I know I'm endless on this stuff, but quite a lot of us did make representations in consultation responses upon the founding of this new UK national body. We said it was important to get the location right. We were told we'd been heard and there was a process. There wasn't.

You can read our submission here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jsZEpubXj10wGJMsMcJ80uxBPJfSZRqegcEuomzGc0s/edit?usp=sharing

The scope of the organisation is significantly expanded due to Brexit. There was a promise from a Minister in government at the time that all new government bodies created due to Brexit would be placed outside of the M25. Maybe London is the right place for it I should add.

But as far as I can see there has been none of the promised discussion about that. Perhaps I've missed it (please @ me with a link) but I can't see where the discussion about location happened, the case for London was made and won. I'd just like to see that. London is fine.

But London by default in 2021 after your consultation generated a lot of people saying that location mattered,.... nah.

In 2004, Sir Michael Lyons published his report on government relocation. My memory is that it says that creating new bodies outside of London was preferable to moving existing jobs, and thus people and families. And indeed this is still the strongest argument against relocation.

So creating a new body then just putting it in London by default is a real disappointment. London hasn't even been considered and chosen as far as I can see. It's just been defaulted to. And now it's too late. Big staff, most senior people in London, it's too late to change.

The UK government saying explicitly that "data and digital is the core of everything we think government should be, digital and data will allow government to be more centralised than ever before, and therefore data and digital capacity will be central and in London" would help.

People might disagree, but we could start planning around it and stop fighting the tide. I hope we get clarity this year.