Supports Paul Blomfield's argument, highlighting that jobs are also being moved from Darlington to London.

Questions the message sent about the Government’s commitment to a northern powerhouse when closing down offices in the constituency of the Minister responsible for it.

Highlights the risk of losing expertise, particularly in insolvency services during economic challenges like the steel crisis and BHS collapse.

Congratulates Paul Blomfield on securing the debate. Points out that other Departments, such as Education, do not agree with centralising policy jobs in London and share a building with BIS staff without issues.

Thanked his right hon. Friend for her robust questioning of the permanent secretary at the Public Accounts Committee regarding BIS jobs being moved to London. He expressed concern over silo thinking within Government and the impact on local growth. The Department's move to centralise policy functions in London is seen as counterproductive given its responsibility for innovation and encouraging local growth.

Questioned the logic of moving BIS policy operations to London despite Government’s Estate Strategy promoting decentralisation. Emphasised that modern IT allows officials to work remotely, which would also encourage local regeneration and growth.

Responded to Alex Cunningham's comments, agreeing that the move flies in the face of logic and innovation. He criticised BIS for putting cost-cutting measures ahead of strategic thinking and proper consultation with trade unions.

Asked if the process outlined by Paul Blomfield should involve proper consultation with relevant trade unions, highlighting the importance of employee input in such decisions.

Acknowledged Chris Stephens' point and stated he would seek assurances from the Minister regarding the consideration of alternative proposals put forward by trade unions. He also emphasised that centralisation contradicts Government policy on diversifying civil service recruitment outside London.

Agreed with Paul Blomfield, pointing out the challenges of centralisation for both north and south. She highlighted issues like congestion, overheating in London, and affordability for graduates.

Concluded by raising four key questions to the Minister regarding the assessment of costs, alignment with Government objectives, impact on northern powerhouse agenda, and consideration of alternative options. He urged the Minister to reconsider the closure decision in light of these concerns.

I addressed my remarks to the contradictions between 'BIS 2020' and other Government strategies such as devolution, northern powerhouse and Government estate strategy. I highlighted the concentration of civil service jobs in London despite efforts to decentralise these services. I support rationalisation if it does not affect efficiency but questioned the logic behind the decision to close BIS sites in Sheffield while maintaining 1600 policy positions in London. This is based on advice from McKinsey and does not align with the Government's stated aim of spreading civil service jobs across the country.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted inconsistencies between the Government’s ‘northern powerhouse’ initiative and their decision to move BIS jobs from Sheffield to London, stating that this contradicts claims of transferring powers and responsibilities out of London.

Mr Mowat argued that the northern powerhouse initiative is not just about public sector investment but also requires private sector involvement. He defended Mr Donnelly's position, stating that while cost efficiency might be achieved by having policy makers in one location, it does not necessarily mean better strategy formulation. Mowat criticised the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) relocation plan as contradictory to the Government’s estate strategy and called for clarification on why this policy applies only to BIS. He proposed a 'double hub and spoke' model as an alternative that could save money while maintaining effectiveness. Mowat also raised concerns about exacerbating current public spending disparities in London if BIS staff are relocated there.

I support the hon. Member for Sheffield Central in his and our shared endeavour to have the National Audit Office look at a decision that remains wholly unjustified and entirely opaque in the way it has been reached. BIS took an unwise political decision to offer up far greater cuts than was justified or necessary compared with other Whitehall Departments, leading to this rather desperate attempt to create the impression of savings through the announced closure of the Sheffield office. The only concrete saving figure is £1.54 million, which is a tiny amount given the loss of expertise and disruption incurred. The decision also flies in the face of Government's stated policy on moving civil servants out of expensive Whitehall accommodation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central on securing this debate on a worthwhile subject. It is welcome that a matter affecting his constituency has brought this debate to the Floor of the House. I hope places such as Torbay will be considered when relocating Government Departments out of London. The plan for a public service hub in Torquay could regenerate a site around the Riviera International Centre and provide high-skilled jobs with cost savings for the Government. It is important that we do not have reviews only when a lease expires but proactively consider opportunities to relocate departments.

Critiques the Government's decision to cut jobs in Sheffield, questioning whether such cuts are wise. Cites a response from the Minister and highlights that we do not know if the decision is right due to lack of transparency. Requests for the McKinsey report which has cost £200,000 but remains unpublished, stressing the need for proper scrutiny of the decision. Points out the disparity in job losses between London and regional areas since 2010. Emphasises the importance of civil service expertise and knowledge lost due to closures, advocating for a National Audit Office assessment of the proposal.

Supports the debate and mentions concerns from Cardiff regarding the move of 20 jobs in the Companies House policy and analytical unit to London. Expresses worry over lack of consultation with staff affected and calls for clarity on decision rationale. Acknowledges positive impact of Government estates strategy but contrasts it with negative sentiment due to BIS announcement.

In support, acknowledges the value of civil service jobs in Newport and emphasises the importance of protecting regional jobs across the country. Requests reiteration of job value and importance from other speakers.

I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who have worked hard to secure the debate and the cross-party support it has gained. I hope the Minister is starting to understand that we are not going to go away on this issue. This decision has been extraordinary: in one fell swoop, BIS Ministers have delivered a thumbs down to the northern powerhouse, a thumbs down to the taxpayer and a thumbs down to their ministerial colleagues who wax lyrical about the benefits of having key staff outside Whitehall. Crucial board meetings are scheduled for this month, following the end of the consultation. I urge the Minister to go into them with an open mind and to relay the points that have been made here today. First and foremost, I hope she understands that, for people in our city, a decision to close the Sheffield office would be highly symbolic; it would be a signal of the London-centric contempt for the north and for the skill and perspective of northerners—a contempt that has prevailed for far too long. The “BIS 2020” plan appears to reinforce that contempt for a regional perspective, with the London headquarters strengthened while regional posts carrying out vital work are threatened. We would have expected the Department to support such a significant decision—to move all policy-making expertise from a northern centre into a London HQ—with some reasoning. When I was granted my urgent question, the debate on which has been widely quoted today, the Minister assured me that the decision was part of a cost-saving programme, but officials and Ministers have told us time and time again that a cost-benefit analysis for this decision does not exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and others have said, the admitted cost is far, far higher in London than it would be in Sheffield, Bristol, Cardiff, Darlington or Salford. As the Minister well knows, taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for the office space in Sheffield anyway, as the entire building is leased by the DFE. Furthermore, BIS is one of the few Departments in Whitehall without enough space to accommodate staff adequately, so further centralisation will mean that a rent review is almost certain to hike up the rent yet again. And for what purpose? So far, the only possible reason we have been able to ascertain is the benefit of London water-cooler conversations. Well, those conversations at BIS must be very good indeed. However, there has been no individual analysis of exactly why they outweigh the unique perspective and institutional memory of staff in Sheffield. Instead, we have seen more tired old thinking from senior Whitehall officials, who, when asked what they wanted the Department to look like in 2020, came back with the same old Whitehall answer: all employees should be within eyesight and earshot of the permanent secretary and the Minister. It is astonishing that, in place of evidence, we seem to have a seriously consequential decision that is costing taxpayers money and reversing Government policy but that is based on lazy assumptions and flimsy justifications. In the months since the decision was announced, there has been no sense from Ministers or departmental officials that they recognise the exceptionalism of the Sheffield BIS office. Research excellence in the Sheffield region is second to none, with two fantastic universities at the cutting edge of innovation. That work is supported fantastically by BIS’s multibillion pound budget, which is directed from Sheffield. Just a few months ago, researchers from Sheffield University helped to confirm Einstein’s theory of relativity, which will unlock the secrets of the universe—not a bad record. Sheffield is also the only office outside Whitehall carrying out high-level policy functions. A Government report from 2010 tells us why that matters. It said: power and career opportunities will only truly move out of London when significant parts of the core policy departments are moved. That is exactly what we already have in Sheffield and what we put at risk with this decision. The Sheffield office could become the eyes and ears of the northern resurgence. Instead, we will have a centralised BIS, alongside a Department for Communities and Local Government with a northern powerhouse Minister whose entire staff is based in London, and a Treasury producing its template devolution deals exclusively from London, with no understanding of the geographical and socioeconomic challenges. That gets to the heart of the reasons why moving civil servants out of London is a decades-old mantra: cost and perspective. The Smith report, which I just mentioned, wanted to move civil servants out of London to bring government closer to the people and “stimulate economic vibrancy”. The report was hardly groundbreaking; in fact, it was based on decades of movement away from Whitehall—something the Minister’s colleagues are encouraging as part of the March Budget. The Ministry of Justice has announced a large-scale move away from London, and the DFE is waxing lyrical about its regional base and is looking to expand it further. That is because doing that is cheaper, and having powerful civil servants in other regions can only be a good thing. In trying to justify this decision, the Minister will no doubt be adamant that the plan will continue the existing arrangement, with more of her civil servants outside London than in it. Even ignoring the importance of policy-making clout, the leaked report that has been referenced today has revealed that even that argument does not hold water: all the jobs under threat are distinctly regional, including those in places such as Lancaster, Cardiff and Bristol, to name just a few. The Skills Funding Agency, with its vast majority of regional staff, who are working hard to deliver the Government’s apprenticeship target, is set to be slashed. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which has been doing vital work in getting to the bottom of the slow-burning productivity crisis, is set to go entirely. Rotherham, a town where public sector jobs act as ballast, will be left counting the cost. The entire “BIS 2020”plan looks like a perverse counter to the northern and regional powerhouse agenda: slash jobs in the regions, take no account of the importance of local economies and centralise the Department’s work in London. If hon. Members think I am leaping to conclusions about the way in which BIS HQ in Whitehall instinctively adopts a London-centric approach that is totally at odds with the devolution of power to a northern powerhouse, they can look at the details of a seminar given to BIS employees early last year by McKinsey and Company—the same company that authored the report into this restructuring. An item on the agenda, which I and other hon. Members have seen, read how can London ensure it outstrips rival cities. This is the same city whose infrastructure spending is more than every other UK city’s combined, at £45 billion. BIS’s mission statement says the Department will achieve its objectives by having the right people, in the right place, at the right time. How on earth does this strategy achieve that stated aim? The Minister and senior officials may not appreciate it, but there is a reason why an idea that few of their colleagues sign up to, that damages the northern powerhouse and that costs the taxpayer money is not such a good idea. I urge the Minister to use the end of the consultation to think again. She should think about what message these proposals send and what damage they do, and she should put a halt to this decision, which will reverse a decades-long progressive trend of moving civil servants out of London.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) not only on leading the charge in the debate, but on his quite excellent forensic analysis of why this is a deeply flawed policy decision. The dispersal of Government offices has been argued for for many years—from as far back as the early 1960s. Although this is not a new debate, therefore, it may be wise to rehearse some of the reasons why dispersal can be forcefully argued for. I would like to focus in my short speech on just three. First, on cost, it will be considerably more cost-effective to locate Departments in Sheffield or Kirkcaldy than in overheated London. A number of hon. Members have pointed to the fact that they cannot find, or cannot get released, any detailed cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps that is not surprising if no proper cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken in the first place. Secondly, this is about not just the cost of dispersal but the benefits to the recipient regions. In particular, if dispersal happens in areas that have relatively weak economies compared with London, the benefit of even a few hundred well-paid and secure jobs can be considerable. Many towns in the north of England would benefit greatly if there was more dispersal out of London. The third point I want to raise, which is much less talked about generally, although a number of hon. Members have raised it today, is the benefit to Government intelligence and decision making. It is unhealthy for all key decision makers and advisers to be based in one location, particularly if that location is out of character with the rest of the country. Dispersal provides an opportunity for better engagement. When we presented the case for this debate at the Backbench Business Committee, I argued that one of the problems is that this decision seems to reek of groupthink by the Government. To put it in a slightly more academic fashion, it reminded me of reading for the first time the work of Kenneth Hammond on his cognitive continuum theory, with which I know everybody is deeply familiar. He argued that decision making can be on a continuum from highly intuitive, at one extreme, to highly analytic, at the other extreme, with a mix in between. It strikes me that the reason why a lot of evidence cannot be provided for this decision is that it reeks more of intuition than of detailed analysis of the true benefit. In the Backbench Business Committee, I was asked why a Scottish MP would want to speak in this debate. Perhaps, without wishing to be accused of any arrogance, there might be one or two examples that could be brought from Scotland to show the benefit of dispersal.

He discussed the distribution of civil service jobs in Scotland, highlighting that several key buildings and executive non-departmental public bodies are located outside Edinburgh. He provided examples such as lifelong learning institutions being placed closer to higher education centres, which he argued offers better access for principals from colleges and easier engagement with senior officials compared to locations south of the border. Additionally, he mentioned that cabinet meetings in Scotland have been held in various regional cities over the years to engage with local populations.

He congratulated Paul Blomfield on securing the debate and expressed concern about the contradiction between government policy on devolution, particularly the concept of the 'northern powerhouse', and the decision to move civil service jobs from Sheffield to London. He emphasised that while the Communities and Local Government Committee welcomed the Government’s commitment to devolution, moving jobs southward undermines this approach. Betts questioned the rationale behind the relocation, requesting cost-benefit analyses or clear justification for such a move.

Expressed gratitude towards the Backbench Business Committee and hon. Member for Sheffield Central, praised colleagues on Public Accounts Committee for their contributions. Criticised BIS's 'hub and spoke' concept and called for clarity and transparency regarding decisions made by Government. Emphasised the need to release work done on McKinsey report for proper scrutiny. Highlighted concerns from constituencies benefiting from job dispersal policies, particularly Scottish Members interested in Minister’s comments about Glasgow being an initial centre of excellence. Advocated for decentralisation as it promotes healthier decision-making processes and benefits less expensive regions.

Esterson argues that closing BIS in Sheffield undermines regional development efforts, including the northern powerhouse. He highlights inconsistencies between government rhetoric and actions regarding regional offices. Additionally, he suggests that using technology like video conferencing could facilitate remote work and maintain expertise without relocating staff to London.

Acknowledged Paul Blomfield's securing of the debate and emphasised that tough decisions need to be made in light of financial constraints. Highlighted the importance of an efficient and effective way of working within BIS, suggesting a single-site policy headquarters as the best solution. Noted that 83% of BIS staff will continue to work outside London despite potential changes. Emphasised the Department's commitment to support all affected staff members regardless of the decision made.

Suggested that the proposal is purely cost-cutting, challenging Anna Soubry's argument that it involves more than just financial considerations.

Intervened briefly but was not allowed to speak due to time constraints.

Asked a question which Anna Soubry did not have time to address due to the time limit imposed by the debate rules.

Expressed gratitude towards another hon. Gentleman for his support, acknowledged the Minister's statement that no final decision has been taken and noted the lack of a cost assessment as extraordinary. Called for a decision to be made and commended the motion.