MPs call for abolition of agency status of passport office

passport office delays

The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons publishes its report, Her Majesty’s Passport Office: delays in processing applications.

Conclusions

Ministerial and managerial response

The contingency measures announced by the Government to respond to the backlog of cases at the passport office too little, too late, for this summer holiday period.
The Home Office should remove the agency status from Her Majesty’s Passport Office (HMPO) and bring it back under the direct control of Ministers. The HMPO should still retain a separate Director General as the Home Secretary has done previously with the former UK Border Agency (UKBA).
Members of the public who did not contact their MPs were held in queues and their cases were not dealt with a sufficient level of service. 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.
The proposal that security checks in the examination of passport applications be relaxed, a quick fix for a temporary problem, had the potential to do significant damage to the UK’s national interests and national security. We are alarmed that such measures were even contemplated, and the Home Secretary was right to intervene to have the new guidance withdrawn.
A number of people have ended up out of pocket due to HMPO’s inability to meet its service standard. HMPO should 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.

The emergence of a ‘backlog’

The Home Office has persistently raised service standards as a defence when there are delays in dealing with casework. These service standards are arbitrary and set by Home Office Officials in line with what they believe to be the correct level of service. We are yet to be convinced by this defence.
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. 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.
In order for Parliament and the public to be aware of the backlog in processing applications we recommend the on-line publication of weekly operational data, including the work in progress level.

Applications from overseas

Regardless of where they are anywhere in the world, UK citizens should be able to receive a standard level of service.
The transfer has been poorly handled, and the appropriate questions about business resilience were not 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.

Offices and staffing

The HMPO must have the right number of staff, and the right mix to deal with peaks in demand, as evidenced by the extremely high use of overtime so far this year.
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.

Forecasting the level of demand

HMPO 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. Where the holder’s passport will expire during the period of peak demand, they might be offered a reduction in the application fee to submit their application a few months earlier in order to smooth out the level of demand over the year.

Operating costs, revenue and surplus

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. Whilst it is right that applicants are asked to cover the cost of the passport, it is clear that the price is too high, which is resulting in repeated, large surpluses. Prices should be set at a break-even point, 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.

Chair's comments

Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chairman of the Committee, said:

“This has been a summer of chaos at the passport office. At its peak, the backlog of passport applications reached half a million, with British citizens unable to go on holiday and sick children unable to return to Britain. The state should not be exploiting its own citizens by making a profit on what is a basic right. A British passport, an essential document for travel by British citizens, had become the subject of emergency statements and crisis management.

There has been a complete management failure at the highest levels of the organisation. Despite making a surplus of £124 million over the past 2 years, making record overtime payments and giving its chief executive a salary larger than the Home Secretary's it is scandalous that bonuses of £674,000 have been awarded during this period. The management of this organisation would be unlikely to survive to the final round of " The Apprentice". The HMPO should lose its agency status and be brought back under direct ministerial control following this appalling series of failures.

They have delivered a shamefully poor service to the estimated 5.6 million British citizens living abroad. The decision to transfer responsibility for processing overseas passport applications from the FCO to the HMPO was a mistake. The focus has been on departmental budgets, rather than on providing a service paid for by citizens.”