Source · Select Committees · Transport Committee
Recommendation 6
6
To facilitate transparent, honest and constructive public and political engagement with the economic and engineering...
Recommendation
To facilitate transparent, honest and constructive public and political engagement with the economic and engineering realities of delivering major infrastructure projects, the Government should establish floors and ceilings for project costs and timescales defining the range within which projects are scheduled for delivery rather than setting single specific targets, which are invariably unhelpful and inaccurate. Any breach of a project’s cost and/or time ceilings should be communicated to the appropriate Select Committee by a formal mechanism, which should trigger intense parliamentary scrutiny to protect the public purse and to support effective project delivery. (Paragraph 35) 20 Major transport infrastructure projects
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
The Government accepts the recommendation that projects should use ranges for their costs and schedules, and has already implemented this on many of its ongoing projects. As in the Committee’s report, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) concluded in their joint report on ‘Lessons from Transport for the sponsorship of Major Projects’ that setting arbitrary deadlines and budgets are not an effective mechanism to manage infrastructure projects. Consequently, DfT ensures that the success of each milestone is defined by a timescale and a cost range. These ranges would be expected to become refined and narrowed as projects mature and uncertainties reduce. As a project will develop over time, the Department’s current timelines should leave space for necessary adaptation to any changes. For example, within the High Speed 2 (HS2) project, baselines are already being utilised and are given the space to evolve throughout the project using input from within the project’s supply chain and scrutiny from DfT in a sponsorship capacity. The Government agrees that parliamentary scrutiny is required to support effective project delivery but disagrees with the recommendation to implement a formal mechanism to trigger additional Parliamentary scrutiny. Proportionate governance and assurance activities exist across a range of Government projects, with these arrangements clearly set out in business cases, and managed through robust monitoring, investment decision making, and assurance reviews. Adding additional scrutiny, by way of a formal trigger mechanism, would complicate DfT’s role as Project Sponsor and duplicate the function of existing fora. For example, High Speed 2 (HS2) has been held accountable and scrutinised by parliament throughout each of its phases. The National Audit Office (NAO) has carried out three reports on the project since 2013, and parliament is offered the opportunity to scrutinise Hybrid Bills in their passage through parliament. In addition, the DfT and HS2 Ltd provide information through detailed 6-monthly reports that allow effective parliamentary scrutiny at regular intervals. Other projects, such as Crossrail, also provide regular updates to parliament and the public to enable scrutiny, which also informs subsequent changes to the management of projects where required.