Originally my name was to this amendment but I had to leave London on the day that I thought it would be debated; I did not think that we would debate it on the fifth day in Committee. I put my name to the amendment because I could see no difficulty for the Government in accepting it. A long-established principle in both national government contracts and, very often, with some problems, in local government contracts, is that there should be competitive tendering. I have some difficulty reconciling my noble friend’s answer, to which reference was made a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The reply gave me the impression that it was all done and dusted, yet the advert in the paper which led to my original question talked about quite an extensive increase in staff for the United Kingdom Passport Service.
I asked at the time—as has been referred to already—whether it would be open to other organisations, such as the Post Office. I declared an interest, as I do on these occasions, as a former postman. My question was whether the Post Office or other organisations could be included in the bidding process. As I understand it, as a result of the new legislation, a new executive agency will be formed to cover the functions currently carried out by the United Kingdom Passport Service. It is clear that a key requirement for the new agency will be a nationwide high-street presence to provide an interface with citizens. Whichever company succeeds in winning the existing UKPS contract will be extremely well placed to provide a wide range of related ID card services. This will only further undermine Post Office Limited’s traditional role as the primary national provider of government services and will, in turn, place additional pressure on the financial performance of the company.
I hope that the amendment, if it is carried, will give the Post Office a fair and reasonable chance—I am not asking for special treatment—to bid for the work entailed in this legislation. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will confirm that the amendment is acceptable to the Government.
Identity Cards Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clarke of Hampstead
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 December 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Identity Cards Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1267-8 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:07:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286822
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286822
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286822