Passport Applications

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Robert Flello

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. It is unfair on British citizens across the country who have been asked to pay more money in order that they can go on holiday simply because of the Home Office’s incompetence. Carla McGillivary and Dean Anderson applied for a passport for Dean more than six weeks ago. He cannot get an urgent upgrade because his is a first-time adult application. They paid for their holiday to Portugal out of Carla’s redundancy pay. Her new job is a zero-hours contract, so she does not know when she will be able to book a holiday again. They have been looking forward to this holiday, even arranging for their son to go swimming with dolphins. They fear now that they will have to cancel their holiday or risk losing all the money—they are supposed to pay the remainder of the deposit today. They have not got Dean’s passport and they do not know when it will arrive. Carla said:

“This is our first family holiday. I have no idea when we will be able to go on holiday again. I just don’t know what to do.”

One family had to leave their young son behind with his grandparents, because his passport did not come in time. One man missed his brother’s wedding in Greece because his passport did not come in time, despite his applying weeks in advance. People have saved up, worked hard and looked forward to a precious holiday for months. People have weddings, funerals, family events abroad, business trips, conferences, meetings and deals to make. Some people who are living abroad are keen to come home or just want to make sure that their visas are still valid.

Today we need to know whether the Home Secretary yet has control of the problem, whether she knows when things will be back to normal and whether she understands what went wrong in the first place. We also want to debate the new policies that she has announced. Are they working and are they enough to solve the problem? So far we have had little reassurance that the Home Secretary has been on top of the problem. Just last week she and the Minister for Security and Immigration were saying that there was no backlog. Now we know that it is hundreds of thousands. Last week the Home Secretary said how pleased she was that the Passport Office was meeting the service standards and that 99% of passports were being sent out within four weeks. Yesterday we learnt from the Passport Office chief executive that tens of thousands of passports every week are missing those service standards.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I did some quick calculations on the cases in my office at the moment, and the average wait is eight weeks.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that people are facing long waits. The Home Office simply does not seem to know what is going on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow Immigration Minister, has asked countless questions to try to get to the facts of what is happening. A typical answer from the Minister reads, “The Home Office has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.” The Home Office cannot even answer questions, never mind get people’s passports to them on time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

These are the kinds of difficulties faced by British citizens across the world, many of them working hard in jobs abroad, including families who want to return home, but are unable to get the papers they need to return with their young children.

The Home Secretary outlined some measures to deal with British residents overseas. They are belated, but she has announced some measures to respond and we welcome that. However, there are still questions about those measures. She has said, for example, that British citizens overseas can now simply extend their existing passports and that children abroad can get emergency travel documents. However, people who have applied and are already in the system have been told that if they want to do that, they will have to withdraw their existing application, that that might take two weeks and that they will have to wait for their existing papers to be returned before they can apply for the emergency provisions and emergency travel papers instead.

[Robert Flello]

My right hon. Friend is being extremely generous in taking interventions. I have a constituent in Abu Dhabi waiting for children’s visas who is being charged on a daily basis until the problem is sorted out. Therefore, in addition to waiting, my constituent is also being penalised financially.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think that goes to the heart of the problems faced by a lot of families, who are experiencing stress and delay, but also having to pay for it.

The Home Secretary has said that British residents will be able to get a free fast-track upgrade if they are due to travel. Again, that is welcome, but even that is causing problems. One family who drove to Durham told us:

“My husband queried the fee and they said it’s not true about the fee waiver and it was just a rumour.”

Another was told that if they wanted to fast-track, they would have to cancel their existing application and that that would take 14 days. People who submitted their application online are being told that they cannot get a free upgrade. Even for a fast track, people have to make an appointment. One family were told that the only appointment in the next three weeks was in Durham.

According to the helpline today, the soonest that anyone can get an appointment anywhere in the country is Friday in Durham or Sunday in London, and even then it could take them an extra week to get their passport. Anyone who wants the premium service—to get their passport the next day, because they are about to travel urgently—will still have to pay. According to the Home Secretary, only the fast-track upgrade is free, not the premium service, despite the fact that some people applied for their passports many weeks ago and are now right up against the line.

Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Robert Flello

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have said very clearly that we would have reduced the policing budget by around 12% rather than 20% over the course of the current spending review. That would not have led to the reduction of 15,000 police officers over the course of this Parliament. I would also say to the hon. Gentleman that he promised to increase the number of police officers by 3,000—it was in his party’s manifesto. That is what he called for, and he has done the absolute opposite. Government Members have not only reduced police officers on the street; they are making it more difficult for them to fight crime.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On that point, when I talk to police officers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are doing a fine job in extremely difficult circumstances because of all the cuts, and not just to their positions—[Interruption.] I wish the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) would stop chuntering while I am trying to ask a question. Police officers already find themselves in difficult circumstances, yet they also tell me that the toolkit of the various powers available to them is being reduced at the same time. How can that help?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Looked at across the board—whether it be what is happening with DNA or CCTV—Government Members are making it harder for the police to do their job.

After the London riots, CCTV helped to secure huge numbers of convictions. We all know from our constituencies of communities and estates that have worked hard to get CCTV and how it has helped to provide security in those areas, cutting down on antisocial behaviour and abuse. Yet the freedom of information requests put in by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) have shown that one in five councils is now cutting CCTV under a Home Secretary who is wrapping CCTV in a whole load of new red tape. There are already safeguards for residents’ privacy, but the Home Secretary wants a whole load of extra checks, rules and administration just to make sure. The impact assessment produced by the Home Office has found that these new regulations will cost the police and councils £14 million to comply with—and it could be as much as £30 million at a time when resources are so stretched. The Home Secretary, who has already wasted £100 million on the November police and crime commissioner elections now wants to waste up to £30 million making it harder, not easier, to get CCTV. The Home Secretary welcomed extra CCTV in her own constituency three years ago; she should stop making it harder for everyone else to get it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that ACPO, like chief constables across the country, will make the best of the approach put to them, but many practitioners across the country have raised the concern that, with changing case law, it will take some time to be able to use the powers as effectively as the previous powers were used.

The Bill does nothing to make sure that community remedies and resolutions are focused on low-level crime. It does nothing to ensure that proper restorative justice, putting victims at the heart of the process, will be pursued or guaranteed. Instead, it risks creating loopholes to let offenders off because overstretched councils and police have not had the resources to sort the problem out.

[Robert Flello]

Does it not send a worrying message to the families of the, on average, two women who die every single week as a result of domestic homicide when 2,500 cases of domestic violence will be treated in this way? Does that not somehow suggest that their loved ones do not count? What sort of message does that send?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Community resolutions and the purpose of the restorative justice approach, which can be valuable in dealing with antisocial behaviour, are about getting offenders to say sorry to the victims and make it up to them. Yet that is exactly what we do not want in domestic violence cases. We do not want a police-sanctioned process of the perpetrator somehow apologising and making it up to the victim, who will then be expected to accept and go along with the apology, as if that makes it all right. Community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence cases. It is still a serious matter of concern that they continue to be used, despite ACPO’s guidance to the contrary. This is an area where the Home Office needs to step in and make sure that stronger guidance is sent out to chief constables and police forces across the country to make it very clear that community resolutions should not be used for domestic violence.

There are many cases in which ASBOs are not appropriate, but it must also be said that in some of the most serious examples of repeated abuse, they have made a significant difference. For example, an aggressive thug who had repeatedly intimidated residents and shopkeepers in a town centre, had repeatedly ignored warnings from the police and the courts, and had breached his ASBO was taken to the criminal courts and given a custodial sentence, but under the new system he would only be served with an injunction. The council would have to pursue expensive civil action to enforce the injunction, and there would be no criminal offence.

Nor will the community trigger solve the problem. The Home Secretary has made the grand promise that

“The trigger will give victims and communities the right to demand that agencies who had ignored a problem must take action.”

However, the trigger is not strong enough to help. For a start—as I pointed out to the Home Secretary earlier—although the Bill specifies that there must have been “at least three…complaints”, the number could be far higher. Police and crime commissioners could decide on five, 10 or 20. The Home Secretary said that it would be a matter for local discretion, but that local discretion already exists. If it were simply a matter for local discretion, she would allow people to choose to set up community triggers, and she would not be legislating. Either she thinks that this is a matter for local discretion and it is up to those people to decide, or she thinks that there should be minimum standards, but something as weak and wishy-washy as “at least three…complaints” is not really a minimum standard at all. This is a con. Even if the magic threshold is passed, what are residents entitled to? A review. How reassuring.

In the five areas that have piloted the community trigger, where there have been 44,000 incidents of antisocial behaviour, the trigger has been successfully activated 13 times—in response to not just less than 1% of complaints, not just less than 0.1%, but 0.03%. This measure will not have a big impact on the antisocial behaviour problems that persist in communities throughout the country.

When the Home Secretary made her speech on antisocial behaviour three years ago, she said:

“The solution to your community’s problems will not come from officials sitting in the Home Office working on the latest national action plan.”

That is certainly true. If the Bill is the nearest that the Home Office gets to its latest national action plan, it will make it harder, not easier, to solve community problems.

There are two respects in which the Bill has missed the opportunity to deal with some serious problems, and I urge Ministers to look at those again. The first is the problem of dangerous dogs, a subject on which a series of interventions were made on the Home Secretary’s speech. We support the measures that will extend the law to private property, but that is not enough. As the Home Secretary will know, the number of attacks has been rising, and there have been tragic fatal attacks. In the last two years, we have seen killings such as those of 18-month-old Zumer Ahmed and 71-year-old Gloria Knowles, who was mauled by dogs. Last week I met the family of 14-year-old Jade Anderson, who was tragically killed in an attack by dangerous dogs. I pay tribute to Jade’s family, who are campaigning for the strengthening of the law.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, a number of charities, and the families of victims killed in dangerous dog attacks want dog control notices to be introduced. I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said, but the problem is that experts have not been convinced by her argument that wider powers can be used, and that it will not take long to build up case law and make it easy for those powers to be applied. Of course dog control notices will not stop every attack, but they could make it easier for earlier preventive action to be taken. They are working in Scotland, and I urge the Home Secretary to consider the issue again during the Bill’s passage.

I hope that the Home Secretary will think again about firearms as well. As she will know, last year Susan McGoldrick, her sister Alison Turnbull and her niece Tanya were murdered by Susan’s partner, Michael Atherton, with a shotgun that he was licensed to own. Michael Atherton had a history of violence and abuse towards Susan McGoldrick, and he should never have been allowed to own a gun. Alison’s son, Bobby Tumbull, is campaigning for a change in the law.

The Home Office has rightly strengthened the guidance for gun applications, but it does not go far enough. It relies on interviews with family members who may still be living in fear of abuse. Why should anyone with a history of domestic violence be allowed to own a gun? Why should that guidance not be underpinned by legislation? We cannot legislate in Parliament to prevent every tragedy or every terrible crime, but we can seek to learn lessons when tragedies happen. We can listen to victims and their families, and we can work with them to make things safer in future.

We will not vote against the Bill’s Second Reading, but we think that it needs to be stronger. People want stronger action against antisocial behaviour, rather than the watering down of powers. They want more protection for victims, not just delayed reviews and loopholes for offenders if police resources are tight. They want more action against domestic violence, and more action against dangerous dogs. That requires more action from the Home Office, and more action from the Home Secretary. They need to do more to support communities, and they should do so in this Bill.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Yvette Cooper and Robert Flello

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. This is a difficult area. People will raise concerns if they feel that there are inappropriate burdens in reporting arrangements, and of course it is right to try to reduce those and to prevent inappropriate checks or bureaucracy, but it is also right to put safeguards for our children at the heart of the measures that we set out, and not to do things that feel inappropriate given the potential risks, given the evidence, and given the security that parents want for their children.

[Robert Flello]

My right hon. Friend is talking about the incredibly important issue of safeguarding our children. Given what we have seen in the media over the past week about the risks to vulnerable adults, would she care to comment on the fact that, although those of us who are parents are deeply concerned about children, including other people’s children, there are serious implications for vulnerable adults too?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. Some cases of very distressing abuse have taken place involving vulnerable adults, and it is important that they, too, should have protection against that. The key is to ensure that if one authority or organisation knows that somebody has a history of abuse, that person should not be allowed to work again in a position where they may put vulnerable adults or children at risk in a way that other authorities, or the families, were not aware of, and which might lead to harm.

I want finally to turn to DNA, which is another area where we believe that the Government are going too far. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle had already legislated for safeguards on DNA use, including a six-year limit on retention for those who were not convicted. He based those safeguards on analysis of reoffending rates and the benefits in terms of preventing and solving crimes. The Government have decided to reject those safeguards and to go much further in restricting the use of DNA, but not on the basis of evidence. Some people object, as a matter of principle, to DNA being held at all if the person has not been convicted. I do not agree with that, but neither does the Home Secretary. She claimed that nobody’s DNA should be kept at all if they were innocent, but that is not what the proposals in her Bill achieve. Rightly, she recognises that there must be a balance that supports the needs to prevent crime and to ensure that crimes are solved. A balance needs to be struck, but she is not striking the right one. The changes go too far in restricting the use of DNA and will make it harder for the police to solve and prevent serious crimes.

This is a particular problem in rape cases. As the Home Secretary knows, rape cases not only have a notoriously low conviction rate, but a notoriously low charge rate. That is because the trauma for the victim is so great and because of problems with evidence. Many perpetrators of serious sexual crimes are not brought to justice for their first offence. In about 70% of cases in which a rape suspect is arrested, there is no charge. According to Home Office papers, in cases where there is no charge, DNA will be kept only in very limited circumstances, so in most of these cases the DNA will be destroyed, even though it might be critical in catching a repeat offender for a nasty and violent sexual offence.

The Home Secretary will know that a considerable number of cases have been solved because of DNA. Kensley Larrier was arrested in 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. The case never reached court, but two years later he raped someone and was found because of a DNA match. Lee and Stephen Ainsby raped and kidnapped a 17-year-old girl in Barnsley. A match with Lee Ainsby’s DNA was found years later in a case review. It had been taken because he had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Under the Home Secretary’s system, his DNA would not have been kept. Without that DNA, those two men would still be free, and justice for that young girl would not have been done. Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder in Birmingham in February 2005, but released without charge, according to the Forensic Science Service. In July 2005, he raped somebody in Stafford and was identified only because the police had his DNA. The senior investigating officer for the case said:

“We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database—he didn’t even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either.”

Case after case would have been much harder for the police to solve under the Home Secretary’s new rules. Yes, she has an obligation to ensure that individuals are protected from unjustified interference, but she also has an obligation to protect people from crime and to deliver justice for the victims of horrific crimes.