The work of HM Passport Office

The issue of service standards has been a persistent theme in the way the Home Office defends the delay in dealing with cases over several governments. These service standards are arbitrary and set by the Passport Office Officials in line with what they believe to be the correct level of service. We are yet to be convinced by this defence, for example in our other reports on UKBA we have consistently questioned why backlogs have been developed when we have been told that it can take as little as 45 minutes to process a case and if you pay more for expedited service then you expect the processing within that time frame.

Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) have set a standard service time for the processing of passport applications. It appears clear to the Committee that applications that are not processed within that time period are outside the service standard, and therefore undoubtedly constitute a backlog. To claim otherwise causes confusion, and leads to frustration and worry amongst those applicants who are waiting for their passport. We have reiterated several times that, whilst accepting there needs to be a reasonable allowance of time to process an application, internally set measures of success should not allow any Home Office entity to avoid addressing outstanding cases promptly. Any case that has been received by HMPO and that has not been processed within a reasonable period of time constitutes a backlog. The focus of HMPO, and indeed any processing entity of the Home Office, should be on clearing any cases as quickly as possible not just within an arbitrary deadline. The culture of using the service standards as a shield goes to the heart of the problem with the recent delays in the work of HMPO.

Given the impact that these delays have had on constituents, Parliament must be in a position to know how the current backlog in processing applications is being managed, and must be able to monitor whether a new backlog is beginning to develop. The Committee is concerned that it appears that Ministers were not provided with up-to-date statistics when they addressed the House. We recommend that HMPO publish on-line its weekly operational performance data, so that Ministers, MPs and others can have accurate, up-to-date information about its performance. We will also add the work in progress level as an indicator to our quarterly review of immigration.

We are concerned that the work in progress figure remained unacceptably high, despite the contingency measures. Although work in progress has begun to fall, it seems apparent that the backlog will remain for some time. In future, HMPO needs to do more to prevent work in progress getting to this level, as it is clearly unsustainable. This must include formally requesting further resources from the Home Office and installing regular Ministerial meetings until the peak is dealt with.

We are concerned that the contingency measures announced to respond to the backlog were too little, too late, for this summer holiday period. This is despite the impression that any request for resources from managers was acted upon and granted by Ministers.

We do not expect Ministers to have to perform detailed management of HMPO especially considering the Office has a complete management team and a Chief Executive, Paul Pugh. We expect someone in Mr Pugh's position, who is paid £104,000 of taxpayers’ money, to be able to manage the running of HMPO effectively. The recent crisis shows that there has been a complete management failure at the highest levels of the organisation.

Given the information that was provided in Parliament, it seems that initially Ministers were not adequately briefed on the level of underperformance in HMPO, and subsequently did not have to hand the most up-to-date statistics. We are concerned by the apparent miscommunication between the executive agency and its home department.

We note the establishment of a review of HM Passport Office’s operations, and a review of its agency status. We further highlight the apparent miscommunication between HMPO and Ministers as the crisis unfolded, and call on the Permanent Secretary to consider the reasons for this within the review of oversight arrangements. However, we do not believe there is a need to delay action as a result of this review. We call on the Home Office to remove the agency status from the HMPO and bring it back under the direct control of Ministers. HMPO should still retain a separate Director General as the Home Secretary has done previously with the former UKBA. In addition regular updates must be produced against key indicators and provided to Ministers in bi-monthly meetings

The Committee fully appreciates the work of Ministers, the Chief Executive of HMPO, and their private offices, in particular Farooq Belai, in dealing with individual cases that have been brought to them by MPs in a timely manner. However, for members of the public who did not contact their MPs, they were still held in queues and their cases were not dealt with a sufficient level of service. This is a matter of customer service, and all applicants should be able to receive details of their applications, regardless of whether they follow it up themselves, or if it is followed up by their constituency MP. We recommend that all those who answer customer service calls are allowed access to information relating to the progress of an application.

Relaxing security checks in the examination of passport applications could be a quick fix for a temporary problem, which could have the potential to do significant damage to the UK’s national interests and national security. We are alarmed that such measures were even contemplated, let alone introduced without ministerial approval. The Home Secretary was right to intervene to have the new guidance withdrawn.

We are concerned that a number of people have ended up out of pocket due to the Passport Office’s inability to meet its service standard. We believe it is unfair that some applicants are able to receive a fast-track service free of charge, because they have made use of it after an arbitrary date decided by HMPO, while other applicants have had to pay. Furthermore, we believe it would be wrong for HMPO to make a surplus from the extra fees of those who were too early to get the fast-track offer, but too late to wait any longer before upgrading. We believe an equitable solution would be for the HMPO to compensate all those people who made an initial application on or after 1 May 2014, who subsequently upgraded to the fast-track service and who met the criteria for the free upgrade which was later offered.

Like the free upgrade to a fast-track service, these contingency measures relating to renewals and children’s applications may have helped those who needed to travel after they were announced, but were not helpful for those whose applications were already in the system. We see no reason why people could not have these contingencies applied seamlessly, without the need for withdrawing applications and the consequent delay.

We recommend that, to eliminate further difficulties for applicants, HMPO should deal with passport applications on the basis of stated need, rather than by travel date. To enable this, HMPO should advise in its guidance to applicants that reasons for earlier processing, such as a visa application, should be set out when a passport application is submitted.

People rely on the advice that is given on application forms, on the Passport Office website and via the helpline. Based on this information, they act and make plans accordingly. We believe that once it became clear to HMPO that they were experiencing high demand, they should have been proactive in managing the expectations of applicants by informing them that processing times could be longer during this period. This could have been easily done through updating the website and providing this message through the helpline.

We welcome the flexibility of HMPO staff, and staff from the wider Home Office, to be able to take on other duties in order to deal with the backlog. We further welcome the identification of staff with the necessary experience of nationality law as this will enable those individuals to hit the ground running. However, we seek reassurance that essential duties, for example fraud checks, will still be carried out to the necessary standard. Furthermore, just as this is a busy time for the Passport Office, it is an increasingly busy time at the border. We urge the Home Office not to try to deal with this backlog by redeploying staff from other areas and offices and causing a crisis there a few months later.

We acknowledge that this crisis placed a significant burden on the staff of HM Passport Office and applaud them for their efforts, which have helped to minimise the consequences of the unexpected surge in demand.

Based on the figures of the number of staff, we cannot agree with the statement of PCS that the backlog in processing applications “is clearly down to staffing”. If that were the case, delays would have been experienced in previous years when fewer people were employed in HMPO. However, questions remain over whether HMPO have the right number of staff, and the right mix to deal with peaks in demand.

Based on the figures for overtime, it is clear that the use of overtime to deal with peaks in demand has proved unsustainable this year. This again raises the question of whether HMPO have the right number of staff, and the right mix to deal with peaks in demand. We recommend that future additional jobs should be located, where possible, in areas that suffered from previous job losses in the Passport Office.

We are concerned that the PCS Union invited its members in HM Passport Office to go on strike. This would cause further problems and delays in processing passport applications. We call on the Union and HMPO management to discuss the issue of adequate staffing, so that a sustainable solution can be negotiated, and call for the restoration of goodwill between management and the Union in this area that is of great importance to UK citizens.

The initial decision for overseas applications was taken by Ministers in 2009 and confirmed by the current Government in 2011. This was part of the regrettable line of removing overseas posts. The Committee have consistently been against the reduction in overseas resources. Whatever the reason for transferring responsibilities for processing overseas passport applications from the FCO to HMPO, it is clear that this is a mistake. Regardless of whether the overseas production of UK passports was more expensive than in comparable countries, or could have been produced more efficiently in the UK, UK citizens should be able to achieve a standard level of service. HMPO’s own statistics show that in the current financial year to date, only 13% of applications from overseas have been dealt with within the three-week target. Successive Ministers over the last 29 years from all administrations have been too focused on their departmental budgets, rather than the fact that providing a passport is a service, the cost of which is paid for by UK citizens.

The management of the transfer has been poorly handled. HMPO say that further work is required for them to get to a steady state in overseas work, whilst the FCO say that on transition risk had been managed. This contradiction highlights that the appropriate questions about business resilience were not being asked. Furthermore, the transition was completed in April 2014, which meant that this year HMPO was approaching its annual peak in demand with full responsibility for overseas applications for the first time. We believe it would have been far better to manage the transition so that responsibility was passed over when there was low demand, and then as demand increased this could be managed more effectively. In the meantime the Home Office have created emergency travel documents which British citizens 38 Her Majesty’s Passport Office: delays in processing applications should be able to pay for in the overseas posts until the crisis has passed as these will be quicker and more secure.

HM Passport Office could take a more proactive approach to managing demand by sending out reminders to passport holders in the months before their passport is due to expire, the invention of email making this an easy process. Where the holder’s passport will expire during the peak late spring / early summer demand period, they might be offered a small reduction in the application fee to submit their application a few months earlier. This could help smooth out the level of demand over the year, and prevent a recurrence of this year’s problems.

HMPO is not an enterprise that aims to make a profit on behalf of HM Treasury. It is a public body that provides services to UK citizens. Many of these citizens are already paying taxes. They are then asked to pay a fee to acquire a passport, and pay a fee to get a better service than the standard level. Whilst it is right that applicants are asked to cover the cost of the passport, it is clear that the price they are paying is too high, which is resulting in repeated, large surpluses. The state should not be exploiting its citizens by making a profit on what is a basic right. We recommend that HM Passport Office set prices at a break-even point (allowing for a reasonable margin of error), either by reducing prices, or by devoting surplus revenue to measures designed to raise service standards by investing in the product and training people who deliver it.

We are concerned that callers wishing to find out about their passport application will not receive a decent service due to the information they require not being accessible to Teleperformance. We are also concerned that the contract between HMPO and Teleperformance has the potential to be gamed to the detriment of UK taxpayers. If Teleperformance are being paid by volume of calls it gives them a perverse incentive to ‘create’ more calls. This could be easily achieved, by cutting off a call, so another call has to be made, or by not fully dealing with the callers query, so that a further call is required. We recommend that the basis of payment is altered, so it is not by the phone call but by completed customer query.