How serious is the government about its regularly repeated commitment to the large scale infrastructure investment that commentators agree is vital to securing the UK’s economic future? Question marks have been raised by a report from the House of Commons public spending watchdog at the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) which states that warnings about the feasibility of some of the headline projects are being ignored by government.
The PAC says that official ‘red flags’ raised by Whitehall’s own Major Projects Authority (MPA) in June last year are being ignored. The MPA said in its report that 34% of the government’s large infrastructure projects in its Major Projects Portfolio had to be rated red or amber-red, which meant that successful delivery was unachievable, or at least that their feasibility was in doubt unless action was taken. The PAC’s case is that no such action has been taken or is in sight.
Things might even have got worse. The MPA, formed in 2011 to provide independent assurance on big and risky projects, was not highly regarded by the PAC and its Chair, Meg Hillier, says they question how effective the MPA was in bringing ‘meaningful influence to bear on government performance’. When the MPA warned of shortcomings in projects its concerns were dismissed by senior officials. She said: ‘While we cannot know if this attitude prevails across Whitehall it is clearly cause for concern.’
The MPA has now been merged with Infrastructure UK to create the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), designed to be a single centre of expertise for project development, financing, assurance and support in government, but the PAC worries that the new body will become ‘too much of a champion for government projects, at the expense of its vital role in challenging government performance.’
The IPA told the PAC in evidence that it was most concerned about three current programmes, HS2, Courts Reform and Shared Services, all complex and challenging projects. The PAC says the IPA should now set out plans for a revised approach for early intervention when projects are at risk, work to extend awareness of the delivery process with training tailored to the needs of MPs, and fast track civil servants who are likely to be responsible for major projects.
Government must set out plans for tackling serious skills shortages in project delivery, says the PAC, especially in the commercial and digital skills needed to deliver ‘transformation’ projects, and as a priority act to better equip ministers and senior civil servants responsible for such projects with the skills and wider awareness they need to deliver them.
The IPA is to report back to the PAC in January 2017 on the benefits of the merger and also how it has improved data collection and analysis, ‘to allow a transparent, open and honest dialogue about project performance’.
There is a clear and obvious role within government for an independent organisation like the IPA that challenges departments about their plans and projects. The question is open however whether government or the Whitehall machine is ready to listen to it.
Nick Barrett
Editor