The Government has provided limited detail on the justification for moving civil servants out of Whitehall and exaggerated the success of the flagship element of levelling up policy, MPs have said.

The cross-party Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said key announcements on the programme were made in a “somewhat piecemeal fashion” without accompanying details of the policy’s rationale, targets, costs and benefits.

This “striking” lack of published information on the relocation policy hinders scrutiny of its “design and progress” and makes it hard to assess whether the relocation target is “sufficiently ambitious, or indeed realistic”, the committee concluded.

The Government aims to open 30 regional hubs, largely in cities outside London, while closing older regional offices around the UK.

The report said the Government has not provided adequate analysis on both the economic impact on towns where offices are axed and the benefits to areas hosting new hubs.

A target to relocate 22,000 civil service posts away from London by 2030 has been set under the places for growth programme.

In March this year, it was announced that 11,000 civil servants had been relocated.

However, the report said while the figure indicates good progress, a lack of clear information “makes it difficult to judge how substantial achievements are”.

The committee highlighted a lack of clarity on the Government’s definition of a relocated post created a risk of “confusion over what it is committing to achieve”.

It was generally assumed the overall number of civil servants in London would have to fall to reach the 22,000 target for relocations.

However, with the volume of London-based civil servants continuing to rise, the Cabinet Office confirmed to the committee that the target does not take into account “other activities” that would lead to an increase in officials in the capital.

Therefore, the Government is not committing to reduce the total number of civil servants in London by 22,000 from a baseline level set in a particular year.

This means the target is largely being achieved by recruiting new civil servants to vacancies in regional offices rather than moving officials out of Whitehall.

The report said the Government is “essentially relying on a counterfactual narrative that all the posts newly recruited to regional offices… would have been filled in London if not for the programme”.

“This makes external scrutiny of the Government’s self-reported progress difficult,” it added.

Under the places for growth plan, the Government has also committed to ensuring 50% of senior civil service roles will be based outside London by 2030.

The report said the Government “appears to be moving in the right direction, albeit slowly” to reaching this target, with 255 senior roles relocated as of November 2022.

However, the report said there had been “over-enthusiastic presentation of progress”.

In September 2022, the Cabinet Office reported: “The number of senior UK civil servants now based in Glasgow has grown by 1,400% under the scheme, with 30 senior officials now permanently located in the city.”

MPs said the use of this percentage figure was mathematically correct yet “hyperbolic” and “likely to mislead”.

The report said: “Given the total is 30 posts, the rise of 1,400% must describe an increase merely of 28 posts, from an original two posts.

“The use of this figure suggests a wish to dress up the progress that has been achieved as something more grandiose.”

It later added: “In some of its communications [the Cabinet Office] is adopting a boosterish approach to reporting progress, which is likely to give an exaggerated picture of its achievements.”

The report also highlighted concerns over a lack of methodology guiding decisions on where civil service posts should moved to and from.

It added observers had raised questions over whether decisions were “excessively driven by personal or political calculations, poorly co-ordinated across government, or taken without due consideration of local impacts”.

The committee added a decision by the Treasury to open an economic campus in Darlington “has been linked with the close proximity of the town to then chancellor Rishi Sunak’s constituency and with the suggestion that Darlington is a key ‘red wall’ seat”.

Conservative committee chairman William Wragg said: “The lack of consistency in relation to relocating civil service jobs reveals a vagueness at the heart of a key plank of the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda.

“The Cabinet Office has failed to provide a clear account of why certain functions are located where they are, and how relocation and regional hubs will benefit local communities across the country, if at all.”

“The Government’s latest plans have involved closing long-established regional offices, which can have hard-hitting impacts on local communities.

“This flies in the face of the Government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda. We need greater transparency and accountability of what seems to be a haphazard approach to reforming the Government’s estates and its workforce.”

A Cabinet Office spokesperson said: “The Places for Growth programme is helping level up the country by moving over 12,000 roles out of Greater London in its first three years – with new locations in Darlington, Bristol and Glasgow.

“Extensive planning and analysis goes into decisions on new locations, including assessment of value for money, skills and local transport networks.

“New hubs are expected to deliver millions of pounds of economic benefits for local areas through increased footfall and spending from staff. Moving civil servants will always encounter opposition but we are determined to deliver.”

Garry Graham, general secretary of the Prospect union, welcomed the report’s call for greater evidence to demonstrate what benefits arise from moving civil service work out of London.

He added: “The Government must stop chasing headlines by announcing arbitrary figures for headcount reductions and relocations, and instead develop a long-term strategy that has the confidence of staff and local communities.”