Her Majesty's Passport Office: delays in processing applications - Home Affairs Committee Contents


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 serviceOnline 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 TrackApplicant attends at Passport Office in person with application and supporting documentation; passport delivered to home address within one week £103.00
PremiumApplicant 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


 
previous page contents next page


© Parliamentary copyright 2014
Prepared 16 September 2014