What is the best way to end decades of floundering, delay and indecision in the planning of the UK’s infrastructure? Few would probably say let’s create a quango to tackle the problem, but that is what has emerged as the main recommendation of the review of UK infrastructure planning by Sir John Armitt.
The former head of John Laing, who scored a great success as chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority, was commissioned last year by Labour party leader Ed Milliband and Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls to review how the UK plans to meet its infrastructure needs. Armitt has recommended creation of an independent National Infrastructure Commission, to be appointed by opposition parties as well as government, to identify long term infrastructure needs in transport, energy, telecommunications and flood defence, and monitor plans for meeting them.
While plans would be looked at in terms of value for money and efficiency, he also wants a National Infrastructure Assessment to be carried out every ten years. Parliament is to vote on what the key infrastructure priorities should be and government would report to MPs on the plans and on how to fund and deliver projects.
Parliament would have to vote within six months on what infrastructure policies are to be pursued and government departments would then have a year to produce detailed ten year Sector Plans on funding and delivery. The Commission would report to Parliament annually on performance being made on delivery.
A National Infrastructure Plan is already produced annually by Infrastructure UK, but Armitt says that is not a strategic plan and is more of a list of projects, not necessarily one built up from an evidence based assessment of long term needs as the Commission’s would be. Few in the construction industry would argue with Armitt’s assessment of the UK’s performance over many years in infrastructure planning. The planning and funding process takes years and years, and that is for projects that have secured government backing.
The new Commission would doubtless play a role in helping get movement on key decisions like where any increase in London’s airport capacity should be located; what type and how many power stations the country needs; should there be increased rail capacity with projects like HS2; are we happy with our roads often being in an unsafe condition due to lack of maintenance.
What is harder to see is how the Commission could overcome politically inspired opposition to projects. How could it help with convincing anti-fracking protestors that democratically arrived at decisions should be allowed to be implemented?
Little is said by Armitt about funding, but this is at the heart of the matter. Private sector investment will be needed but at present the government seems uncommitted to any particular reform in that area; PFI is not favoured, but commitment to PF2 seems lukewarm. Plans for project delivery will mean little without plans for funding – perhaps we need a separate quango for that as well?
Nick Barrett
Editor