Making the National Infrastructure Commission work

The establishment of a new National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) is to be welcomed. The Institute has often argued for an independent body that is capable of facilitating an informed debate about infrastructure, and is able to work beyond narrow political interest and help build consensus. Based on our previous research, the following lessons will help it function as effectively as possible:

1. Avoid political capture. If the public, interest groups and political parties think the commission is just a device designed to promote the projects the Government has already thought of, then it will damage rather than advance infrastructure policymaking. The experienced new chair, Lord Adonis, will need to guard against politicians using it to pursue their own objectives.

2. Be transparent with the evidence. The evidence for major infrastructure decisions can itself be contentious and subject to uncertainty, given the long-term nature of the issues. Debates can quickly degenerate into contests about information quality where contradictory ‘studies’ and ‘business cases’ are used as weapons on a battlefield of private and political interests. To ensure the NIC does not become yet another source of competing analysis it should openly discuss the nature of the evidence base it is using, exposing any assumptions or weaknesses early on.

3. Create space for deliberation and compromise. The topics the NIC will address will often be divisive, focusing initially on updating the energy network, London’s transport system and improving connections in the North. Rather than avoid disagreements, the Commission should meet them head on – bringing together independent experts and interest groups to debate the merits of particular projects, negotiate and seek consensus. There is precedent for this: in the Netherlands, the Alders Table successfully brought together local residents, unions, government officials and the aviation industry to deliberate on the expansion of Schiphol Airport.

4. Include citizens. Issues of energy generation and rail improvement are topics that citizens feel strongly about. Indeed, nearly 80% of the public agree that politicians should consult local people who are affected by decisions on infrastructure. When the public is not effectively involved, financial compensation is rarely enough to convince local people to back a project – as we have recently seen with fracking. Given this, the NIC will need to engage citizens in its work – drawing on how this has been done elsewhere. In France, the National Commission of Public Debate gives citizens the opportunity to reflect on the objectives of projects that have major effects on the environment and/or land use, and to express their opinions in ways that genuinely influence project design and implementation.

5. Move beyond high-level analysis. There are two possible roles for the NIC. The first is to set out the infrastructure needs of the country on a regular basis and make high-level recommendations, similar to the version of the NIC proposed by Lord Armitt. Whilst this would be useful, much is already known about the needs and challenges of infrastructure in the UK: for instance, the argument for greater investment in power generation is well rehearsed. A more valuable role would be to go beyond a high-level mapping of infrastructure needs towards a more robust examination of the costs and benefits of specific policy options, and how those costs and benefits are distributed among the population.

6. Factor in implementation feasibility. Questions of implementation, which have so often hampered the delivery of major projects, should be factored into the work of the NIC. This should include consideration of the timescales and costs of infrastructure projects (particularly in the context of continued spending reductions) but should also touch on whether the capability exists to deliver them. Two billion pounds’ worth of critical rail improvements currently being delivered by Network Rail have been hugely disrupted by staff being poached to work on High Speed 2, with few options for alternative recruitment. Liaising with the Major Projects Authority – which has a monitoring and assurance role on major government projects – could provide useful challenge on feasibility.