Difficult political decisions remain difficult even when infrastructure stars align

If expectation over the content of today’s Queen’s Speech bears fruit, we should see a raft of legislation shoe-horned in to the next Parliamentary session as the government attempts to stick to its plan to back infrastructure.

And any measures (should they be included) to accelerate the path to Highways Agency privatisation, boosting flood defence investment, low carbon housing or even simplifying the confusion of planning for fracking must be good news.

Coming so soon after Infrastructure Minister Lord Deighton told the ACE annual conference that nothing stood in the way of infrastructure delivery: “if things are going well, politicians tend to leave them alone and take the credit”, one might conclude that, as we head down the long road toward general election, all is looking rosy.

'Government decisions are driven by a whole series of propositions. They have got to take account of the economic cost and the environmental cost of new infrastructure projects. But government, critically, also has to take account of the political cost of difficult decisions."

Yet after chairing a very interesting discussion at the RunwaysUK Surface Access event this week on the challenges and opportunities surrounding what the UK should do to shore up its airport capacity, I am feeling somewhat uneasy that not everything is going as “well” as Lord Deighton might hope.

The reality, as was well described by former transport secretary Steven Norris, is that for all the new and sensible commissions, planning reforms and Infrastructure plans and ministers, the constant battle in the UK over the taking of difficult decisions remains clear and present. 

As Norris explained, political decisions depend clearly on assessing political risk. And in the case of a decision over where to build an airport the Davies’s Commission recommendation is interesting but no guarantee of action. 

“If [the Davies commission] gives the answer that they are not really looking for ….then the reality is that government will shelve it if it believes that the result is politically undeliverable,” Norris said, expressing really what we have all long suspected. 

And without wishing to be overly negative, the recent decision not to press forward with plans to enforce “difficult” sustainable drainage (Suds) rules on developers, highlights the continued struggle that we face to turn controversial ideas into reality.

Perhaps the proposed fracking legislation will help clear the murky planning waters in this sector. Maybe the proposals to clarify flood defence spending will dredge a path. Hopefully a newly revamped Highways Agency with a private sector ethic, longer planning and funding horizon will cut through delivery delays. Let’s hope so.

But as Norris pointed out, government decisions are driven by a whole series of propositions. They have got to take account of the economic cost and the environmental cost of new infrastructure projects. But government, critically, also has to take account of the political cost of difficult decisions.

Heading as we do into 11 months of pre-election manoeuvring ahead of a potentially very difficult general election, it seems hard to imagine that we there will be much appetite anywhere across the political spectrum for delivering the politically doubtful, let alone the very difficult. 

Hopefully not. But we must be aware of this fact and plan the months and years ahead accordingly.

Antony Oliver is the editor of Infrastructure Intelligence