Conclusions and Recommendations
The emergence of a 'backlog'
1. 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. (Paragraph 12)
2. 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. (Paragraph 13)
3. 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. (Paragraph
16)
4. 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. (Paragraph 18)
Ministerial and managerial response
5. 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. (Paragraph 22)
6. 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.
(Paragraph 23)
7. 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. (Paragraph
24)
8. 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 (Paragraph 25)
9. 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. (Paragraph 29)
10. 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. (Paragraph
33)
11. 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. (Paragraph 38)
12. 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. (Paragraph 40)
13. 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. (Paragraph
42)
14. 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. (Paragraph 45)
15. 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. (Paragraph 48)
Offices and staffing
16. 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.
(Paragraph 52)
17. 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. (Paragraph 60)
18. 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.
(Paragraph 65)
19. 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. (Paragraph 69)
Applications from overseas
20. 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. (Paragraph 76)
21. 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
should be able to pay for in the overseas posts until the crisis
has passed as these will be quicker and more secure. (Paragraph
77)
Forecasting the level of demand
22. 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. (Paragraph
79)
Operating costs, revenue and
surplus
23. 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. (Paragraph 83)
24. 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. (Paragraph 86)
| 
