1: The consolidation of the ONS in Newport
The decision to move the majority of jobs at the ONS’ office in London to Newport was a result of the 2004 Lyons Review looking at the location of public sector jobs, with a stated aim to ‘boost regional economic growth.’ But subsequent analysis suggests that this move has not been especially successful at having a wider economic impact on Newport.
In 2005-06, 1,000 jobs were relocated from London to an already established site in Newport with 1,400 existing jobs located there. As many as nine in 10 staff members chose not to follow their job, with just seven civil servants in senior positions opting to do so.11
While we don’t know the reasons as to why so many people chose not to move, looking at the depth of the labour market in Newport certainly shows that this did not provide any great incentive. In 2006, 12 per cent of jobs in Newport were knowledge-based, placing it 47 out of 62 cities. And the number of jobs in statistics is likely to have been much smaller still. This means that job opportunities and career progression outside of the ONS in Newport would have been very few and research suggests that these are key factors in attracting highly skilled people.12
These 900 jobs have of course been filled. But for the same reasons as above doing this in Newport is much more difficult than in a deeper labour market such as London. Evidence given in the Bean Review of the ONS suggests that this has impacted on the quality of work done in the ONS in recent years.
The nature of the ONS’ work and its location also mean that its wider multiplier on the Newport economy is likely to have been small. Because of the sensitive nature of what it does, the ONS rightly does not interact with external bodies as much as, say, a Whitehall department does. But the implication is that the relocation does not bring with it other jobs in related activities.
The location of the campus is likely to have been important too for any multiplier effect – the positioning of the ONS campus on an out of town site has limited the demand for local services such as shops and restaurants (although we would still expect to see some positive effects on local services within the travel to work areas for ONS employees). A visit to the site suggests that no immediate local services are sustained by its presence. This means that, unlike the BBC relocation analysis that follows, a more thorough look at employment and business location around the ONS site has not been done.13
This suggests that the move of these jobs has done little for Newport beyond the actual jobs themselves, while it may have had a negative impact on the quality of the ONS output. In terms of the former, the nature of the ONS may mean that it wasn’t the best body to choose to relocate if bringing a wider economic benefit to Newport was the goal. In terms of the latter, this may have been mitigated if the ONS had been moved to a deeper, more highly-skilled labour market where recruitment is easier.