DOCSLIB.ORG

The Choice of Finance for Capital Investment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Choice of Finance for Capital Investment Briefing by the National Audit Office HM Treasury The choice of finance for capital investment MARCH 2015 Our vision is to help the nation spend wisely. Our public audit perspective helps Parliament hold government to account and improve public services. The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending for Parliament and is independent of government. The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Sir Amyas Morse KCB, is an Officer of the House of Commons and leads the NAO, which employs some 820 employees. The C&AG certifies the accounts of all government departments and many other public sector bodies. He has statutory authority to examine and report to Parliament on whether departments and the bodies they fund have used their resources efficiently, effectively, and with economy. Our studies evaluate the value for money of public spending, nationally and locally. Our recommendations and reports on good practice help government improve public services, and our work led to audited savings of £1.1 billion in 2013. Contents Summary 4 Part One Trends in public finance 11 Part Two Trends in private finance 18 Part Three Decision-making process and budgets 26 Part Four Recent developments in infrastructure financing 35 Appendix One Cost of private capital 41 Appendix Two Special Purpose Vehicles 51 The National Audit Office study team consisted of: Daniel Fairhead, Vasilisa Starodubtseva, Simon Reason, under the direction of Matthew Rees. This report can be found on the National Audit Office website at www.nao.org.uk For further information about the National Audit Office please contact: National Audit Office Press Office 157–197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria London SW1W 9SP Tel: 020 7798 7400 Enquiries: www.nao.org.uk/contact-us Links to external websites were valid at the time of Website: www.nao.org.uk publication of this report. The National Audit Office is not responsible for the future validity of the links. Twitter: @NAOorguk 4 Summary The choice of finance for capital investment Summary 1 This briefing paper considers capital investment and how government chooses to finance it. 2 Figure 1 shows that over the past 50 years, public sector gross investment (PSGI) has decreased as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product.1 Much of this reduction resulted from the transfer and sale of assets to the private sector because privatised industry capital investment is not scored in PSGI. Since the introduction of the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the 1990s, private finance has contributed to public sector capital investment. In the past 15 years government capital investment has increased, with a peak in 2010 which coincided with a fiscal stimulus and a decline in the past 5 years as the government has sought to put the public finances on a sustainable footing. 3 In the 2014 Autumn Statement the government reiterated the importance of infrastructure for economic growth. It stated that it has prioritised capital investment over day-to-day spending and was taking a long-term approach, tackling the historic problems of short-term decision-making.2 The government has also published a National Infrastructure Plan each year since 2010: the 2014 plan contains a pipeline of £327 billion of public and private infrastructure investment planned to 2020-21.3 4 This briefing paper describes several factors affecting central government capital investment decisions, including budgeting, project appraisal, procurement, finance and accounting treatment. Based on these factors we make a number of observations about the relative flexibility, transparency and other attributes of different financing choices, including cost. We have not evaluated the decisions to invest in particular projects, but we note HM Treasury’s guidance that the decision to use public or private capital to finance a particular investment should be supported by a value-for-money (VfM) assessment. The government’s decision on the aggregate level of capital investment is also outside the scope of this briefing paper. 1 PSGI is a measure of capital expenditure. A detailed glossary of terms is available in HM Treasury, Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2014, Annex G: Glossary of terms. 2 HM Treasury, Autumn Statement 2014, December 2014. 3 HM Treasury, National Infrastructure Plan 2014, December 2014. The NIP includes transport, energy, flood defences, water, waste, communications and science. It does not include social infrastructure (eg housing). Figure 1 Public Sector Gross Investment (PSGI) and PFI investment – past 50 years PFI has added to Public Sector Gross Investment Percentage of GDP 12 Significant sales/transfers of public assets, including: 11 ‘Right-to-buy’ scheme 1980 British Airports Authority 1987 10 British Telecom Housing stock transfers 1988 1984 9 British Water Authorities 1989 8 Gas 1986 Electricity companies 1990 7 Train Operating Companies 1994 6 Introduction of PFI 1990 5 The choice finance of for capital investment 4 3 2 7 9 1964-651966-671968-691970-711972-731974-751976-71978-71980-811982-831984-851986-871988-891990-911992-931994-951996-971998-992000-012002-032004-052006-072008-092010-112012-132014-152016-172018-19 PSGI as percentage of GDP PFI as percentage of GDP (incremental effect) Projection of PSGI as percentage of GDP Notes 1 PSGI includes investment of local government and state-owned enterprises so these figures are not directly comparable to other data in this report on central government capital spending. 2 The capital investment through PFI has been added to the PSGI figure. A small amount (approximately 10%) of PFI investment is on balance sheet for national accounts purposes so is also included in PSGI spending figures. Summary Sources: Office for Budget Responsibility, Public Finances Databank, 25 January 2015; HM Treasury PFI database (updated 15 December 2014) 5 6 Summary The choice of finance for capital investment 5 We have previously reported on the role of the centre of government, in which we noted that the move towards greater central coordination in strategic areas was given impetus by the climate of austerity.4 An important part of the government’s response to this challenge was the HM Treasury-led review of financial management, which recognised that government needs to develop a more strategic finance function, particularly in light of the constraints on public expenditure. We intend this briefing paper to complement that review by providing more information on capital investment and financing decisions. 6 This briefing is structured as follows: • Parts One and Two examine trends in capital investment, including the annual investment expenditure by several departments, using public and private finance respectively. • Part Three explains how the government’s budget process affects the decisions to use public and private finance for capital investment. • Part Four summarises recent developments including refinancing projects, introduction of PF2 and government interventions. Our approach 7 We interviewed HM Treasury and 4 other spending departments within central government (Transport, Health, Education and Defence) to understand how the budgeting process operates. We also analysed the capital investment and financing choices made by these departments, some of their sponsor bodies and the fifth largest capital spending department (the Department for Communities and Local Government) using a range of public sources.5 4 Comptroller and Auditor General, The centre of government, Session 2014-15, HC 171, National Audit Office, June 2014. 5 These sources include the National Infrastructure Plan, HM Treasury PFI database, HM Treasury Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis (PESA), Whole of Government Accounts, annual accounts of departments and other public bodies. The choice of finance for capital investment Summary 7 Findings Recent trends in capital investment 8 The vast majority of capital spending is publicly funded. A short-term fiscal stimulus contributed to a peak of capital investment in 2009-10. In subsequent years, the government’s annual capital spending has reduced by around one-third. Publicly financed capital investment was reduced by one third in real terms from a peak of £57 billion in 2009-10 to £42 billion in 2013-14. Departments’ use of private finance for capital investment has also declined in this period. In the 5 years to 2013-14 it averaged £2.3 billion a year compared with £4.6 billion a year in the previous 5 years, representing a real-terms fall of more than half. Spending on the servicing of existing private finance (maintenance and other services plus interest charges and debt repayment) has increased from £7 billion in 2009-10 to £10 billion in 2013-14 in line with contractual commitments (paragraphs 1.2 and 2.3 to 2.4). 9 Publicly financed capital spending of the 5 largest capital spending departments reduced from £39 billion in 2009-10 to £28 billion in 2013-14, in part because the government had brought capital spending forward from future years into 2009-10.6 The largest reductions were in Education, and Communities and Local Government. Spending on schools fell from more than £7 billion to less than £4 billion (a 55% real-terms reduction). Communities and Local Government’s capital spending, which is primarily for housing, reduced from more than £9 billion to less than £4 billion (a 62% real-terms reduction). Health and Defence reduced capital spending by around one-quarter in real terms (paragraphs 1.2 to 1.7). 10 When departments record capital expenditure there is no distinction between that used to build new assets and that to repair or renew existing assets. This means that it is difficult for the government to know how much capital expenditure departments require simply to maintain assets in their current condition for business-as-usual maintenance, or to observe how changes in capital expenditure affect different sectors. We estimate that under half of departmental capital spending is for constructing new assets. By contrast, nearly all private finance investment is used to construct new assets (paragraph 1.11).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Thursday Volume 507 11 March 2010 No. 55 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 11 March 2010 £5·00 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2010 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/ Enquiries to the Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU; e-mail: [email protected] 409 11 MARCH 2010 410 too important to be done on the cheap, and that there is House of Commons no substitute in many parts of the country and with many target groups for knocking on doors, finding out Thursday 11 March 2010 who lives there and making sure that they are registered to vote? The House met at half-past Ten o’clock Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is the responsibility of electoral returning officers throughout the country.The Electoral Commission PRAYERS is introducing better and clearer guidelines for them on the activity that it expects. The hon. Gentleman is [MR.SPEAKER in the Chair] absolutely right to say that we must find those young people and make sure that they are put on the electoral register so that they are at least given the opportunity to Oral Answers to Questions vote come polling day. Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): One very worrying thing about young people not voting is that they are the people on whom the decisions ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE will have the longest-term effect.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Finance Review Consultation
    Infrastructure Finance Review consultation March 2019 Infrastructure Finance Review consultation March 2019 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-912809-48-6 PU2247 Contents Foreword 2 Chapter 1 Executive summary and review process 3 Chapter 2 The infrastructure finance market 7 Chapter 3 Investment models and existing tools 18 Chapter 4 Governance 26 Annex A International comparisons 30 Annex B Consultation questions 36 1 Foreword This government is committed to improving and renewing our infrastructure. This matters for increasing productivity and boosting growth, but it also matters for our everyday lives and quality of life. The infrastructure we are developing needs to be adaptable to fast growing technological change, from autonomous vehicles and electric cars to the next generation of broadband and harnessing the power of data to improve delivery and maintenance. Both the public and private sectors will need to play their part. The government has already made great strides – in the last few years we have established the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, created the £37 billion National Productivity Investment Fund to target spending in critical areas, and set out plans that will see public investment rise to levels not consistently sustained for 40 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Web of Power
    Media Briefing MAIN HEADING PARAGRAPH STYLE IS main head Web of power SUB TITLE PARAGRAPH STYLE IS main sub head The UK government and the energy- DATE PARAGRAPH STYLE IS date of document finance complex fuelling climate change March 2013 Research by the World Development Movement has Government figures embroiled in the nexus of money and revealed that one third of ministers in the UK government power fuelling climate change include William Hague, are linked to the finance and energy companies driving George Osborne, Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Vince Cable climate change. and even David Cameron himself. This energy-finance complex at the heart of government If we are to move away from a high carbon economy, is allowing fossil fuel companies to push the planet to the government must break this nexus and regulate the the brink of climate catastrophe, risking millions of lives, finance sector’s investment in fossil fuel energy. especially in the world’s poorest countries. SUBHEAD PARAGRAPH STYLE IS head A Introduction The world is approaching the point of no return in the Energy-finance complex in figures climate crisis. Unless emissions are massively reduced now, BODY PARAGRAPH STYLE IS body text Value of fossil fuel shares on the London Stock vast areas of the world will see increased drought, whole Exchange: £900 billion1 – higher than the GDP of the countries will be submerged and falling crop yields could whole of sub-Saharan Africa.2 mean millions dying of hunger. But finance is continuing to flow to multinational fossil fuel companies that are Top five UK banks’ underwrote £170 billion in bonds ploughing billions into new oil, gas and coal energy.
    [Show full text]
  • Web of Power the UK Government and the Energy- Finance Complex Fuelling Climate Change March 2013
    Media briefing Web of power The UK government and the energy- finance complex fuelling climate change March 2013 Research by the World Development Movement has Government figures embroiled in the nexus of money and revealed that one third of ministers in the UK government power fuelling climate change include William Hague, are linked to the finance and energy companies driving George Osborne, Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin, Vince Cable climate change. and even David Cameron himself. This energy-finance complex at the heart of government If we are to move away from a high carbon economy, is allowing fossil fuel companies to push the planet to the government must break this nexus and regulate the the brink of climate catastrophe, risking millions of lives, finance sector’s investment in fossil fuel energy. especially in the world’s poorest countries. Introduction The world is approaching the point of no return in the Energy-finance complex in figures climate crisis. Unless emissions are massively reduced now, Value of fossil fuel shares on the London Stock vast areas of the world will see increased drought, whole Exchange: £900 billion1 – higher than the GDP of the countries will be submerged and falling crop yields could whole of sub-Saharan Africa.2 mean millions dying of hunger. But finance is continuing to flow to multinational fossil fuel companies that are Top five UK banks’ underwrote £170 billion in bonds ploughing billions into new oil, gas and coal energy. and share issues for fossil fuel companies 2010-12 – more than 11 times the amount the UK contributed in The vested interests of big oil, gas and coal mining climate finance for developing countries.3 companies are in favour of the status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Finance Review Consultation
    Infrastructure Finance Review consultation March 2019 16 17 Infrastructure Finance Review consultation March 2019 18 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-912809-48-6 PU2247 19 Contents Foreword 2 Chapter 1 Executive summary and review process 3 Chapter 2 The infrastructure finance market 7 Chapter 3 Investment models and existing tools 18 Chapter 4 Governance 26 Annex A International comparisons 30 Annex B Consultation questions 36 1 20 Foreword This government is committed to improving and renewing our infrastructure. This matters for increasing productivity and boosting growth, but it also matters for our everyday lives and quality of life. The infrastructure we are developing needs to be adaptable to fast growing technological change, from autonomous vehicles and electric cars to the next generation of broadband and harnessing the power of data to improve delivery and maintenance. Both the public and private sectors will need to play their part. The government has already made great strides – in the last few years we have established the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, created the £37 billion National Productivity Investment Fund to target spending in critical areas, and set out plans that will see public investment rise to levels not consistently sustained for 40 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Finance 2
    House of Commons Treasury Committee Private Finance 2 Tenth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, and oral evidence Written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/treascom. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 March 2014 HC 97 [Incorporating HC 990, Session 2012–13] Published June 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £14.50 The Treasury Committee The Treasury Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of HM Treasury, HM Revenue and Customs and associated public bodies. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) and further details can be found on the Committee’s web pages at www.parliament.uk/treascom. Membership at time of the report Mr Andrew Tyrie MP (Conservative, Chichester) (Chairman) Mark Garnier MP (Conservative, Wyre Forest) Stewart Hosie MP (Scottish National Party, Dundee East) Andrea Leadsom MP (Conservative, South Northamptonshire) Mr Andy Love MP (Labour, Edmonton) John Mann MP (Labour, Bassetlaw) Mr Pat McFadden MP (Labour, Wolverhampton South West) Mr George Mudie MP (Labour, Leeds East) Mr Brooks Newmark MP (Conservative, Braintree) Jesse Norman MP (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire) Teresa Pearce MP (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead) David Ruffley MP (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds) John Thurso MP (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland, and Easter Ross) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Treasury 2019-20 Main Estimate Memorandum
    HM Treasury 2019-20 Main Estimate memorandum 1 Overview 1.1 Objectives HM Treasury’s (HMT’s) objectives, as set out in its published Single Departmental Plan, are as follows: 1. Place the public finances on a sustainable footing, ensuring value for money and improved outcomes in public services 2. Ensure the stability of the macro-economic environment and financial system, enabling strong, sustainable and balanced growth as we leave the EU 3. Increase employment and productivity, ensuring strong growth and competitiveness across all regions of the UK through a comprehensive package of structural reforms, taking advantage of the opportunities provided by leaving the EU 4. Build a great Treasury, by creating a more open, inclusive and diverse department, underpinned by professionalism, skills and management excellence 1.2 Spending controls HMT’s spending is broken down into a several different spending totals, for which Parliament’s approval is sought. The spending totals which Parliament votes are: • Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit (“Resource DEL”)- day to day running costs • Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (“Capital DEL”): - investment in infrastructure • Resource Annually Managed Expenditure (“Resource AME”)- less predictable spending, on production of UK coinage and income from dividends and interest • Capital Annually Managed Expenditure (“Capital AME”): less predictable investment spending: payments under the Help to Buy: ISA scheme and receipts from loan repayments In addition, Parliament votes a net cash requirement, designed to cover the elements of the above budgets which require HM Treasury to pay out cash in year 1.3 Main areas of spending The graphic below shows the main components of HMT’s proposed budget for the new year, included in the latest Main Estimate, and the proportions of funds spent by bodies within the Group.
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT: HM TREASURY, Main Estimate 2013-14
    UNCLASSIFIED DEPARTMENT: HM TREASURY, Main Estimate 2013-14 INTRODUCTION and KEY POINTS The Estimate covers the administration costs of the core Treasury, the Debt Management Office, United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd, Infrastructure UK and the Department’s non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). Programme spending on coinage and financial stability is also included. The Estimate is consistent with the Spending Review settlement, taking account of Autumn Statement, Budget and other budgetary changes as explained below. Amounts sought in the 2013-14 Main Estimate 2013-14 Budgets and net cash £m requirement Voted Non- Total voted Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) Resource 157.9 12.0 169.9 of which Administration Budget 140.9 - 140.9 Capital 14.1 - 14.1 Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) Resource - 3.3 -1,658.8 1,662.1 Capital - - -1,488.2 1,488.2 Net cash requirement - - -2,669.9 2,669.9 Significant differences in provision compared to the Spending Review settlement and the 2012-13 Estimates. DEL The following table shows changes to resource DEL plans since the 2010 Spending Review settlement. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED Resource DEL £’000 Admin Programme Total SR settlement 139,740 32,900 172,640 To DCLG for Ordnance -791 -791 Survey MoG transfer of OGC to CO -1,235 -1,235 MoG transfer of OGC to BIS -164 -164 2011 Autumn Statement -1,000 -1,000 2012 Autumn Statement -1,630 -1,630 Budget Exchange from 3,800 3,800 2012-13 Transfer to CO for -400 -400 recharges Transfer from HMRC for 197 197 OTS Transfer from DWP 200 200 2013 Budget -1,648 -1,648 Total 140,938 29,031 169,969 AME Resource AME provision in the 2013-14 Main Estimate is higher than the final 2012-13 provision principally due to the net effect of a fair value adjustment in respect of the Bank of England Asset Purchase Facility Fund (£-14bn) which was included in the 2012-13 Supplementary Estimate.
    [Show full text]
  • National Infrastructure Plan 2013
    National Infrastructure Plan 2013 December 2013 National Infrastructure Plan 2013 December 2013 © Crown copyright 2013 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. You can download this publication from www.gov.uk ISBN 978-1-909790-57-5 PU1576 Contents Page Executive summary 3 Chapter 1 The case for infrastructure investment 13 Chapter 2 UK infrastructure in 2013 23 Chapter 3 Policy framework and key investments 33 Chapter 4 Local infrastructure and the Devolved Administrations 69 Chapter 5 Planning and prioritisation 77 Chapter 6 Infrastructure financing 83 Chapter 7 Creating the right environment for delivery 91 Annex A Priority investments – delivery update 105 Annex B Infrastructure performance 135 1 Executive summary The quality of a nation’s infrastructure is one of the foundations of its rate of growth and the living standards of its people. That is why the government has put long-term investment in roads, railways, energy, telecommunications and flood defences at the heart of its growth plan. Successive governments have failed to invest sufficiently in the UK’s infrastructure. In making a long-term commitment to infrastructure investment, the government’s ambition is to reverse the effects of this historic underinvestment and equip the UK with world-class infrastructure, which rivals that of all its Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) counterparts in every sector and ensures the country can compete in the global race.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Economy of Major Infrastructure in the UK
    University of Strathclyde | Fraser of Allander Institute Economic Commentary: 39(3) Policy perspectives The Political Economy of Major Infrastructure in the UK Miguel Castro Coelho, Institute for Government and Sebastian Dellepiane, University of Strathclyde Abstract Evidence has been accumulating that UK infrastructure is under enormous pressure and is holding back economic growth. Although these problems have been receiving increasing attention from media and political commentators, there has been little effort to understand systematically their policy and institutional roots. This paper fills this gap by examining the political economy of infrastructure policy and presenting a series of case studies to illustrate our theoretical predictions. We find evidence that the British political system amplifies the risk of policy failure around infrastructure in the form of short- sightedness, policy instability, a weak evidence base and a lack of public consent. Introduction Infrastructure1 plays an important role in facilitating economic growth and there is substantive evidence that suggests the UK economy is being held back by lack of investment, mainly in the transport and energy sectors (e.g. Novella et al. 2012). London, for example, has some of Europe’s most congested roads, with the average driver in 2014 spending about 96 hours stuck in traffic 2 . Airport capacity constraints, especially in the South East of England, causes delays, cancellations and unreliability for passengers, driving up air fares, and damaging the UK’s connectivity (Airports Commission, 2015). In the energy sector, the capacity margin has been declining, triggering a rush of costly policy initiatives and emergency regulatory measures designed to ensure the lights stay on (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Design an Infrastructure Strategy for the UK
    How to design an infrastructure strategy for the UK Daniel Slade | Nick Davies About this report The UK makes poor decisions about infrastructure compared with some other wealthy countries. This Institute for Government project explores how UK policymaking around economic infrastructure – which includes transport, energy, digital communication and water – can be improved. The aim of this report is to evaluate the politics and institutions of infrastructure decision making in the UK. We offer recommendations on how to ensure a stable, long-term evidence base; build a cross-government national strategy for infrastructure; and improve public engagement in decision making. Past publications in this series have looked at: • some of the main flaws in recent and controversial UK ‘megaprojects’ • how the UK government uses cost benefit analysis to appraise infrastructure projects • how government decides on whether to publicly or privately finance infrastructure projects. A future report will look at how government can strike good private finance deals. A final report will summarise our key recommendations across this work programme. Follow our work on infrastructure policy: www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ infrastructure December 2017 Contents List of figures 2 Summary 3 1. Introduction 6 2. Creating long-term policy stability and ensuring the credibility of the National Infrastructure Commission 8 3. Building a long-term and cross-government National Infrastructure Strategy 16 4. Improving public engagement in infrastructure decision making
    [Show full text]
  • National Infrastructure Plan 2010
    Infrastructure UK National Infrastructure Plan 2010 October 2010 Infrastructure UK National Infrastructure Plan 2010 October 2010 Official versions of this document are printed on 100% recycled paper. When you have finished with it please recycle it again. If using an electronic version of the document, please consider the environment and only print the pages which you need and recycle them when you have finished. © Crown copyright 2010 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. ISBN 978-1-84532-785-9 PU1054 Contents Page Foreword 3 Chapter 1 The UK’s infrastructure need 5 Chapter 2 The infrastructure challenge 9 Chapter 3 Enabling infrastructure development 13 Chapter 4 Plan for infrastructure investment 21 (a) Energy infrastructure 25 (b) Transport infrastructure 29 (c) Digital communications 32 (d) Flood management, water and waste 34 (e) Intellectual capital 37 Chapter 5 Next steps 39 Annex A Ownership models and cost of capital 43 Annex B Infrastructure UK 47 National Infrastructure Plan 2010 1 Foreword For the economy to flourish, people, goods and information must move freely. Businesses across all regions and industries need the right conditions to grow. Reliable infrastructure: energy, water, transport, digital communications and waste disposal networks and facilities, are essential to achieve this. Ensuring these networks are integrated and resilient is vital.
    [Show full text]