Question
As the Public Accounts Committee Chair said, we have had Capita before the Committee on many occasions. In all my time in the House, I do not think I have seen a worse example of incompetence, failure to deliver to deadlines, and a company seemingly just not caring about its effects on people and the distress it is causing. Every time Capita’s representatives come along, I simply do not believe a word they say. Does the Minister really have any confidence, even with all the guardrails that she is putting in place and all the connections to the Cabinet Office, that Capita is capable of delivering a scheme that actually works and delivers pensions on time? Secondly, I congratulate the Minister on what she said about looking into bringing the scheme in house; it is a pity the previous Government did not think about that before they let the contract. Will she commit to updating the House regularly on how far she is progressing with those possibilities? In the end, bringing the contract back in house may be the only option for giving pensioners a proper scheme, given Capita’s failures.
Answer
I agree with my hon. Friend that Capita’s performance has been absolutely abysmal. There are no excuses for it, and I will make no excuses for it and its terrible performance. I have more confidence in the rectification plan I outlined today, purely because of the involvement that Cabinet Office officials and experts have had in it, and because they now have access to the Capita systems and data, which they did not have before. That will allow us to properly hold it to account. On bringing the scheme in house, it is a manifesto commitment that we will have the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. I am committed to that, as is everyone on the Labour Benches. I will continue to update the House on progress made on this policy.20% point-scoring 20% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (72/100)
The reply clearly commits the Minister to keep Parliament updated on progress, and it describes concrete oversight: Cabinet Office officials and experts are involved, and they now have access to Capita's systems and data. On whether the Minister has confidence in Capita itself, however, the reply speaks about confidence in the rectification plan instead, so that part of the question is only partly answered. Overall the answer is substantive and largely direct, but the asker may still want a plain statement on Capita's capability.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Minister has confidence that Capita is capable of delivering a pensions scheme that works and pays pensions on time, given the guardrails and Cabinet Office connections being put in place. | Addressed | Direct | The reply rejects Capita's performance as 'abysmal' and says the Minister has more confidence in the rectification plan, which is the closest available answer on confidence. It then names concrete guardrails: Cabinet Office officials and experts are involved, they now have access to Capita's systems and data, and this enables holding Capita to account. Together these answer the 'guardrails and Cabinet Office connections' part, though the reply expresses confidence in the plan rather than directly in Capita's capability. |
| Whether the Minister will commit to regularly updating the House on progress in exploring bringing the pensions scheme contract back in-house. | Addressed | Direct | Statement 10 is an explicit commitment to 'continue to update the House on progress made on this policy', which directly answers whether the Minister will commit to regular updates. Statements 7–9 reinforce that insourcing is a manifesto commitment the Government is pursuing. |