Identity Cards Bill

I hope we have always made clear that the scheme will be delivered by a new agency, which will incorporate the functions of the United Kingdom Passport Service and will be accountable to the Secretary of State. We believe that this is a sensible approach, offering value for money and simpler administration. It must be right that we build this new agency on the experience and sound practice of the United Kingdom Passport Service so that we are able to take advantage of the skills and expertise already available within it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has recognised on a number of occasions, the United Kingdom Passport Service has rightly won praise and, indeed, has topped customer satisfaction surveys across the public and—this is very important—the private sectors for its efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services to members of the public. Last year the service was the only United Kingdom organisation nominated for the prestigious international Carl Bertelsman award for public sector efficiency, and it won a record fifth charter mark. The United Kingdom Passport Service issued more than 6 million passports last year and 97 per cent of customers surveyed were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. It has also taken the top place for the second year running in a customer satisfaction bench-marking exercise across more than 30 major public and private sector organisations, this year beating organisations such as Asda, Tesco, DVLA, Amazon and eBay—a feat to which many aspire but few achieve. I feel confident that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, will recognise the logic in utilising this expertise in the delivery of the ID card scheme. In addition, the introduction of biometric passports and strengthened procedures—such as interviews for adults applying for their first passport—means that the processes and technologies utilised will be common for both passports and ID cards. It would not provide any value for money or make sense financially for the Government to procure separate infrastructures and separate sets of the requisite similar technology for both schemes to operate. This is not unprecedented. The Office for National Statistics has the same proposed structure and level of independence as the new agency. The ONS is an executive agency of Her Majesty’s Treasury, and its chief executive director is, quite rightly, fully accountable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Establishing a corporation sole for maintaining the register would result in ministerial responsibility for issuing ID cards being greatly reduced. Is it not prudent to ensure that Ministers rather than a registrar should do this? It must be right that ministerial responsibility for doing this should be retained, as opposed to a registrar having that responsibility. The Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that ID cards and passports are issued to the standards that the public and Parliament expect. I know from other debates that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have emphasised the importance of having that transparency and accountability. A new agency incorporating and building on the UK Passport Service’s successes is the most prudent and efficient way to deliver this scheme. We also believe that the issue of national identity cards is a core piece of government business that, in principle, should be for a government agency to deliver, accountable through Ministers to Parliament and the public.  We think it would not be right to create an arms-length quango to take on this role. For that reason, we think that the responsibility should properly lie with the Secretary of State of the day.