Industry gathers to back Armitt’s infrastructure commission plans

OWEN Robbie
02 February 2015

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

Planning

Politics

Tomorrow (Tuesday 3 Feb) an important conference takes place at the ICE in London, when Lord Adonis, Sir John Armitt and shadow chancellor Ed Balls MP will be discussing the final recommendations of the Armitt Infrastructure Review relating to the proposed National Infrastructure Commission, and continuing their campaign for such a new body.

[Latest - Balls sets out Labour's post-Election plans for National Infrastucture Commission]

Ahead of it I have been reviewing three very different contributions that have been made in the last ten days to the debate on how the UK should plan for its long term infrastructure needs.

"It seems clear to me that the contributions from Stephen Williams and Stephen Hammond miss the point behind the need for a new National Infrastructure Commission, on which there is almost universal consensus"

Lord Adonis ably persuaded the House of Lords to back overwhelmingly the idea of a National Infrastructure Commission, which would have the remit to analyse, assess and prioritise the medium to long-term requirements of national infrastructure, looking over the next 25-30 years. While there was overwhelming support among politicians and the public for greater investment in the country’s framework, he stressed the need to “make it happen” through better planning, financing and leadership and he likened the role of a National Infrastructure Commission to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, an independent institution set up to provide impartial analysis of fiscal policy.

The inability of successive governments to form a long-term consensus on key infrastructure priorities and projects had necessitated the call for an independent commission. “Airport expansion in the South East of England, vitally needed bridges across the East Thames, many major new housing developments, and much of the green energy agenda have been stymied, not just by understandable differences of opinion, but by a protracted inability to resolve these differences at the political level,” he said.

Meanwhile, in ‘the other place’ local government minister Stephen Williams MP said in a debate on an Opposition amendment to the Infrastructure Bill that “ The Armitt review’s ....... recommendations appear to establish a rigid, process-driven and bureaucratic body. There is a danger that this type of bureaucracy would stifle the innovative process needed to resolve the challenges facing UK infrastructure.” He continued that “It is up to Ministers, accountable to Parliament, to set out the infrastructure vision for the development of our country. It is not something we should subcontract to another body; it should be up to us.” 

He went on that “Establishing such a commission would also present significant complexities. For example, the commission’s assessment would be debated in the House and if the majority disagree with one aspect of the assessment and vote against it, the whole process, as we understand it, would have to start all over again. This kind of to-and-fro is clearly not what is intended by the proposals, and the uncertainty that would follow could be detrimental to the environment for infrastructure investment.”

His solution was to have another Whitehall strategy document to establish an infrastructure investment strategy.

A third contribution came from former Transport Minister Stephen Hammond MP. He recognised the “concern that strategic infrastructure decision-making is too often shortsighted, uncoordinated and lacking expertise. The same concerns remain throughout the process, as policy moves into the project delivery phase and future regulatory oversight is needed”.

"It is also vital to understand that a National Infrastructure Commission would not, indeed could not, take the politics out of national infrastructure decision-making.  On the contrary, it would provide a better basis and framework within which decisions by our elected representatives would be made."

He referred to the Government having developed a National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) (it was actually started by the last government, I recall) and set up Infrastructure UK (ditto) but that there was still “little concentration of expertise; departmental divisions still exist; and innovative financing solutions have not been developed”. He said that it was “ time for radical change. A unified Department for Infrastructure could overcome past policy failures and bring coherence and skill to project implementation and management. This Department would assume the responsibilities of all other Whitehall departments with respect to infrastructure, namely DfT, DECC, DEFRA, HMT, DCLG, and BIS.”

It seems clear to me that the contributions from Stephen Williams and Stephen Hammond miss the point behind the need for a new National Infrastructure Commission, on which there is almost universal consensus in the various infrastructure sectors. It is that the commission would provide the much needed evidence base for deciding on our long term need and priorities for national infrastructure, over a 25-30 year period rather than the much shorter period that the current National Infrastructure Plan covers – a plan where, this year, almost two thirds of the projects in it are already under construction.

I really can’t see how yet further government strategies will suddenly make up for this lamentable lack of proper evidence-based long term decision-making that we have suffered from for decades, or how a separate government department will help. 

In fact, stripping other departments of their infrastructure responsibilities would surely just be asking for trouble and would be the perfect recipe for just more battles within Whitehall – it would not “ensure coherence and excellence in a key government objective”.

Stephen Hammond went on to say that “A new department would determine the key sectors and allow for greater project prioritisation, overcoming real concerns about whether just having 40 or 50 key projects is the right approach. It would quickly become a centre for expertise and skills, improving both as well as the quality of decision-making in policy development and project selection.” And yet I fail to see how we can have any confidence about that when IUK, which has done a good job but perfectly understandably has not managed this since its establishment in 2008/9.

It is also vital to understand that a National Infrastructure Commission would not, indeed could not, take the politics out of national infrastructure decision-making.  On the contrary, it would provide a better basis and framework within which decisions by our elected representatives would be made.

An independent National Infrastructure Commission would act as an important enabler because decisions around major infrastructure are invariably controversial. It would be of great help to politicians to have detailed independent expert evidence on hand as to why major investments are necessary and what the real consequences are for the day to day life if critical infrastructure issues are not addressed.

"In fact, stripping other departments of their infrastructure responsibilities would surely just be asking for trouble and would be the perfect recipe for just more battles within Whitehall"

The Office of Budget Responsibility, the Committee on Climate Change and the National Institute for Health Care and Excellence are all important precedents, cited in the Armitt Review, where independent expert evidence has undoubtedly helped provide a sensible framework in which an educated public and political debate can take place.  And there would be no Parliamentary “to-and-fro” because the proposal is that the government of the day – who of course command the support of the House of Commons – would lay the Commission’s National Infrastructure Assessment before the Commons for approval with, importantly, any changes to it that the Government proposes. 

The result of the Armitt Review’s recommendations, revolving around a National Infrastructure Commission with the benefit of genuine deep rooted public engagement, will be much greater certainty than we currently have, bringing in a climate that is supportive not detrimental to the environment for infrastructure investment.

Virtually the entire infrastructure community can see this and I am confident that in due course so will those of our politicians who are still wanting to allow government and Whitehall to carry on largely as it is.  More strategies and reorganisations of government departments will hardly provide the step change that we so badly need, so that our elected representatives can at last properly plan for the next 25-30 years with reference to a solid and expert assessment of our national infrastructure needs.

Robbie Owen is head of infrastructure planning and government affairs at Pinsent Masons and adviser to the Armitt Review. He is the drafter of the National Infrastructure Bill which would create the National Infrastructure Commission.