Skip to main content

Children's Passport Photos - success

Lib Dem Leadership Contender John Hemming MP today claimed a major success in his campaign to simplify passport photograph rules.

I am pleased that following my questions on the bureaucratic nightmare of the new passport photographs that the government are starting to see sense.

The most stupid rule was to require babies to keep their eyes open and mouth closed. Between 12th September and 27th November 15,441 child passport applications were rejected because of the new photo rules for children aged 5 and under.

I started asking questions about this in early autumn and the government changed the rules (which they revealed in a written question dated 9th Jan). Now photographs of children five years and under will be accepted if they show the child smiling or frowning, with their mouth open, their eyes looking away from the camera and reflection or glare on their glasses. Babies under one year do not now need to have their eyes open.

I have heard of one person who sent 20 photographs to try to get a passport for their child. Another person who has spoken to me had the application rejected because the father was holding the baby. I am still not sure that if someone's hand appears in the picture the photo will be rejected and will be harrying the government further on this.

This is a victory for common sense. It is a good reason why the Liberal Democrats should be the party campaigning for government to serve the people rather than people serve the government - which is one of my slogans in the Lib Dem Leadership contest.


John Kasino said…
Another victory for common sense.

Well done John
John Kasino said…
Hey John,

Great news!

Tom Watson has declared for you today.

That's 1 of the 7 you need!
Tristan said…
I like that slogan :)

It is a core Liberal belief and could do with more direct airing.

Congratulations on getting that concession too. Its amazing how uncommon common sense is, especially when bureaucracy is involved...
TonyF said…
It's a very good slogan. So did you and your buddies in power in Birmingham ask if it was ok to give £75K of taxpayers money to KPMG as consultants for who gets the super casino considering most people in Birmingham can't afford to use it and would have preferred that money going to good use in the community?

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…