Passport Applications

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady asked to intervene on my speech at a very early stage. If she just has a little patience, I will address that question.

Before I turn to the detail of the problems faced by HMPO and what we are doing to address them, I would like to make it clear that, despite the unprecedented level of demand, the overwhelming majority of people making straightforward applications are still receiving their passports within three weeks as usual.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

This morning two of my constituents reported to my office that they had been told by travel agents that they would not make arrangements for travel until they produced a passport. Has the Secretary of State or anyone in her Department been in touch with the Association of British Travel Agents?

[Mrs May]

We have been talking to the travel industry and the Post Office, which receives applications for passports through the check-and-send process. We are dealing both with those dealing with people who are travelling and with those dealing with passport applications to ensure that the messages people are getting are the correct ones.

To return to the figures I was talking about, over the first five months of this year, HMPO has processed more than 97% of straightforward passport renewals and child applications within the three-week target turnaround time. In the first two weeks of June—up to 15 June—89% of straightforward renewals and child applications were still being processed within the three-week turnaround time, so the majority of people have been receiving their passports within three weeks. Over the first five months of this year, more than 99% of straightforward applications have been processed within four weeks.

HM Passport Office

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to those Members who have indicated that the cases they took up have been dealt with and that people have received their passports. Staff at the Passport Office are working very hard to deal with the cases they are seeing. As we have just heard, they are responding to the cases that MPs are raising—and I think we should not forget that.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

This is the biggest problem that my constituency office has been presented with since the bedroom tax. My staff have often worked overtime to deal with cases such as those of the lady who phoned early one afternoon to say that her friend was leaving Glasgow airport at six o’clock the next morning and did not have a passport, and the man who, two months after sending off his application, received a letter saying that it had not been signed. My staff would want me to pay tribute to the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely senior Member and I treat him with the utmost courtesy, but we are very pressed for time. What we need is a one-sentence, short question.

[Mr Clarke]

I am happy to oblige, Mr Speaker. Will the Home Secretary address herself to the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and personally meet front-line staff and union representatives who warned that this was going to happen?

[Mrs May]

As I thought I had made clear to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), we do meet front-line staff and will do so again in order to discuss this issue. For the purposes of the review, representations will be received from a number of people, both those involved in the passport service and those who, I am sure, have experienced similar kinds of customer service. The review is necessary to ensure that we are doing things in the best possible way in order to give the best possible service to customers, and front-line staff will of course be met during that process.

Syrian Refugees

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I say to him that we will work with the UNHCR, which will identify the cases that are most vulnerable and most appropriate in terms of the support that the UK can provide.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Non-governmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, very much welcome the Government’s humanitarian contribution to these awful problems and will no doubt welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. However, they are puzzled, as I am, that the Government have not thus far associated themselves with the UNHCR’s programme, and therefore with 18 important countries. That lack of solidarity seems to be a wee bit intransigent and hardly fits in with the rest of the Government’s approach. Have I missed an obvious explanation?

[Mr Speaker]

I see that the right hon. Gentleman has put in to speak in the debate as well. We are grateful to him. He will have made two speeches by the end of it.

UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary is no longer in her place, but she will no doubt read what I am about to say. I had the privilege of asking her a question earlier, and I did so because I am interested in international development and in these important issues. I am the chair of the Friends of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and I am active in other such groups. I have been worried over the years about the link between the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office and, more recently, the link between DFID and the Home Office. My question was intended to draw out the thinking of the Home Office on these matters.

I do not wish to appear ungrateful to the Home Secretary; her responsibilities as she sees them are for matters such as border control. Nor do I wish to speak for the Secretary of State for International Development, who is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but I imagine that DFID would identify its priority as dealing with humanitarian practicalities based on the information that it receives from those on the ground, day after day. We had an example of that in the House during DFID questions last week, when I put a question to the Secretary of State about the impact of the Syrian refugee problem on education in Lebanon. She was able to tell the House that she had visited schools in Lebanon the previous week, and she gave us an informed account of what was taking place.

It is because I want to see a co-ordinated approach to these matters that I am taking part in the debate today. I welcome the fact that considerable progress has been made, even since last week. I believe that today’s motion has made a contribution to that progress, as have the aid agencies and the non-governmental organisations that have been pushing hard on the humanitarian issue. The pressure that they have brought to bear is understandable, given that 6 million people have been displaced as a result of what is going on in Syria.

Organisations such as CAFOD and Christian Aid are telling us that there are two major issues. First, the British Government should be seen to be playing a leadership role in supporting vulnerable people by offering resettlement to some of the most vulnerable refugees; secondly, such action would send a message of solidarity to the leaders of the regional Governments. When I listened to the Home Secretary today, I think I knew where she was coming from, but I ask her to try to understand the enormous pressure that those neighbouring countries are facing as they try to deal with the refugee problems. Countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq are facing great problems, and the NGOs working there are under huge strain as they try to deal with the impact of 2 million refugees.

Just before Christmas, CAFOD held an Advent meeting. I want to quote the words of Father Faddoul, who works in Lebanon and is president of Caritas Lebanon, a partner organisation of CAFOD. He said:

“Many Syrian refugees are now living in desperate conditions: families are struggling to survive in tents surrounded by snow, sometimes without shoes or warm clothes. Many children are unable to go to school. The crisis has caused huge instability here in Lebanon and across the region. We are living on a knife-edge.”

The House needs to bear that in mind.

It would be ungracious not to recognise that Britain is the second-largest contributor, and that we have tried to give a lead in this situation, but I also want to put on record that the UNHCR has appealed for western Governments to accept 30,000 of the most vulnerable refugees from the region. In doing so, we would be joining countries such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America, and demonstrating our commitment to a shared responsibility. We would all welcome that. We have made considerable progress today, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind my repeating that point.

Home Affairs and Justice

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) is in his place, because I want to follow on from where he ended his speech. He referred to the discussions on the House of Lords. He knows that I have a high regard for him, but I was greatly surprised by his peroration, in which he appeared to chastise the Labour party, ignoring all the evidence, which I will come to in a minute or two, from the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill, the alternative report and the public debates that we have had. Although it pains me to say it, if he and his Lib Dem colleagues are worried, they ought to keep an eye on their leader, because the Joint Committee got the impression from his evidence to us that this was the most vital thing that was going on throughout the earth, and yet in the last few days his tone has changed considerably.

I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Joint Committee, including the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) who is in his place. Many people worked extremely hard on that Committee and in preparing the alternative report. When we are told that difficulties are likely to be presented, I ask frankly—my views are not necessarily shared by others on the Joint Committee—why should they be? We had about 15 divisions in the course of our sittings. The talk about manifestos is not that relevant. The Conservatives said in their manifesto that they wanted a consensus. They certainly did not get it on the Joint Committee. When we took vote after vote, and when we listened to people giving evidence, what did we find? We found that the Government’s enthusiasm for the new Chamber—whatever it might be called—being elected is distinct from the views of other Conservatives in another place and here. The Government seem to fear the fact that a lot of their Members simply are not in favour of election, and that they might not carry even the very small Bill that they are putting before this House and another place.

We were required to consider a draft Bill. When we look at that Bill and compare it with what was said in the Queen’s Speech, which talks about “the composition” of the House of Lords, I find a considerable dilution of the task the Joint Committee was asked to undertake. Reference is made to composition, but there is nothing about elections, nothing about a referendum, nothing about funding or spending, to which I shall return in a minute or two, nothing about the extremely important role of this House—but merely composition. It was almost as if the Joint Committee had never met at all.

Let me put on the record where I am coming from on this issue. Lord Hunt, speaking for the Opposition in the other place said:

“The Official Opposition support an elected House. However, that must not be at the expense of primacy of the Commons, nor must it threaten gridlock or detract from our role as an effective revising Chamber. Further, these changes should take place only with the…consent of the British people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2012; Vol. 736, c. 2100.]

I entirely agree with that. If I mention more Members of the other place than I do Members here, let it be said that I have been incredibly surprised by the fact that, although the other place is rightly considered not to be democratic in its present form, it spent two days debating this issue. The issue that ended up being in the Queen’s Speech, however, is but a little mouse in its reference to “composition”, so I think it fair to take the views of the other place into account as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members here.

To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they stuck to their manifesto commitment to a 100% elected Second Chamber with no referendum—I did not agree with it, but that is where they stood—but we must accept that there are many views on this crucial issue, particularly when we have an unwritten constitution.

The Joint Committee tried with great courage to obtain from the Government their estimate of what the costs would be, but we achieved no results at all. I tried to put it to the Prime Minister yesterday in the context of his support for the Queen’s Speech. Incidentally, I noted that his script made no reference whatever to the House of Lords; it came up only when he responded to interventions. This is the question I put to the Prime Minister yesterday:

“Can he tell us today what costing has taken place on the proposal in the Queen’s Speech and will he share that with the House?”

The Prime Minister replied:

“Certainly. The cost of a stand-alone referendum would be significant and it is worth taking that into account.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 24.]

If ever someone were to answer a question that was not put, that was it. Where are we as members of the Joint Committee and as those who supported the alternative report? The report was supported by Members of all parties—except, to be fair to them, as I want to be, the Lib Dems. Whatever our views—I have made mine clear—we cannot assess an issue as big as this one without looking at the likely costs. I highly commend the alternative report to right hon. and hon. Members. Those who prepared it were advised by Lord Lipsey that the changes in the draft Bill would amount to £177 million in the first year and £433 million by 2020.

I do not remember a single person raising the issue of the House of Lords when I was canvassing before the recent local elections and, indeed, before the general election two years ago. People are far more worried about issues such as unemployment, the economy, energy charges and the attack on the health service. It is right for the House to regard those matters as having greater priority as we take our time to decide what will happen if there is indeed to be another Chamber.

I referred earlier to the relationship between the two Houses as time goes on, and to the important question of primacy. I believe that, in a modern Britain, democratic representative government ought to mean that the House of Commons, elected as it is, retains its primacy. The Joint Committee decided that there was an unbridgeable gap, and I agreed with it. The more we listened to the evidence that we were given, the more I formed the opinion that this was as much a review of the House of Commons as a review of the House of Lords. I do not think that the issue should be dealt with in such a mean-minded way, through a mere reference to composition in the Queen’s Speech.

Of course our Committee sought advice from the Government. We sought legal advice. In response to two of our requests, the Attorney-General refused to give any advice at all. I ask Members to answer a question honestly. Is this the way to go about introducing a major change?

The Government, incidentally, had set up a Committee on the draft Bill, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, promising that we would have a report by December 2010. What did we find? At the very mention of referendums and power, the Committee stopped meeting, so we did not even have the benefit of that. We are told that we should have confidence in the coalition and that it will deliver, but I have seen precious little evidence that that is the case.

Because we did not have any advice from the Attorney-General, we relied on advice from people such as Lord Pannick and Lord Goldsmith, which clearly indicated that there was a strong contradiction between those who support election to the House of Lords, as I do, and the existing Parliament Act 1911. I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber who reminded us that that Act is 101 years old. Even then, however, Erskine May was warning us that this Parliament—this House of Commons—would not retain its primacy if there were an element of election elsewhere. We really cannot proceed with these issues without clarifying that vital matter. It is at the core of all the differences that may exist. Others may be settled, but that one cannot be.

Clause 2 of the draft Bill was criticised again and again, and was defended by only two people. The House will not be surprised to learn that they were the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is responsible for constitutional affairs. No one else supported clause 2, which was as big a shambles as the other elements of the Bill that the Government had presented to us for examination before coming up with the reference to composition in the Queen’s Speech.

The Clegg Committee clearly failed, but that did not mean that we should neglect our duties, and we did not do so. We could not agree on a number of issues, but that is no surprise. I hope that if a referendum is held and the British people have their say, we shall have a genuine, open debate that involves the people. I think that it ought to involve a body like the convention that we set up a number of years ago in preparation for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. It was not just a small committee of politicians from both Houses, end of story; rather, it was a convention that consulted the entire population. There were elected people—local citizens, as well as representatives from community councils, business, the trade union movement and many other bodies and sectors. As a result, it came up with far better and more clearly worked out proposals for the Scottish Parliament than we have produced for what might be our new second Chamber.

The issue of a mechanism for deadlock—what happens if neither House agrees once there is an element of election in the other House—must be addressed. Also, the report, which I signed, recommends that there should be 12 bishops from the Anglican Church, and I respect the standing of that Church and its link with Parliament. However, in our modern society we must also consider people of other faiths, and if we have the convention that the alternative report recommended—and which I support—that will emerge.

I might have been a bit harder on the Liberal Democrats than I normally am, but I have to say to them—[Interruption.] Wait for what’s coming next. I have to say to them that if they truly believe that this Prime Minister is going to deliver the policies they had in their election manifesto, they have another thought coming. To put it more mildly, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his party was punching above its weight, but I have to say to the Liberal Democrats, “Be careful. You were invited to a rose garden; along the way lies the garden path.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the risk, threat, inconvenience and serious harm that can be caused by stealing cabling and signalling equipment from the railways. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the British Transport Police has the lead role in respect of the work conducted by ACPO; it is actively engaged in that and is working with the rail industry, recognising the particular problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified and the threats posed to rail infrastructure.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the appalling crime two years ago in the area of the former Auchengeich pit in my constituency relating to a beautiful piece of sculpture built by the community in honour of the 47 brave men who had lost their lives in a tragedy of 1959? The community came together again and built another statue. I have no criticism of Strathclyde police, but does the Minister agree that on such issues the closest co-operation among forces throughout the UK is helpful?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Many sickening crimes have occurred where monuments and places that exist to celebrate our war dead or important historical incidents have been desecrated. I think the whole House will join me in utterly condemning those responsible for these appalling actions. That is why we are moving forward by tackling the problem with the new taskforce. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that providing better intelligence and co-ordination is helpful, which is precisely what we will do and are already doing.