---

Identity Cards Bill

My Lords, perhaps I should start with the adoption and use by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of the National Audit Office report as a way of attacking the financial viability of the scheme and the ability of the Home Office to run and organise an ID cards scheme. There is no disputing the NAO report. It is clear. It is in the public domain and we do not seek to run away or hide from its import or effect. The NAO press release states:"““The Home Office has recognised the need to strengthen its financial control framework and to improve its financial statements preparation processes to enable it to meet its accountability obligations to Parliament””." The press release sets out the actions that the Home Office has taken. They are, the report continues,"““the redesign and restructuring of its financial accounting function . . . continuing work on 2004–05 account in order to provide a more robust basis for preparing a timely account for 2005–06 . . . commissioning a review to determine the factors that prevented the timely preparation of the 2004–05 accounts and the further action that is required, which will report to the Audit Committee; and ensuring that focus is maintained on financial control environment through close monitoring””." Those seem to be entirely right and absolutely proper, and the Home Office is addressing the issues that have rightly been raised in what we all recognise as being an important critique of the financial control framework. It is also worth making clear at this stage that the delivery of the identity card scheme will be by a new agency, which, as we have said many times, will be based on the United Kingdom Passport Service, which is a Next Steps agency. It is worth pointing out to your Lordships’ House that the UK Passport Service prepares separate accounts from those of the Home Office and that those accounts have received an appropriate certificate from the National Audit Office in each year since the agency was created. It is to the credit of the UK Passport Service that its performance year on year improves. It is also worth pointing out that the latest accounts—those for 2004–05—have been approved as well. One should also focus on our intentions for proper and independent scrutiny of the ID cards scheme specifically. We made it clear on Report that there will be an independent assurance panel, which will include IT and financial oversight, and a biometric assurance panel. We will consult continuously the public and private sectors and special needs user groups and we will seek the advice of the scheme commissioner so that we have a comprehensive accountability framework that ensures that the thing works, that it is delivered on budget and that timely accounts are produced. I do not wish to detract overly from the critique of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, based on his import into this debate of the National Audit Office commentary on the Home Office, but the effect of the amendment, as I understand it, would be fairly minimal. It would clarify on the face of the Bill that the National Identity Scheme Commissioner could, if he so wished, include in his report information relating to the viability and cost-effectiveness of the information technology and support systems used for the national identity register and ID cards themselves. However, we argue that that is simply unnecessary. The commissioner’s jurisdiction as regards the Secretary of State is set out in Clause 22(2)(a), which refers to,"““the arrangements for the time being maintained by the Secretary of State for the purposes of his functions under this Act or the subordinate legislation made under it””." That subsection covers all the Secretary of State’s functions under this legislation. As we have indicated in previous debates, the word ““arrangements”” does not place limitations on the extent to which the commissioner may have regard to the substance of the matters that he is required to keep under review. The only limitations on the commissioner’s remit are those set out in Clause 22(4). As we have said before, all those matters come under somebody else’s jurisdiction. There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the commissioner from looking at the matters referred to in the amendment. On Report, in response to the concerns of a number of noble Lords, we brought forward a government amendment that clarified the fact that the commissioner’s remit includes consideration of the integrity and confidentiality of the information on the register, as well as consideration of the complaints procedure. We do not consider it necessary or desirable to make any further clarifications. If we were to list expressly all the matters that Clause 22(2) already covers, the Bill would be considerably and—given what noble Lords have said about the Bill—unnecessarily longer. The Bill as it is will enable the commissioner to comment on the issues that the amendment covers. We accept the contents of the National Audit Office report on the accounts of the Home Office generally. Specifically, the UK Passport Service, around which the new agency will be based, has a very good track record with regard to IT management, accounting and its ability to deliver on time and on budget. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, is not convinced by the latest published figure on identity fraud. However, as I said before, the published figure of £1.7 billion has been agreed with relevant stakeholders. The noble Earl accepts, as he said in his commentary on the amendment, that identity fraud and financial fraud are considerable matters. I repeat that these worry people. We believe that the ID card scheme will make a significant contribution in tackling ID fraud and will help those who are determined to track it down and to detect it, to minimise it. It rests as a cost on all of us who make use of banking, credit card and debit card services. It is down to the Government to take responsibility, to tackle those issues, to provide such reassurance as an ID card scheme can and to assist those who enforce the law in tackling fraud and abuse. We cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. Having heard what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.