Written evidence submitted by the Welsh
Liberal Democrats
BACKGROUND
1.1 The Welsh Liberal Democrats noted with concern
the announcement on the 8 October 2010 that the Identity and Passport
Service was intending to close its office in Newport and have
opposed this decision from the outset.
1.2 The Welsh Liberal Democrat group in the National
Assembly has tabled a Statement of Opinion to encourage members
of the National Assembly to express their opposition to the proposed
closure. The party has also formally expressed its wish that "the
proposal to close the Newport Passport office to be reversed".
(See Appendices one and two).[14]
1.3 Likewise, Newport City Council, on which
Welsh Liberal Democrats form part of the administration, is opposed
to the closure of the Newport Passport Office and the estimated
loss of 300 jobs.
ARGUMENTS
2.1 Whilst we acknowledge that there are many
arguments against the closure of the Newport Passport Office,
we wish to particularly highlight three; the impact on the Newport
economy, the potential for greater savings to the IPS from other
courses of action and the impact on the image of Wales as a nation.
2.2 Firstly, we note that three hundred
jobs will be lost in Newport as a result of this decision. Compared
to the location of other Passport Offices, Newport is relatively
a more deprived area and we believe that it will have more of
an impact on the local economy than elsewhere. For example, Newport
was recently rated as the 28th most competitive city
in the United Kingdom, despite receiving a significant boost in
the last year.[15]
We believe that therefore there will be a bigger impact on the
local economy by the closure of the Newport Office than reductions
in staffing numbers elsewhere. Welsh Liberal Democrats fully support
efforts to reduce the deficit but believe that the cost of doing
so should be borne equitably by all part of the UK. We do not
believe that this decision by the IPS would achieve that responsibility.
2.3 Secondly, we note that there has been
a drive over several decades to decentralise many government departments
outside of areas with expensive land and labour costs. This has
two benefits; firstly in cutting costs and secondly in spreading
the mechanisms of Governmetn across many parts of the UK. We believe
that the costs of owning or renting in Newport are substantially
lower than in other parts of the country and that the city must
therefore be considered as a lower-cost alternative to other areas
of the country. We do not concur with the IPS that this represents
the best value closure for the Service.
2.4 Thirdly, we note that this decision
will leave Wales as the only nation in Europe without its own
Passport Office. This will not only disadvantage many millions
of people from Wales, and the south-west of England, who are able
to use this office but will suggest that the IPS is not willing
to spread its work across all of the United Kingdom. The Identity
and Passport Service is a retained matter, and, as its work relates
the whole of the United Kingdom, its business operations should
seek to reflect that. Closure of the Newport Passport Office would
be a retrograde step. It would also disadvantage Wales by reducing
its visibility across the United Kingdom and the world.
CONCLUSION
3.1 In conclusion, we would like to re-iterate
our formal opposition to the closure of the the Newport Passport
Office on the grounds that it does not meet important tests of
economic impact, financial savings or maintaining the UK-wide
nature of the IPS.
3.2 We would strongly urge the IPS to reverse
its decision to close the Newport Passport Office.
8 November 2010
14 Not printed. Back
15
Robert Huggins and Piers Thompson, UK Competitiveness Index 2010,
(UWIC 2010). Back
| 
