HM Passport Office Backlogs

Debate between Kevin Foster and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. We have increased the capacity of the counter service, which is similarly seeing much-increased demand. We certainly accept the point that there need to be significant improvements in the performance of the advice line and the MPs’ line, and we are already engaging with Home Office teams about how we can get more resources in so that people can have their queries answered, particularly when Members of Parliament raise issues on behalf of those with compelling and compassionate reasons for travel and therefore need their application to be expedited.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I have a passport office in my constituency; may I say gently to the Minister that his rather transactional and at times nonchalant approach will not go down well with constituents throughout the country? I have had queries from all over the country because of this situation, and delays have been reported for months on end. Will the Minister confirm whether the backlog is reducing or increasing and how significant that might be? Will he consider compensating those who may have lost holidays outside the times allowed, or the people who have even lost jobs as a result of the problems at the Passport Office?

[Kevin Foster]

I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the tone of them. We have not been nonchalant. Although others have not shown too much interest until now, the teams—including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—have been working hard. In some cases, they have been working extra hours over weekends—for which I pay tribute to them—to produce a record output that is far above any other Passport Office output on record.

What the hon. Gentleman says sounds rather odd when we are recruiting extra staff and making sure that cases can still be expedited if there are urgent demands. We were clear last year that we put the service standard at 10 weeks to make sure people knew that they may need to allow extra time. Last year, we sent 4.7 million texts to those who had not renewed their passport to try to encourage more people to get their passport applications in. Far from our being nonchalant or uninterested, a lot of work has been done. It is a shame that the passport teams working hard in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are perhaps not getting some of the credit they deserve.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Peter Dowd

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady is right. The Government appear to want to put misery upon misery on families and children.

Despite the claims from Conservative Members, austerity was not some necessity nobly chosen by the Government of the day, but a political and ideological choice—it is as simple as that. If it was the only option, why did the United States not embark on a similar venture? Why did the likes of Germany and France not undertake a similar level of spending cuts, or Japan, or, for that matter, Australia? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but those are the questions that we need answering.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The shadow Minister referenced public spending in the United States of America. Is he seriously arguing that we should look to adopt its system of welfare and healthcare spending?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not saying that. He can twist his party’s policies if he wants, but he should not twist Labour’s policies.

Concentrix

Debate between Kevin Foster and Peter Dowd

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan).

We have heard many interventions and speeches. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) talked about a fishing expedition on the part of Concentrix. She enlightened us about the real Casanova of Scotland, R. S. McColl—I thank her for that—but more importantly, the cataclysmic effect of this flawed process. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), in a thoughtful contribution, gave us the experiences of his constituents and welcomed the Government’s actions in relation to the renewal of the contract.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) focused on the policy design that has led to single women, in particular, being affected or targeted, talking about the effects on their children and setting out a series of questions that went to the heart of the matter. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) discussed the relative value and efficiency of the contractor’s services, the role of HMRC, and the role of incentives in contracts of this nature. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) talked about a conflict of interest and the bad practice of Concentrix. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) spoke of a series of constituents, usually single mothers, who have been distressed by the process, citing a catalogue of errors, and the need to fast-track these people’s benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) talked about the hardship caused to his constituents and the common factors in the contractor’s lack of understanding and of compromise.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) welcomed the personal intervention of the Financial Secretary, but questioned HMRC’s role in the process and spoke of the need for a change in its culture. The hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) gave a number of examples of how people are being pushed into poverty. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) mentioned the influx of cases in August and asked what had caused that spike. She also talked about phantom tenants, the unreachable, and the harsh and inaccessible bureaucracy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said that we want a system that supports people, not conglomerates, and a Government who will ensure that people, not corporates, are at the top of the agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about the effect on single mothers, but also asked the key question of how many others have been affected, have not been able to reach out to their MPs and have suffered in silence.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) suggested providing support for free communication with HMRC, and the hon. Member for Inverclyde said that the responsibility lies with the Government and that the citizen’s relationship should be with the state, not individual contractors.

I welcome the Minister’s mea culpa, but it does not go far enough. In last week’s Westminster Hall debate, I said that I, like other hon. Members, had been contacted by distressed constituents who had had their child tax credits stopped, with scant attention paid to due process. In effect, the plenipotentiary powers given by the Government to Concentrix to act as it saw fit to punish and penalise tax credit claimants were used with an alacrity bordering on the enthusiastic and manic. It has come to something when it is difficult to put a cigarette paper between the question of who, out of the Government and Concentrix, has been the bigger of the two culprits, but, following the principle of, “Whoever pays the piper calls the tune,” I opt for the Government.

As I said in last week’s debate, it does not take a genius to work out that, if a company is paid on the basis of bonus or commission to find tax credit error and fraud, it will start with the easy targets. In pursuit of a business model approved by the Government, Concentrix pursued people, mainly working women, to provide information. It was nothing short of overbearing state intrusion into private lives, but it was done under the guise of reclaiming taxpayers’ money from fraudsters and cheats, which is how many people felt that they were treated.

The plain fact, however, is that there was no evidence. In many cases, the victims of that intrusion were left penniless and had little capacity to fight back, as many Members have said. Meanwhile, the Savings (Government Contributions) Bill, which is currently in Committee, encourages people to save money. One agent of the Government administers the giving away of taxpayers’ money while another takes money away, by diktat, from working women. What a topsy-turvy state of affairs.

The whole process was deeply flawed and, as has been said, operated on the presumption that people were guilty until proven innocent. Apparently, a claimant would be sent a letter by Concentrix indicating that they were not meeting the standards for a child tax credit claim, and requiring them to provide evidence of their occupancy arrangement. Some attempted to call Concentrix, only to find that the number was engaged, but if the company did not hear from the claimant, their tax credits were stopped summarily.

I do not know whether Ministers were consulted on, or asked to sign off, that process. I asked that question last week, but did not receive an answer, so I ask them to enlighten us. Even Atos did not have the power to withdraw benefits. Concentrix was given carte blanche to do so, in a licensed way, by the Government, who were in the throes of renewing the contract for a job well done, which is remarkable. Did Ministers ask why Concentrix had so many savings on its books, and did they listen to the complaints of many of our constituents at an earlier stage?

Last week, the Economic Secretary claimed, very creatively, that it was the Government who stepped in to get things back on track when they realised that the service being provided by Concentrix was not good enough. That rewriting of history would be risible if the matter was not so serious for thousands of mothers all over the country. In reality, it was the Opposition who originally asked the National Audit Office to investigate, and we pushed for oversight and demanded action for the thousands of families who have still not received payments from Concentrix. The Government took action only under duress and pressure from the Opposition and the national media.

[Kevin Foster]

Does the shadow Minister agree that, given earlier comments, it is important that the National Audit Office leads the investigation into what happened, because it is independent and answers, ultimately, to this House, not to the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a statement of the situation as it is. The key thing is that we need an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this.

The Government have said that the contract will not be renewed beyond the end of May 2017, but that still leaves us seven months. I am pleased that staff have been brought into HMRC, and I would like to know what measures the Government are putting in place to ensure that there is total oversight of Concentrix throughout the period and to make sure that nothing else goes wrong. When all is said and done, this is a question of the performance management of a government contractor, and a clear lack of oversight by the Government.

I deduced from the Economic Secretary’s inadequate response to the Westminster Hall debate last week that HMRC handed over third-party data to Concentrix and left the company to it. There was no oversight and, in the Minister’s own words:

“Concentrix…then chose who to pursue from those data.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 261WH.]

The Government have given Concentrix a free hand to intimidate and falsely accuse hard-working mothers of fraud. The Opposition want to know who signed off that decision and why there was no accountability. The Government have announced a £100 hardship payment for those affected, but no amount of money can make up for the struggles that those women faced after their tax credits were wrongly stopped, and we need an apology. As many other Members have done, I ask the Government to give that apology.

Concentrix will have the contract for a few more months, but it does not seem to have suffered any sort of penalty for its actions. We would like to know what is happening in that regard. Can we have a precise figure for how many decisions Concentrix got wrong? In how many instances was payment reduced because Concentrix failed to meet its performance standards? Perhaps the Government’s refusal to answer such questions and release the relevant information is because even with deductions for poor performance, Concentrix has still made huge profits on the backs of desperate and vulnerable people. We need answers to these questions. Perhaps an independent investigation—maybe by the NAO—will give us those answers, but whoever gives them to us, we need them as soon as possible.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Debate between Kevin Foster and Peter Dowd

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

May I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have made such valuable contributions to today’s debate? There were 11, alongside interventions, starting with the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who talked about her involvement in the setting up of charities and the challenge she had in worshipping at the same time as filling out an envelope. She also talked about the demographic discrimination in relation to cheques and the need for them to be included in these proposals.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) welcomed the measures, but again raised the plurality of methods of giving and the challenges faced by smaller charities, which these proposals do not assist with. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) managed to get his wife, his mother-in-law and a shovel into his speech, which was an achievement, but importantly he also raised the issues of cheques, SMS messages and people’s ability to get their money into the charitable system through a plurality of methods of giving.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) talked about the importance of supporting charities and the improvements that the Bill may bring and, again, raised the question of cheques as a way forward. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is not in the Chamber, referred to the bucket shaking that she does regularly and applauded those who go out collecting for various charities. She also welcomed the simplification introduced by these proposals.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) also talked about the flexibility of methods of giving that are not in the Bill. He, too, pushed that issue. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also talked about the need for cheques and the ability of older people to participate by giving cheques. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), worshiping in his church, welcomed the simplification and the spontaneity in giving, as did the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who again had a challenge: could the church get a contactless machine up the aisle at the same time as worshiping? That seems to have been a theme today. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) talked about the Great Santa fun run raising thousands of pounds and, touching everyone’s heart, the Waggy Tails Rescue dog re-homing charity.

We on the Labour Benches want to thank the charitable sector for all the remarkable work it does for all the communities we represent. Without its valuable role, many services in our communities would simply not exist, so the Opposition are broadly supportive of the content of the Bill. As such, I will keep my closing comments fairly brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has already made reference to our concern that loosening the eligibility criteria could increase the risk of fraud. That is important. The fact that a charity would not need to be registered for two years raises the question of whether just about anyone could set up a charity and relatively easily receive £2,000 of taxpayers’ money. That is an important point, so does the Minister have any figures on the amount of fraud that has taken place in the gift aid small donations scheme thus far?

The question of the risk of fraud is extremely important, given the inadequacy of the regulation of charity taxation. We hear about Government funds being mismanaged in elements of the charity sector or about charities being set up merely for the purpose of tax avoidance.

[Kevin Foster]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the call should be to ensure that the appropriate due diligence must be undertaken in new charity registrations, in particular by the Charity Commission, before a charity registration number is issued? I take on board his point about potential fraud via this scheme, but of course any charity being registered can start collecting and we need the public to have that confidence.

[Peter Dowd]

I completely understand that. At the end of the day, the process has to be sufficiently robust to ensure that fraud does not exist.

In that regard, the Charity Commission has identified the estimated levels of abuse, mismanagement, fraud and money laundering in charities today, in a succession of reports entitled “Tackling abuse and mismanagement”. It has identified an increase in the incidence of fraud in relation to charities, and a range of cases in which the commission gave evidence in criminal prosecutions, including against trustees who stole £350,000 from a charity for the relief of the people of Afghanistan, which is shocking. The number of compliance cases brought by the commission almost quadrupled between 2012 and 2013, demonstrating both that the commission needs our support and that we ought not be complacent. In that light, when proposed legislative changes come before the House, it is incumbent on us all to be vigilant. I do not want to rain on the party, but we need to be vigilant.

The problem is not just straightforward crime. There is something worrying in our corporate and tax-avoidance cultures that see charities as a means of making money. In recent years, a prime example is the Cup Trust, about which the Public Accounts Committee produced a damning report in 2013, while there was a judgment in the High Court earlier this year about the same issue. The report summarised:

“Despite its declared charitable aims, it is clear that the Trust was set up as a tax avoidance scheme by people known to be in the business of tax avoidance.”

In the meantime, the Cup Trust has claimed gift aid of £46 million. Regrettably, such tax-avoidance schemes are not isolated. As Professor Alastair Hudson, an expert on these matters, put it:

“There is something about the ‘goodness’ associated with charities, which made people reluctant to investigate or to criticise them.”

It is worth noting that when Northern Rock collapsed in 2007, it came to light for the first time that the bank had created a corporate structure known as “Granite”. This included what has been explained by academic commentators as a discretionary trust involving a small charity in South Shields among its beneficiaries. It appears that the charity was named without its knowledge. Moreover, it appears that the only purpose of this structure was to be “tax-efficient”. The presence of the charity in the structure appears to have been unconnected to working “for the public benefit”. We cannot be complacent about the law on charities, while that sort of activity is considered to be an ordinary part of corporate life. While tax avoidance is legal, it is, as Lord Denning said, “not yet a virtue.”

Of the 164,000 charities in the UK, a large number still do not lodge accounts with the regulators. It is difficult to know whether they are moribund, carrying on work “for the public benefit”, or being used for other less charitable purposes, so to speak. That does charities no good at all—and we need to protect them. Even the highest-profile charities such as Kids Company can be sources of mismanagement and bad financial practice.

Notwithstanding the best intentions of these proposals —namely, the loosening of eligibility criteria—it is vital that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent fraud when Government funding or tax breaks are provided, as in this case, to the charity sector. I think that sentiment would get cross-party support.

That said, and as I indicated earlier, we are broadly supportive of the measures contained in the Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill and we will not oppose it on Second Reading. We will, however, seek to improve the Bill in Committee next week, and I hope that the Government will support us in that.