3 Ministerial and managerial response
Contingency measures
19. As the crisis developed, the Home Office took
measures to address it, including both measures to increase processing
capacity and measures to reduce demand. Additional staff were
taken on, staff were redeployed from elsewhere in HM Passport
Office and the Home Office to process applications, opening hours
were extended, weekend working was introduced, and new offices
were opened in Liverpool. Those applying to renew passports from
overseas were given a 12-month extension to their existing passports,
and those applying for children's passports from overseas were
issued with emergency travel documents, subject to parents providing
comprehensive proof of the child's identity. People with an "urgent
need to travel" in the next seven days, whose applications
had already been with HMPO for at least three weeks, were offered
free upgrades to the faster, premium service.[22]
Paul Pugh explained that some of the additional staff were seasonal
staff and shift-workers who would normally have been deployed
at times of peak activity. He said that Ministers had been supportive:
"at no point did I ever feel that there was anything that
I was asking for or that I needed that I was not receiving".[23]
Late reaction and communication
with Ministers
20. One criticism of HMPO is that the measures they
have taken to deal with the delays have been implemented too late.
It has been argued that more should have been done at an earlier
stage, and that appropriate measures were only taken when there
was little time for them to have effect before the summer holiday
period.[24] Mike Jones,
Home Office Group Secretary, Public and Commercial Services Union,
told us "there is the backlog that was denied for days upon
days and has been denied previous to that by the Government Ministers.
Now it is out in the open that there is a major backlog and our
members have been trying to struggle to deal with that influx
of work as it has been coming in".[25]
21. In addition, the changing information and repeated
updates that were provided to Members in the week commencing 9
June indicate that Ministers were not fully appraised of the facts
of the situation by HMPO at the outset.[26]
When Paul Pugh appeared before the Committee we asked him when
more staff and more resources were requested, and how quickly
those decisions were taken by Ministers. He responded:
I can broadly answer, and the answer is very
quickly. When we felt we had come to a point where in order to
maintain our service standards and to keep them where we wanted
them to be we needed to be able to mobilise staff from other parts
of the department, those discussions with other parts of the department
and with Ministers took place in a matter of days. I cannot recall
exactly which days, but it was very, very quickly.[27]
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
Disparity in the service to the
public and to MPs
26. During the course of the delays, it has appeared
that those applicants whose Member of Parliament intervened on
their behalf were receiving a markedly better service than those
whose MP did not. During an evidence session with the Minister
for Immigration and Security, Dr Julian Huppert MP referred to
the problems faced by one of his constituents. The applicant was
seeking a passport for their daughter. Over the course of a month
they were told that the daughter's birth certificate was required,
and then told it was not; they were told that the father's birth
certificate was required, and then told it was not; they were
told it was being processed in Glasgow, then told it was being
processed in Belfast; they were told that a declaration form was
required, then told a different declaration form was required;
and they were told that the passport had been sent out, and then
told it had not, and further information was required. One MP
raised this saying "It is clear that cases are dealt with
differently when people go to their MPs. How can we ensure that
people who do not go to their MPs receive the same service and
have their complaints dealt with in the same way as though they
had gone to their MP?" In response the Home Secretary said:
MPs take up issues in many areas of activity,
and they are dealt with perhaps more expeditiously than they would
be normally. That is part of the issues that we deal with in our
constituency surgeries and so forth. … The Passport Office
is making every effort to ensure that people get the service they
require, so that it is not necessary for people to go to their
MPs or feel that that is the only way they can get that service.[28]
27. Despite the intentions of the Home Secretary
it seems clear, through the experiences mentioned by Members,
that when an MP follows up a case, it has then been dealt with
swiftly.[29] In addition,
in order that they might be able to advise their constituents,
MPs have benefitted from receiving information about the implementation
of contingency measures[30],
and have also been able to raise individual cases with the Immigration
Minister or the Home Secretary. [31]
Furthermore, Ministers have sought to augment the service to MPs,
by providing, from 16 June, 20 additional staff to handle MP queries.[32]
28. Since the crisis hundreds of cases have been
passed to Ministers' private offices and the Chief Executive's
office, including during our evidence sessions where we handed
over 200 additional cases.
29. 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.
Proposed relaxation of security
checks
30. As we have previously set out, passports are
not just travel documents. Once a person has have a British passport,
they can use it as a gateway document to enable individuals to
access a variety of benefits and services within the United Kingdom.
When dealing with delays for passports, it is extremely important
that the security of the application is ensured so that only somebody
who is entitled might receive a passport.
31. On Wednesday 11 June, The Guardian reported
that HMPO had ordered its staff to relax checks on applicants
for British passports from abroad in an effort to reduce the backlog.
The article referred to a briefing note circulated which allowed
HMPO staff to drop checks on countersignatories, as well as requirements
for evidence of addresses and letters of confirmation from employers
and accountants.[33]
The Home Secretary responded by saying "Ministers were not
aware of the document … and they asked for it to be withdrawn
immediately", and emphasised that nobody would be examining
passport applications without proper training.[34]
32. Paul Pugh told us that the document in question
described "a procedural change in the processes that apply
to certain types of overseas application, particularly to evidence
that is required of … [a]n alternative address for applicants".
The guidance made it clear that discretion should only be applied
in those cases where the person considering the application was
satisfied on other evidence that there is no indication of fraud.
The guidance had not been seen by Ministers before it was issued,
which Mr Pugh admitted was an error on the part of HMPO.[35]
33. 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.
COMPENSATION, AND UPGRADING TO A
FAST-TRACK APPLICATION
34. One of the welcome contingency measures that
the Home Secretary announced was the fast-track upgrade of applications.
There are four levels of passport service, set out in the table
below.Table 3: Fees for passport services
| Service
| Description
| Fee
|
| Normal service | Online or by post
| £72.50 |
| Post Office
Check & Send
| Post Office counter staff check application is completed correctly, with correct documentation and fee, and send it by Special Delivery
| £81.25 |
| Fast Track | Applicant attends at Passport Office in person with application and supporting documentation; passport delivered to home address within one week
| £103.00 |
| Premium | Applicant attends at Passport Office in person with application and supporting documentation; passport available for collection on the same day
| £128.00 |
Source: https://www.gov.uk/passport-fees
35. To meet the criteria for an upgrade, applicants
were required to provide proof that they had booked to travel
within the next seven days, and their applications had to have
been with the Passport Office for longer than three weeks through
no fault of their own. On 22 July, James Brokenshire MP told us
that 16,000 applicants had made use of this upgrade.
36. A number of applicants, however, had already
upgraded their application before this contingency measure was
announced.[36] There
is no provision for these people to receive any compensation for
the additional cost. The Home Secretary told the House that "I
recognise that some people have paid sums of money to ensure that
their passport application was upgraded, and I have indicated
that for urgent travel in the future we will be doing that
free of charge".[37]
37. In addition to the extra cost for the fast-track
service, many applicants will have incurred extra costs by travelling
to HMPO offices to apply for or collect their passports in person.
Other applicants have had to rebook flights at a late stage at
significant cost, while those not so lucky have had to cancel
their travel plans completely. We raised these matters, and the
possibility of compensation, with Paul Pugh who told us "[w]e
have a very clear approach to compensation in relation to where
someone has suffered a financial detriment as a result of our
error".[38]
38. 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.
TWELVE-MONTH EXTENSION AND EMERGENCY
TRAVEL DOCUMENTS FOR CHILDREN
39. The Home Secretary also announced that those
who applied from overseas to renew their passports for travel
to the UK would have their existing passports extended for 12
months, and that the FCO would issue emergency travel documents
for children who needed to travel to the UK. However, people who
had already applied and whose applications were being processed
were told that if they wanted to use these contingency measures
they would have to withdraw their existing application, which
could take two weeks, and wait for their existing papers to be
returned before they could apply for the emergency provisions
and emergency travel papers instead.[39]
40. 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.
PRIORITISING THE BACKLOG OF APPLICATIONS
41. It is understood that the backlog of applications
was being dealt with in the order of travel date. However, this
caused problems as the date of travel is not always the date on
which someone needs their passport. For example, if a traveller
has to apply for a visa, or has to submit an Electronic System
for Travel Authorization (ESTA) visa waiver for travel to the
USA, they will need their passport some time before the date on
which they travel.[40]
42. 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.
ADVICE ON THE HMPO WEBSITE
43. By the point at which the delays were raised
in Parliament, it was obvious that usual service standards were
not being met. However, a problem raised by a number of Members
was that applicants were acting on the basis of advice on passport
forms and the HMPO website, which indicated a turnaround time
of three weeks. There has been no attempt to warn prospective
applicants that, due to high demand, passports may not be dealt
with within that time.[41]
44. In debate, Ministers seemed to dismiss this as
an issue, with the Home Secretary saying that the website had
"always indicated to people what the normal expected period
for a straightforward application is. … If there is a problem
with the application, it can take longer".[42]
Additionally, the Minister for Immigration stressed that the website
advised users that applications could take longer than the usual
three weeks, and to use a different service if they needed to
the passport urgently.[43]
45. 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.
Redeployment of staff
46. One of the key steps taken to deal with the backlog
was to increase the number of staff who were able to process passport
applications.[44] Mike
Jones, PCS, told us that an appeal for staff had been made to
Border Force, but due to staffing issues there, he was not aware
of any Border Force staff moving to HMPO. However, he was able
to confirm that staff had moved from the Passport Fraud section
to mainstream work. He was concerned, however, that these staff
would not have sufficient training to do the job effectively—only
one week, compared with six weeks for regular staff.[45]
Paul Pugh told us that 250 staff had been deployed into passport
processing from within the Agency, and that they intended to deploy
a further 400 staff from other parts of the Home Office to passport
processing and customer inquiries. He explained that staff were
being drawn from UK Visas and Immigration, because they were already
familiar with nationality law, so their training needs were considerably
less than those of "a brand new recruit fresh off the street".[46]
47. On 8 July, Mr Pugh told us that over 600 staff
had been brought in as part of the contingency measures. He expected
to keep those staff in place during the summer period and then
gradually to step them down.[47]
On 22 July, Sir Charles Montgomery KBE, Director General of Border
Force, confirmed that Border Force had lent 23 staff to HMPO,
but would call them back if the Border Force were experiencing
pressure points.[48]
48. 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.
Reviews to be undertaken
49. In order to prevent a recurrence of the problems
experienced by HM Passport Office this year, the Home Secretary
has asked the Permanent Secretary, Mark Sedwill, to conduct two
reviews:
a) the first review will ensure that HMPO works
as efficiently as possible, with better processes, better customer
service and better outcomes and will include a review by the head
of Home Office Science of HMPO's forecasting model;
b) the second review will consider HMPO's agency
status and look at whether it should be brought back into the
Home Office, reporting directly to Ministers, in line with other
parts of the immigration system since the abolition of the UK
Border Agency.[49]
The outcome of both reviews is expected later this
summer.[50]
22 HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 693-694 Back
23
Q 150 Back
24
HC Deb, 10 June 2014, col 517 Back
25
Q 31 Back
26
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 694 Back
27
Q 130 Back
28
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 702 Back
29
For example, see: HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1164; and Q 271 Back
30
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 697 Back
31
HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1138 Back
32
HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1141 Back
33
"Passport Office orders staff to relax application checks
to help clear backlog", The Guardian, 11 June 2014 Back
34
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 700-704 Back
35
Qs 122-125 Back
36
HC Deb, 10 June 2014, col 415 Back
37
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 702 Back
38
Q 164 Back
39
HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1131 Back
40
HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1163 Back
41
HC Deb, 10 June 2014, col 519, and HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1167 Back
42
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 701 Back
43
HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1175 Back
44
HC Deb, 12 June 2014, col 704 Back
45
Q 18-19 Back
46
Qs 118-119 and 168-170 Back
47
Q 245 Back
48
Oral evidence taken on 22 July 2014, The work of the Border Force,
HC (2014-15) 502, Q50 [Sir Charles Montgomery] Back
49
HC Deb, 18 June 2014, col 1145 Back
50
Her Majesty's Passport Office, Annual Report and Accounts 2013-2014,
HC 595, p5 Back
| 
