The future of the Newport Passport Office - Welsh Affairs Committee Contents


Supplementary written evidence submitted by Newport City Council

Letter to Damian Green MP, Minister for Immigration, Home Office from Councillor Matthew Evans, Leader of the Council, Newport City Council

When I gave evidence to the recent hearing of the Parliamentary Welsh Affairs Committee in which I highlighted key areas of concern, I had hoped for greater levels of transparency from IPS as a result of the Committee's deliberations. I regret, however, that we are still receiving only very limited levels of cooperation in our efforts to fully understand the processes being followed by IPS. It is important that the rationale for the proposed closure and the assessment methodologies being adopted are fully articulated by IPS and understood by all parties, otherwise the lasting impression will be that key considerations have not been taken into account and that unsafe and inaccurate conclusions have been reached. This is so important, given that a decision to close, or substantially down scale, the IPS presence here will have such a devastating impact on the future prospects for our City.

Clearly, one of my principal concerns is the social and economic impact of the proposed job losses. A significant number of Newport Passport Office staff live within the City of Newport, where strenuous efforts are already being made to deal with some of the worst community deprivation in Wales. Other staff live in our adjoining local authorities, towns and communities, which are also suffering their own severe challenges in addressing both economic and social deprivation. With the current austerity measures taking hold and reducing recruitment capacity across both the public and private sectors in Wales, it is highly unlikely that the 250+ affected IPS individuals will find appropriate alternative skilled employment within the area, adding to an already over-burdened UK welfare benefits system.

The proposed closure/part-closure will also significantly affect the reputation and economy of Newport's City centre. Wales' only Urban Regeneration Company, Newport Unlimited, was established in 2003 to help turn the city's economy around following thousands of job losses in the area. Following a much needed commitment by public sector partners over the past seven years, aimed at bringing in future private sector investment, our City's economy is now very delicately balanced. Important steps have been taken towards creating a more self sustaining economy for Newport, but we have not been immune to the economic downturn. Securing and retaining investment and employment that reinforces the heart of the City is our absolute top priority. The retention of the Passport Office is therefore all the more important when considering the challenging process that we have embarked upon to secure a private sector partner to deliver a significant and pivotal retail development in the centre of Newport. A decision to close or substantially reduce the scale of the Passport Office at this stage will not only discourage retailers and developers from considering Newport as a viable option, but will also send out negative messages to other potential business investors who may wish to consider Newport in the coming years.

So significant are our concerns about the robustness of the 'Full Data Package' provided to justify the rationale for the Newport closure, that we have taken the decision to commission specialist economic analysts Aecom to undertake an independent assessment of the IPS material. This work is still in progress, but has very importantly identified a number of key issues so far which cast serious doubt on the conclusions reached by the IPS. The most serious concerns that I would wish to draw your attention to are;

  1. The failure of IPS to provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis.
  2. The limited range of options or scenarios that have been analysed.
  3. Fundamental inconsistencies in the criteria weightings which have been applied.
  4. The apparent lack of sensitivity testing.

DETAILED COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The IPS Full Data Package indicates that a Multi-Criteria Analysis approach has been adopted but only examines the internal costs of office closure from a narrow perspective. It does not report any detailed cost benefit analysis to show the overall impacts of proposed changes, for example local social & economic impact. The Treasury Green Book is clear that Multi Criteria Analysis should not be a substitute for Cost Benefit Analysis.

LIMITED RANGE OF OPTIONS

The Treasury Green Book is clear about the process of selecting and testing options and the need for it to be wide-ranging, but this approach does not seem to have been followed completely in the IPS analysis. The objective of the IPS analysis appears to focus on the single purpose of "closure" and therefore only a limited range of scenarios or options have been examined. In addition, the options that are carried forward do not include a "do-nothing" scenario. Alternative options such as reducing excess capacity across all centres are also not carried forward in order to see if alternative options might be found with a lower overall cost to society.

Reference is made to a partial closure option being discarded at an earlier stage of analysis. However, the headline costs and benefits of this option which led to this decision are not expanded on in detail in the note. Arguments are mounted to suggest that this option is not feasible. However, paragraph 7.6 suggests the Durham option is also not feasible and yet it is included in the short-listing. This runs counter to the Green Book principles.

The inconsistencies in defining the options and the narrow range of scenarios examined continues to leave doubts in the veracity and objectivity of the option appraisal process and, therefore, confidence that the selected option truly demonstrates value for money to the public purse.

INCONSISTENCIES IN CRITERIA WEIGHTINGS

There appear to be internal inconsistencies in the presentation of the approach taken to weighting in the IPS Full Data Package. It is not clear that equal weighting is given to each of the criteria as there are in fact 20 rather than six criteria which contribute to the analysis, thus potentially skewing the results. Greater clarity is needed to ratify the range of criteria adopted and more explanation as to the basis of weighting the criteria.

NO SENSITIVITY TESTING

Sensitivity tests are needed to determine how much the option analysis may be affected by different weighting assumptions. IPS have suggested that the result of their assessments gives a "clear view"—recommending the Newport Passport Office for closure. The IPS view appears, however, to be based on only a very small margin of tolerance, with Newport ranking only two points above Peterborough and six points above Durham, out of an overall total potential score of 100.

I am sure you will agree that it is important for all of us to work together to ensure that when a final decision is made about the Passport Office in Newport that it is based on robust analysis which can be reported clearly. It is also important that the decision minimises what might be seen as unintended consequences that would be so detrimental to the economy of Newport.

December 2010



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 3 February 2011