A new year always brings some new problems, although the focus is usually still on the old problems left unsolved from the previous years. Infrastructure procurement is a perennial issue for the UK, but there are some new moves being made to address the issues.
Setting up a new body is a favourite tactic of governments when they either aren’t sure what to do, or are afraid of the political rows that would be sparked whatever decision they make. Where to site a new runway for London springs to mind. The year kicks off with hopes that the new National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) will make a difference. Details have been released of how the government sees it possibly working, with consultation launched on its governance, structure and operation to last until 17 March.
The ambition for the new body, chaired on an interim basis by Lord Adonis, is that it will lead a transformation of infrastructure delivery in the UK. Few would deny that a transformation is desperately needed; but can hopes be safely pinned on this body as being part of the solution?
The government says it wants a body that will have independence and credibility. Whitehall history suggest that this is the last thing that the Treasury will tolerate; the Commission as envisaged by the government will report to the Treasury, so perhaps no real change is coming there anyway.
Lord Adonis has been working on three projects since October and we should hear how he has been getting on around the time of the Chancellor’s Budget in March. The three projects take him to the heart of some of the UK’s infrastructure debates, namely more trains for the north of England, London’s transport needs and how to ensure the UK’s energy needs are met.
It isn’t only infrastructure planning that is in a sorry state. Confirmation that the UK is falling down big time on infrastructure delivery came from the National Audit Office (NAO) in early January in a report that claims a third of major UK government projects planned for completion in the next five years are ‘in doubt or unachievable’.
The NAO analysed 106 planned projects in the government’s ‘Major Projects Portfolio’, which are projects needing approval from the Treasury, usually because they are either large, or recognised as potentially risky. They include infrastructure and construction projects, such as Crossrail.
The best that the NAO could say about attempts to improve project delivery was that the impact of initiatives taken was not clear as approaches to measuring were not reliable or consistent. Costs and benefits were inconsistently reported and assessing individual projects was difficult as only limited data was published by government departments.
The new Infrastructure Projects Authority (IPA) started work on 1 January, charged with providing expertise and knowledge to government in relation to managing and delivering major projects, born out of the previous Major Projects Authority and Infrastructure UK. The NAO criticisms concerned the work of the IPA’s predecessor bodies. Can the new body be expected to help transform the UK’s infrastructure delivery where two bodies had failed before?
As the NAO report argues, the greatest risks of failure arise with ‘transformation’ projects. Perhaps trying to transform the planning, management and delivery of the UK’s major infrastructure projects at the same time as transforming the overseeing infrastructure itself and massively increasing infrastructure investment isn’t the best idea. But given the scale of the problems and the pressing need for more efficient project delivery perhaps that risk is one that had to be taken.
Nick Barrett
Editor