Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the relocation of the Information Commissioner’s Office on Tatton constituency.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Information Commissioner’s Office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public’s information rights. The ICO is headed by a commissioner. It is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, that is tasked with promoting openness from public bodies and ensuring data privacy for individuals. Those are principles rooted in transparency and openness, yet those principles have in recent months been somewhat absent from the ICO itself. That is why I called for this debate.

Last month, I was surprised to learn that the ICO’s head office, which has been based in Wilmslow for 40 years, will be relocating to the new Circle Square development on Oxford Road, Manchester, in autumn 2026, following the expiry of a current lease at Wycliffe House. I read this in a newspaper article and did not receive any official notice. It came as a shock not only to me but to the whole community.

Let me explain the history. The ICO first moved to Springfield House in Wilmslow in 1985. It then had just 10 employees. That figure rose to 80 by the end of the year, and the ICO now employs more than 1,000 individuals across the UK, the vast majority of whom are based in Wilmslow. The ICO is a significant employer in the town. The organisation is staffed by skilled professionals, from investigators and policy experts to technologists, lawyers and frontline support staff. All have played a critical role in delivering data protection. On top of that, this year, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 celebrates 20 years since the Act came into force, and the ICO is central to delivering that service to hold public authorities to account.

Like any well-established organisation that is rooted in a community, the ICO has become part of Wilmslow’s identity over the decades. Some 800 staff are based there. Many multi-generational families who have built their lives around the town have worked there and contributed to the ICO’s success.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady. The word is used often, but she is a champion for her constituents, who will today be impressed and proud of what she has done. On those 800 jobs, does she share my concern that there been no consultation about the impact on the local economy and the community? That is incredible. How can that happen without Government having some oversight and say in what happens?

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Member gets to the nub of the issue. The impact of the removal on the local community is huge, and the fact that a quango seems to be unaccountable to a sponsoring Department is incredible.

For the people I have mentioned, the decision to relocate is not a minor disruption. It affects livelihoods, housing, community patterns and personal finances. Wilmslow, the town that helped to build up the organisation and helped it to flourish, will suddenly and inexplicably have it removed, depleting the area of jobs and local trade for local businesses.

Despite the scale of the relocation’s impact, there have been no explanations or answers about it, and the questions that I have put to the Minister about the specific details of the move remain unanswered. Can you believe it, Mr Twigg? I have been reduced to submitting freedom of information requests about the ICO, the body that oversees freedom of information requests when an organisation does not answer questions—the irony. Therein lies the major issue with quangos—their unaccountability—for no answers have come forth from the Minister or the ICO, the public body tasked with upholding information rights.

I am now attempting again to get answers in Westminster Hall. First, residents want assurances that the decision was thoroughly considered and that there was a full assessment of the impact of moving the ICO out of Wilmslow. They want information about the consultation, if one was carried out at all, in the local area with local businesses. The Minister advised, however, that that is not required by the commissioner, but I want to ask: why is it not required? He did confirm that the commissioner carried out a consultation with its employees, but I want to know what sort of consultation and what was its outcome. What were the questions asked? What were the responses? What were the percentages?

Surely, in making its decision to uproot and leave Wilmslow for Manchester, the ICO must have done some impact assessments. I know that the Government do not like impact assessments, but quangos should be doing them. The ICO should have drawn up the costs and made some calculations about the move. If those calculations have been done, where are they?

Interestingly, the Minister explained that the move was based on “access to…skills” and the “age and diversity” of the workforce in Manchester, but those answers are nonsense. What was the problem with the skills, diversity and age of the people and staff in Wilmslow? What are the Minister and the ICO saying about Wilmslow and Cheshire in those comments? Let us remember that it was Wilmslow where the organisation grew from 10 employees to 1,000 employees, hundreds of them from in and around the Wilmslow area.

What exactly do the Minister and the commissioner mean when they say the “diversity” of the workforce? That sounds discriminatory to me against the people of Cheshire, Wilmslow and Tatton. In fact, I have heard that the Government are trying to include a socioeconomic duty into the Equality Act 2010, basically discriminating against the UK’s middle classes. I would say that this is a case in point. If not, can the Minister explain why it is not? I am hoping that the Minister has some information today about the staff who will remain in Wilmslow after the move. In response to my written question, the Government said that “76 desks” will remain there until 2030—not people, desks. Is that how they view the staff of Wilmslow and Cheshire? How many staff is that, what roles will they be covering and how long will they remain in Wilmslow?

What we do know is that the office in Manchester will be smaller, so people will be working from home. That is another question. On the day after it was exposed that an extraordinary Ministry of Defence data breach led to the Afghanistan relocation, surely tighter controls must be brought in to prevent such calamitous data breaches. If that is the case, why are staff at the ICO going to be working from home at all?

The new Manchester office is smaller, and it will house approximately 250 people. Do not be shocked, Mr Twigg, but you should know that there are smaller offices in Wilmslow, in the Wilmslow area and in Cheshire too. Let us look at the cost implications of the move, just for the office space. The average cost of an office on Water Lane, where the ICO is currently based, ranges from £15 to £25 a square foot. An office in Manchester’s new Circle Square development is between £30 and £45 per square foot, plus a service charge of £7.50 per square foot. For 250 employees, each needing about 100 square feet, the expected cost in Wilmslow would have been anywhere between £375,000 and £625,000, yet in Manchester, with the added service charge, we can expect the office to cost somewhere between £937,000 and £1,312,000. That is an increase in cost ranging between £562,000 and £687,000, which is a large discrepancy. Manchester is more expensive than Wilmslow. Although the commissioner and the Minister might not care about wasting taxpayers’ money, I do, my constituents do and the taxpayer picking up the bill does.

Those questions matter to staff and the local area but getting answers has been an uphill battle. Since the Minister confirmed limited details to me late last week, it appears that he has changed his mind. In a separate reply, he advised me that his Department has “no formal role” in the relocation, and that questions should be put to the ICO directly. Does he now think that the process was sped through, and is he distancing himself from that process?

The Minister says that the move was decided by the ICO, in line with the Treasury’s Green Book principles—really? Because one of those principles is value for money, which we know has just had a hole blown through it. It seems the move was approved by the Cabinet Office, but as the sponsoring Department knows nothing about the decisions, and as the ICO has not provided a basis for the move, how on earth did the Cabinet Office sign it off, and know what it was signing off?

The claim that it is not the responsibility of DSIT simply does not pass the test. The Department is responsible for the ICO’s strategic direction and financial management. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why so many people feel frustrated about buck-passing, which Departments so often do, and which simply avoids answering legitimate questions. What is the point of a sponsoring Department if it claims no role in such a significant strategic move? If the Minister overseeing the ICO cannot provide answers, who can?

The Minister advised in his answer to written questions to take queries “directly to the ICO”, but that ignores the role of the sponsoring Department as the link between Parliament and the ICO. There are no specific avenues for a Back-Bench MP to take questions to the ICO on behalf of constituents. The Information Commissioner appears before the Select Committee as and when, with the last appearance in 2023 on promoting and enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and looking at the backlog and complaints.

There is no requirement for the commissioner to reply to MPs’ correspondence or to meet set response deadlines. In essence, there is no clear or guaranteed route for a parliamentarian to scrutinise an ICO decision. That is further complicated by the structure of the ICO, which operates as a corporation sole, meaning that the commissioner holds the office individually rather than through a board.

I understand that the ICO is going through a governance reform and has appointed an interim chief executive officer, meaning that the commissioner will become the chair of the new information commission. Those reforms must come with improved mechanisms for scrutiny. If there is such confidence in the decision to relocate, why is no evidence being produced for that move? Equally, for an institution grounded in accountability and transparency, why is there no direct access for parliamentarians to question the ICO? I have to ask: why the secrecy?

Questions about the organisation’s operational moves are not limited to the office relocation. There have been growing concerns about financial stewardship. The ICO’s expenditure grew by 15% in 2023-24, and the organisation faced a deficit that was only recently alleviated by a change in fee structure. People had to pay more because the ICO was spending more—again, where is the accountability? Put together, these concerns paint a picture of a public body lacking clear financial constraint—or restraint—and public accountability.

Here lies a problem we see all too often in our political system: arm’s length bodies that receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money going without proper regulation or oversight. The ICO is just one of more than 300 arm’s length bodies in the UK, collectively employing around 397,000 staff. These organisations carry significant public responsibility and receive billions of pounds in taxpayer funding, yet they operate without adequate transparency and, unlike ministerial Departments, are not uniformly regulated.

The Public Bodies Act 2011 requires a management agreement between a body and its sponsoring Department, but the exact terms are left for them to decide. I understand that DSIT became the ICO’s sponsoring Department in 2023, and that a new management agreement is currently being finalised. Can the Minister provide an update on that process and confirm whether it will include stronger provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency?

The concerns I bring to the House are not complex ones about the move and accountability, nor are they unreasonable. The simple fact that these questions go unanswered undermines public trust in these organisations and brings into question the control and oversight of these bodies. Residents of Wilmslow and the ICO’s employees deserve to know this information and the reasons for the move.

We must not forget that, when decisions of this scale are made, they will not go unnoticed. It comes back to the very simple principles that the ICO was founded on and continues to serve: transparency, openness and upholding trust in our public institutions. It is not good enough merely to talk about those issues; they deserve decisive action.

I am putting all these questions on the record. I fully understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all of them today, and I will accept as many answers as he can give. But what I would appreciate—no, I will go further: what I expect following this debate is a letter with all those answers. I see the Minister’s civil servants seated behind him, so I should be assured that that can and will be delivered, as everyone who needs to be here for those answers is present.