harries's commission did a lot to improve the bill, he says. But pre-legislative scrutiny would have been better.
He says he hopes there will be cross-party discussions with the Electoral Commission on how the bill is implemented.
The distribution of leaflets is an inexact science, he says.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth, a crossbencher and the former Bishop of Oxford, is responding to Wallace now.
Harries chairs the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, a group representing charities that has been pushing for changes to the bill.
Here is the commission's briefing on this afternoon's votes (pdf).
He says his amendment is a common sense one. It would make it easier for campaigners to know what is allowed in a particular constituency and what isn't, he says. For example, if a group were handing out leaflets at an agriculture show in a particular constituency, but not trying to influence voters just in that constituency, they would not be covered by the constituency spending rules under his amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, opens the next stage of the debate.
He says there is little difference between what the government is offering, and what Lord Harries of Pentregrath, the former bishop who is pushing the anti-government amendments on constituency spending and staffing costs, actually want.
(The amendments being debated this afternoon are here, but it's not a document that is easy to follow.)
All the key features of the Harries amendment on what counts as spending in a particular constituency are in the bill already, he says.
Lord Tyler, the Lib Dem peer who pushed the original amendment saying special advisers should be included, says he accepts the government's compromise proposal.
If the Lib Dems were in power, they would "switch on" the clause making the lobbying provisions apply to special advisers, he says.
Peers vote by acclamation to accept the special adviser amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire, a Lib Dem peer and a government whip, is speaking for the government.
He opens by addressing a change to the bill accepted by the government in the Lords.
Peers wanted communications with special advisers to be covered by the provisions on lobbying in the bill.
The government did not accept this, but it has amended the bill to allow the government to easily include special advisers under the legislation in the future.
Peers debate the lobbying bill
The lobbying bill is one of the most contentious bills going through parliament. And now it has reached the stage where it is being subject to "ping pong" between the Commons and the Lords.
Peers made several significant changes to the bill, which is ostensibly about lobbying but which also imposes new controls on how much third-party groups can spend on political campaigning during an election period. Some of these were overturned when the bill went back to the Commons, and now the bill is back in the Lords, where peers have to decide whether to accept the will of the Commons (ie, the government) or to dig in and keep demanding the changes they want.
This afternoon there are expected to be two votes.
The first is one a proposal to relax the rules (compared to what the government wants) on what counts as spending in a particular constituency.
And the second would exclude staffing costs from what counts as election spending under the new restrictions.
There is a good chance the government could be defeated in either or both votes.
I will be covering the debate in some detail. We should get both votes by 4.30pm.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has put out this statement about this afternoon's vote in the Lords on sex education. (See 9am.)
Today, the House of Lords has a chance to make a real difference to the lives of young people by voting yes to compulsory sex and relationship education in English schools.
One in three teenage girls say they’ve had to put up with unwanted groping or harassment at school, and one in six teenagers in relationships say they’ve experienced sexual abuse. Urgent action is needed to change attitudes and behaviour to prevent growing violence in teenage relationships.
Compulsory sex and relationship education is key to this. Children and teenagers must be taught zero tolerance of violence in relationships and the importance of respect and sexual consent. Given the growing exposure teenagers have to sexual images on the web, statutory guidance for teachers must be updated for the internet too.
Despite overwhelming support from parents, teachers, young people and women’s organisations, the Government is opposing these changes and will try to block them again today. The House of Lords should show them they are wrong to turn their backs on the next generation by voting yes to compulsory sex and relationship education.
Lunchtime summary
• The Office for National Statisics has revealed that the British economy grew at the strongest rate in six years in 2013, having ended the year on a strong note as the recovery became more entrenched. As Angela Monaghan reports, the UK's services and manufacturing sectors were the drivers of 0.7% growth in the fourth quarter, taking the annual growth rate to 1.9%, the strongest since 2007 before the financial crisis took hold.The economy grew in every quarter last year according to the ONS, providing a significant boost for the chancellor who has persistently argued that a burgeoning recovery is proof that his economic plan is working. My colleague Graeme Wearden has more on his on his business live blog.
• A senior figure from Atos has told MPs that he believes the firm can regain public confidence in the light of the widespread complaints about the way it has administered work capability assessment (WCA) tests. (See 12pm.)
• A new poll has suggested that David Cameron is losing the battle for public opinion over fracking for shale gas because of high-profile public protests against the controversial technique. As Adam Vaughan reports,the latest results of a long-running survey on British attitudes towards shale gas, undertaken by YouGov and commissioned by the University of Nottingham, show an increase in the number of people opposed to fracking and a decrease in those in favour for the second time since protests at Balcombe in West Sussex last August.
• The National Audit Office has criticised the BBC for failing to keep a tighter rein on a failed digital system which wasted £100 million of licence fee cash. As the Press Association reports, it is the latest condemnation for the Digital Media Initiative which was abandoned in May of last year and led to the sacking of its chief technology officer John Linwood. The NAO said today that the BBC Executive "did not have sufficient grip" on the IT project, nor thoroughly assessed the system to see whether it was "technically sound". The BBC had aimed to create an integrated digital production and archiving system allowing staff to handle all aspects of video and audio content from their desks. But after years of difficulties - during which £125.9 million had been ploughed into it - the plug was pulled last year.
• Labour has announced that it has appointed John Woodward, the former UK Film Council director, to lead a review of creative and digital industries. The review will “look at the challenges and opportunities for policymakers and businesses alike as well as how can Britain can better compete and continue to lead the way globally in the sector”.
• The Home Office has said that child slavery victims are to be given new protection through a network of specially appointed guardians. As the Press Association reports, the new scheme will be trialled from April across a number of authorities in England including the West Midlands, which includes seven local authorities, Manchester and Oxfordshire. Under the system each child victim will be allocated an advocate with specialist training and expertise in trafficking who will provide support and guidance, the Home Office said. Specialist advocates will be independent of the local authority and will act as a single point of contact throughout the care and immigration process and will be responsible for promoting the child's safety and wellbeing.
• Labour has insisted it complies with the UK's visa rules over the activities of US political campaign guru Arnie Graf following after a Tory MP suggested he could be working in this country illegally. As the Press Association reports, Graf, a veteran community organiser who has provided advice on grassroots tactics for Labour, has a business visa allowing him into the UK but he cannot be paid a salary for his work. Labour has said it reimburses Graf for lost earnings and expenses on his visits to the UK but said he was not paid a wage and did not require a work permit. The party stressed that Graf was not employed by Labour and did not live in the UK, but only visited "a couple of times a year". A Labour Party spokesman said: "Arnie Graf has a visa which allows him to enter the UK for permitted business activities. These activities have been fully disclosed to the UK immigration authorities when obtaining the visa . But Priti Patel, a Tory MP, said: "Labour must declare their full financial relationship with Mr Graf so that voters are left in no doubt that he is not an illegal immigrant.Business visas are about those who come to Britain and contribute on economic grounds.
Updated
More on Atos being willing to have details of its public sector contracts published. (See 12pm.)
A spokeswoman for the firm has been in touch to say that details of these contracts are already published. The Cabinet Office has a website called Contract Finder. Here, for example, you can see details of contracts relating to the personal independence payment. "These contracts are not ours; they're the government's," she said.
But she did say that Atos would object to information deemed commercially confidential being published. If companies had to release details of their margins, they would find it impossible to compete, and the market place would not function, she said.
In his second question Ed Balls challenged George Osborne to rule out another cut in the top rate of tax.
Osborne sidestepped that. But he said that Balls's tax announcement had been attacked by pro-business figures in his party, and by the IFS. Labour's anti-business stance is the biggest risk to the recovery, he said.
Treasury questions
In the Commons George Osborne has been taking Treasury questions for 50 minutes. Ed Balls has just made his first intervention. He said he welcomed the growth figures, but he challenged Osborne to admit that people's living standards were not going up.
Osborne said that he welcomed the news from Labour that Ed Balls would be remaining as shadow chancellor. Balls predicted the recovery would never happen, he said. On the Labour side they need new crystal balls, he joked.
Updated
Public administration committee hearing - Summary
That was not very comfortable for Joe Hemming from Atos, or for his colleagues from G4S, Serco and Capita. None of them seemed to make a particularly good impression on members of the committee.
Here are the main points.
• Atos's Joe Hemming said he believed that Atos could regain public confidence in the light of the widespread complaints about the way it has administered work capability assessment (WCA) tests. Hemming, the firm's vice president for the public sector, was responding to a question from the Lib Dem MP Greg Mulholland who said the WCA complaints had done "immense damage" to the reputation of the firm. "Surely the Atos name is now severely damaged for good," Mulholland said. Would it ever be able to get the confidence of the public back? Hemming replied:
We have been serving the British government for 40 years. The vast majority of the services that we provide are of high quality. We are extremely proud of the work that we do. I take the point about the high-profile nature of these particular services ... I understand that. But, taking in the round, we are very proud of the company. We do believe that we deliver great value for money and great services to the British government and to the British citizen. And, so, yes.
Hemming also said that Atos would not walk away from the WCA contracts.
• Hemming said that Atos would have no objection to details of its public sector contracts being published. Labour's Sheila Gilmore, who is also a member of the work and pensions committee, said the committee found it hard to monitor the work of firms providing public services because it was not allowed to see their contracts. She asked if Hemming would be happy to see these contracts published. Hemming said he would.
Absolutely. I think there's great benefit to the industry, to the public sector, to the citizen by being as transparent as possible .... We would only benefit from the clarity [that publication would bring].
But Patrick Smith from Capita said his firm would object to information that was deemed commercially confidential being published.
• Bernard Jenkin, the committee chairman, said that he felt all four witnesses were finding it hard to explain how they were accountable to the public.
I would just observe that you are all finding it quite difficult to explain this "accountability to the public" aspect of your businesses.
• Robert Halfon, a Conservative member of the committee, suggested that allowing the private sector to deliver public services was, in some areas, a mistake and that it would be better for these services to be "re-nationalised" (my phrase, not his). He made the point in a question.
Just looking at the figures that you all have had from the taxpayer, from £578m going up to £1.8bn, to me it seems like you have become versions of government departments. You might be private sector in name, but the consumer has no say, there is no localism. You may have all the satisfaction surveys you want, but people know all about satisfaction surveys, and I know what goes on in my constituency. And people have no choice. It seems that you, the big corporates, sow up all taxpayers' money. And I can't really see anything different between what you do and what the state does. We might as well have the state funding it all because you don't, not all of you, some of you don't provide good service, and the consumer has not redress. At least with the state the taxpayer has redress because he can vote for a different government.
Updated
Sean Williams from G4S says there needs to be more honesty in the public debate.
And there needs to be robust performance management, he says.
Bernard Jenkin wraps up. It has been an "intensive" session, he says.
And that's it.
I will post a summary shortly.
Lindsay Roy goes next.
Q: [To Hemming] Do you expect to face sanctions over the Glasgow incident?
Joe Hemming from Atos says he does not know.
Bernard Jenkin says the 24,000 cases are from the whole of Scotland, not just Glasgow.
Labour's David Heyes goes next.
Q: Why do you deliver services through sub-contractors?
Sean Williams from G4S says this is the best way to deliver contracts.
Patrick Smith from Capita says his firm is looking at the probation services that are being put out to tender. Capita recognises that charities have expertise in this area. So there is a great opportunity for charities and the private sector to work together.
Q: Some witnesses have told us that you use charities as bid candy, so that your bids look more attractive than they otherwise would.
Williams from G4S says the evidence does not accept that.
If firms say they are going to work with charities, they should be held to account, so people can see this happens.
Paul Flynn goes next. He asks about a case where a claimant died, only for his family to find out afterwards that Atos had made a mistake when they said he was ineligible for benefits.
Q: Have you been in touch with the family?
Joe Hemming from Atos says that he cannot comment on individual cases. But it is not Atos itself that decides who gets benefits. That is DWP policy. That is why Atos favours more transparency about this.
Robert Halfon, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: I have had numerous constituents who have had problems with your assessments. They go to a centre where there is no parking, and the doctor does not speak good English. I have countless cases like that. What redress does the customer have?
Joe Hemming from Atos says the firm takes customers views into accounts.
Lindsay Roy goes next.
Q: There are 24,000 people in Glasgow waiting for PIP claims to be assessed. What are you doing about this?
Hemming says he does not know about this. He will look into this.
This comes as a surprise, he says (when prompted by Bernard Jenkin).
Jenkin says he should write to the committee with more information.
Q: Do you expect to regain the contract on the basis of customer satisfaction?
Hemming says various factors are taken into account when contracts are awarded.
Greg Mulholland, a Lib Dem MP, goes next.
Q: Will you ever be able to regain the trust of the public?
Joe Hemming from Atos says the firm has been serving the British public for 40 years.
There have been problems in one or two areas. But overall Atos is proud of the work it does.
Q: But surely the Atos name is severely damaged?
Hemming says Atos made a commitment. It won't walk away from that.
Q: You were still retraining staff last summer. Doesn't that suggest a failure in the basic training process?
No, says Joe Hemming from Atos. There were scope changes.
Q: Atos and Capita are doing assessments for personal independence payments (PIP). A minister told the work and pensions committee that all assessments were being internally checked. Why did you say you were ready to process these when you were not?
Hemming says Atos has been trying to give a quality experience.
Paul Flynn asks if he really thinks Atos's "victims" have had a quality experience. Hemming ignores this.
Q: It looks as if you and the DWP did not work this out in advance.
Hemming says there was a lot of experience out there.
But it is a new benefit. It has taken longer to get used to than envisaged, he suggests.
Joe Hemming says there was a period when Atos's work was not of the standard required.
The firm addressed that, he says.
There has been a considerable amount of legislative change. And there were increased volumes of work. Those were both factors.
Q: But should have anticipated that? Not having seen your contract, I don't know if that was a factor.
Hemming says forecasting volumes was a feature of the contract. It did not work as well as it should have done.
Joe Hemming from Atos says that when claimants appeal one of its decisions, that information goes back to the DWP.
Q: But most decisions taken by Atos are accepted.
Hemming says 60% of appeals are upheld because new information gets provided.
Q: Doesn't that suggest the right information is not being requested in the first place?
Hemming says he is not involved in this deeply enough to be able to respond.
Updated
Labour's Sheila Gilmore goes next.
Q: Would you be happy to see contracts published?
Joe Hemming from Atos says that his firm is in favour of more transparency. Normally, when it gets a request form information, it gives more information than required.
Q: The work and pensions select committee would like to see your contracts. Why is that not happening?
Patrick Smith from Capita says there may be an issue with commercially confident information being published. His firm would object to that.
Q: What about Oakwood prison. People call it Jokewood?
Sean Williams from G4S says that Paul Flynn is being selective.
Q: That's your answer, is it?
Williams says Flynn should see what happened at Oakwood in context.
Q: You played down the recent incident at Oakwood.
Williams says he is not responsible for Oakwood.
Labour's Paul Flynn goes next.
Q: [To Downie] You said you increased rail passengers by 40%. Over what period?
Over 10 years, says Ian Downie from Serco.
Flynn says rail passenger numbers were going up generally anyway.
He accuses Downie of giving him the kind of information you might get from a time-share salesman. It was a vacuous claim, he says.
Q: In the Lords recently someone described Capita as Crapita. Another described it as Grabita. Why?
Patrick Smith says that is a Private Eye joke.
Q: It is not Private Eye. This was the House of Lords.
Smith says they were quoting a joke.
Q: What preparations did you make before you came to this committee?
Sean Williams from G4S says he had a two-hour session preparing for this yesterday.
Q: You did not mention the Olympics in your opening remarks?
Williams, addressing Flynn as "Paul", says G4S has many contracts. It made mistakes with the Olympics. It paid for those mistakes.
Q: You have painted a picture which does not reflect reality?
Williams says Flynn should not forget the hundreds of very good contracts G4S has delivered. It has got 35,000 people into work, he says.
Q: How do problems come to light?
Patrick Smith from Capita says it can be a customer, it can be a contract manager. Noise occurs. It can come from service manager. But problems come to light.
Q: Can you give an example of how you are held to account?
Ian Downie from Serco says they have a contract with Glasgow council that involves councillors actually sitting on the project.
Joe Hemming from Atos says the complaints about WCA [work capability assessment] have been well documented.
Q: How effective is DWP oversight?
Patrick Smith from Capita says performance review is normally set out in the contract, either quarterly or monthly.
Sean Williams from G4S says there are a range of mechanisms. They can include daily phone calls.
Lindsay Roy asks how they know they are meeting their standards.
Sean Williams from G4S says its contracts have very clear standards set out.
Q: Qualitative or quantitative?
Both, says Williams.
Joe Hemming from Atos says that more and more the firm is being paid by results.
Recently it has also had contracts that include a requirement to adopt to change.
Ian Downie from Serco says that being able to change a contract is important. Sometimes commissioners realise they want a slightly different service.
Joe Hemming from Atos says his firm has well documented procedures as to how complaints should be handled.
Ian Downie from Serco says his firm often goes "way beyond" the data collection specified in its contract.
Q: Can you give an example of how you are improving public services?
Patrick Smith from Capita cites the use of online applications at job centres. Now 80% of job applications are being set up online. That benefits everyone.
Ian Downie from Serco says his firm surveys its customers. In one area they asked people to put their recycling bins on different days. But a survey showed that people preferred to put all their bins out on the same day. Serco adopted this policy.
There is also a helpline people can ring if they get poor service, he says.
Smith says his firm is carrying out personal independence assessments. It has now enabled people to do this from home.
Bernard Jenkin, the committee chair, says the panel are all finding it hard to explain their accountability arrangements.
Ian Downie from Serco says that when it took over Merseyrail services, people did not like the service. Now it has got better.
Q: But that does not answer the question. Why are the public sceptical about what you do?
Joe Hemming from Atos says more transparency would help.
Q: Do you recognise this is a critical business challenge?
Absolutely, says one of the panel (I didn't catch who it was).
Patrick Smith from Capita says the firms need to work on this with the "procuring authority".
Lindsay Roy, a Labour MP, goes next.
Q: Are you saying best practice does not happen in the public sector?
Patrick Smith from Capita says he is not arguing that.
Q: How do you measure your accountability?
Joe Hemming says Atos do not feel unaccountable. All their contracts have payments by results.
It is building a customer experience lab, he says. That will allow customers to help shape the way the service is delivered.
Ian Downie from Serco says his firm has to improve the reoffending rate in order to get paid.
Robert Halfon, a Conservative, is asking the questions now.
Q: Customers can choose to use different supermarkets. But my constituents don't have a choice with you. And the majority of them think the service from Atos is "appalling".
Joe Hemming says Atos does record customer satisfaction. It regularly records high scores, up to 88%.
If you fragment the market, you will have different circumstances locally.
Q: You have had between £578m to £1.8bn from the taxpayer. You have become an arm of government. You take all this money, but people have no choice. I can't see any difference between what you do and what the state does. And some of your services aren't very good. I can't see why the state doesn't do it. At least with the state, you can vote people out.
Sean Williams from G4S says that sub-contractors perform better with them.
We have the best performance data, he says.
What matters is diversity of provision, he says.
We can remove under-performing sub-contracts.
He says he is arguing for a mixed market.
Q: When I speak to local contracts, they say the big boys just cream off the profits, and that the money should go direct to the small contractors. How do you measure if you are doing stuff on the ground that the customers like?
Patrick Smith from Capita says: "Is that the customer the client or the customer the citizen?" Bernard Jenkin replies: "You tell us."
Smith says Capita has big customer satisfaction feedback loops. It is managing £1.8bn in pension payments.
Updated
Joe Hemming from Atos says that his firm put a customer charter in their contract. That allows them to ensure that responsible behaviour is embedded in the contract.
Bernard Jenkin goes next.
Q: So you see it as your responsibility to deliver value for the taxpayer?
Absolutely, says Sean Williams.
Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, is asking the questions now.
He says Downie is speaking a language "derived from English".
Serco cheated its customers, didn't it, he asks.
Downie says that was not in Serco's DNA.
Sean Williams from G4S says things clearly went wrong with its tagging contract.
When things go wrong with its contracts, it must learn the lessons, he says.
I have been having problems with the internet feed. But it is working now.
Bernard Jenkin, the committee chairman, is asking the questions now.
Q: So you are saying common sense is more important than the contract.
Yes, says Ian Downie from Serco.
Updated
There is a slight delay with the start of the session.
The start of today's #PublicServices evidence session has been slightly delayed - we'll update again when the Committee is ready to begin.
— PASC (@CommonsPASC) January 28, 2014
I will be monitoring it on the parliament website.
Atos, G4S, Serco and Capita questioned by MPs
The public administration hearing will be starting soon.
Here is a note from the committee about the purpose of the session.
The evidence session is the second session of the Committee’s Citizens and Public Services Inquiry which aims to scrutinize the Government’s plans for public service reform and consider the wider public service reform agenda.
Here is the eight-page issue paper drawn up by the committee setting out the themes of its inquiry (pdf).
Here are the issues the committee wants to explore this morning.
• the opportunities for local communities to get involved in public service design and delivery
• whether the Government has successfully devolved power away from Whitehall and into local communities
• how businesses and charities delivering public services can be held to account
And here are the names of the witnesses giving evidence.
• Ian Downie, managing director, strategic partnerships, Serco
• Sean Williams, managing director of G4S Contact, Employment, Investigation and Resourcing Solutions
• Joe Hemming, senior vice president, public sector, Atos
• Patrick Smith, market director, central government, Capita
There's lots on today. The imminent publication of the GDP figures is leading the news this morning, but Graeme Wearden's business blog is looking after that and I will be focusing on other stories.
Here's the agenda for the day.
9.30am: GDP figures for the final quarter of 2013 are published. My colleague Graeme Wearden is covering this in detail on his business live blog.
9.30am: Atos, G4S, Serco and Capita give evidence to the public administration committee about the delivery of public services.
9.30am: Tim Loughton MP and Martin Richards, chief constable of Sussex Police, give evidence to the Commons privileges committee about a dispute involving Loughton and the police, and an alleged contempt of parliament.
10.30am: Lord Hunt of Wirral, chair of the Press Complaints Commission, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee about dealing with press complaints.
11.30am: George Osborne, the chancellor, takes questions in the Commons.
Around 3pm: Peers debate the lobbying bill. MPs have rejected some key changes to the bill proposed by the Lords and, in the first round of "ping-pong", peers are expected to vote on whether to agree with the Commons, or whether to insist on their changes.
Late afternoon (and possibly out of my time): Peers debate the children and families bill. Labour is calling a vote on a proposal to make sex and relationship education compulsory in English schools. Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, has written an article for the Telegraph explaining the party's case, and Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett has written a powerful article for the Guardian explaining why this is a matter of urgency.
I plan to be focusing in particular today on the public administration committee hearing, Treasury questions and the lobbying bill debate. I may cover the sex education debate too, but that will depend what time it starts. As usual I will also be flagging up any breaking political news, posting summaries at lunchtime and in the afternoon with a round-up of all the day's developments, and highlighting the most interesting political articles on the web.
If you want to follow me on Twitter, I'm on @AndrewSparrow.
