Identity Cards Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for raising this issue—although he is right in saying that much of it was dealt with in the earlier debate, in the very full response given by my noble friend Lady Scotland. I have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as he knows, on the subject of complaints, because I see complaints as a form of intelligence, ensuring that organisations that receive complaints are much more sensitised to the important value of issues that individual complainants bring to them collectively. In an earlier life, I used to ensure that we in our local authority had a very effective complaints process, for that very reason. It would be unwise of me to go over territory that has already been covered. It would not be right for the commissioner, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has argued that he should, to consider particular complaints in the form of a complaints service. If the commissioner did that, the important work of oversight of the operation of the scheme would be lost. That would not be helpful, not least because it is very important that the commissioner fills those valuable functions. In the first instance, it is proper that the agency organises itself well enough and is properly tasked with issuing identity cards and dealing with the complaints that arise from that. We do not want the commissioner to be overloaded with a complaints function, but we want the commissioner to be effective in reviewing the operation of the identity cards scheme more fully, including the way in which the agency itself handles complaints. I go back to the issue of how the United Kingdom Passport Agency handles its complaints. Although the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has a point that there will be differences—in some instances, large differences—much of the way in which the United Kingdom Passport Service handles complaints will be relevant. Currently, the passport application pack contains a leaflet explaining the complaints procedure. It sets out the information that the UKPS needs to resolve problems and explains that complaints can be made by letter, fax, email or telephoning the 24-hour number given in the leaflet. That means that the UKPS is very accessible. There is then a four-step process for complaints; they are initially handled by a customer service team in each regional passport office; customers who are not satisfied with the response from the regional office may take the matter up with the customer services department at the national headquarters, which also deals with general complaints about policy, unrelated to individual applications. Thirdly, customers who are not satisfied after steps one and two are advised to take their issue to their MP, and to take it up with the chief executive or the responsible Home Office Minister. Finally, any complaint not satisfactorily resolved by those means can of course be taken up by the parliamentary commissioner in the normal way. That process works well, and the management of complaints through the UKPS is very effective. Clearly, that system of complaints handling will need to be reformatted in some regards to deal with the additional work and workload that the ID cards scheme will give rise to, but it provides a very good basis from which to work. My noble friend Lady Scotland has already explained the positive response that the service receives from those who have made complaints, many of whom—some 52 per cent—were satisfied with the final outcome of complaints redress. We are told by market researchers in the field that that figure is very high in terms of responses. Complaints handling will be a routine function that the agency will need to fulfil. Members of the public will be able to contact the commissioner with complaints about the agency’s conduct, even if the commissioner directs the majority of those sorts of complaint back to the agency’s internal complaints handling process. The overview of complaints will enhance the commissioner’s awareness of the agency’s performance and enable him to make further inquiries into any specific complaints. Additionally, should the commissioner request it, he would be able to be provided with information relating to any or all the complaints that the agency had received, particularly if the commissioner felt that it had a bearing on the way in which the agency was operating. It is also likely that he will scrutinise the agency’s own complaint-handling procedures as part of the research for his annual report. Staff will be under a duty to co-operate with the commissioner and provide information to him, as has been said, by virtue of Clause 24(4). If the commissioner is dissatisfied with the handling of complaints in general, or of a complaint in particular, he can raise it directly with the Secretary of State and refer to it in his reports, which are made to Parliament under Clause 25. There is little that would prevent the commissioner from looking at the ways the agency handles complaints, and from taking an interest in individual complaints where that is required. In conclusion, it is worth saying that we have listened seriously to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has had to say about this. Without making a commitment to look at individual complaints, in the sense of setting up a complaints procedure for them, I can say—and we have not said this before—that we are happy to consider again the commissioner’s ability to review the effectiveness of complaints-handling processes within the agency, and to see if we can add something about that to the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will find some satisfaction in that. We take this issue seriously. I finish as I started, by saying that the Government generally view complaints positively, as we know they can help us, if we look at those complaints with intelligence, to improve the quality of service over time. That is what we want to achieve here.