How will infrastructure be overseen and delivered by the new government? That question will only be answered when the new programme is agreed and published. One can only speculate at this stage. But there are two possibilities – one from Fianna Fail and one from Fine Gael. The Fianna Fail option would involve enhancing an existing State agency – the National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA). The Fine Gael option would establish a new, consolidated Department of Infrastructure, Climate and Transport. This article examines the evidence that is available, at present, on the foregoing alternatives.
What do the Manifestos tell us?
The manifestos for the recent general election do set out proposals for overseeing infrastructure. The proposals are quite different. Fianna Fail opts for expanding the responsibilities of the NTMA. Fine Gael opts instead for the establishment of a new and consolidated Government Department. The latter would involve the merging of several existing central Departments. There are merits and challenges under both proposals. However, there is no perfect solution. Finally, a political decision will be taken, and it will be a significant plank within the new Programme for Government 2025-2029.
What does Fianna Fail propose?
Fianna Fail proposes to widen the remit of the National Treasury Management Agency. The NTMA is a state body which operates with a commercial remit to provide asset and liability management services to Government. It has evolved from a single function agency managing the National Debt to a manager of a complex portfolio of public assets and liabilities.
The specific wording of the Fianna Proposal for the management and delivery of infrastructure by the NTMA is set out in Box A.
Box A: Fianna Fail General Election Manifesto 2024
“Delivery and ensuring value for money is essential so we will widen the remit of the National Treasury Management Agency to include infrastructure oversight and delivery. This new unit within the NTMA will recruit world-class talent with proven
experience in large-scale project delivery. It will oversee all major national infrastructure projects as directed by the Government. It will also ensure best in class processes and procedures are implemented by the sponsoring Department or body. We will also ensure that there will be transparent accountability for project delivery, ensuring best outcomes for society and the taxpayer.”
Source: Link
Implementation of the Fiann Fail proposal w0uld require the NTMA to set up a new unit within its present organisation. That unit will have to recruit world-class talent with proven experience in large-scale project delivery. It would then oversee all major national infrastructure projects as directed by the Government. It will ensure ‘best-in- class’ processes and procedures are implemented by the sponsoring Department or body. It will also ensure that there will be transparent accountability for project delivery, ensuring best outcomes for society and the taxpayer. All that is fine, by way of objectives, but there are considerable challenges for the NTMA, if is to be successful in delivering infrastructure projects under its new mandate. Two key challenges are – first, the recruitment of expert staff, in sufficient numbers and quickly, and second, quickly establishing workable arrangements in conjunction with the Government Departments and State Agencies who will be delivering the infrastructure projects on the ground.
What does Fine Gael propose?
The Fine Gael option is to establish a new, consolidated Department of Infrastructure, Climate and Transport. This would require the merging of several existing departments. It would necessitate joining the Department of Transport and the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications, as well as the infrastructure delivery functions of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform (including the Office of Public Works). Some functions might have to be transferred to other Departments. For example, the OPW’s National Monuments Service might move to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The changes that have been proposed by Fine Gael are intended to drive strategic alignment and efficient project delivery. In addition to merging departments, the proposals would also require agencies including Eirgrid, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and Uisce Éireann to report on their capital investment plans and delivery to the new central department, ensuring clear reporting lines and accountability. There is a balance that would have to be struck between agencies retaining their independence, and the new department carrying out its mandate to ensure real coordination that fosters a more strategic approach, reducing inefficiencies and delays that arise from differing investment priorities and communication gaps.
The key wording of the Fine Gael proposal for the management and delivery of infrastructure by a new, consolidated department is set out in Box B.
Box B: Fine Gael General Election Manifesto 2024
“Fine Gael will establish a new, consolidated Department of Infrastructure, Climate and Transport to streamline and unify all aspects of infrastructure delivery, from planning to execution, under one dedicated leadership structure supported by relevant expertise within the Department. This department will merge the Department of Transport and Department of
Environment, Climate and Communications (DECC), and the infrastructure delivery functions of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform (DPENDR) including the Office of Public Works. Some functions may be transferred to other Departments. For example, the OPW’s National Monuments Service would move to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.”
Source: Link
The approach proposed by Fine Gael makes a lot of sense. But like the Fianna Fail proposals there are considerable challenges. The big challenge is that it takes time to merge government departments. Not only are there legislative changes that must be made, but there are also the questions of transferring staff of all levels from existing departments to the new department. Departmental officials will have little time to prepare for the merger process, as they will only learn of the new government’s decisions following publication of the programme for government. The immediate focus will have to be on establishing a new department ‘brand-name’ to show it is ‘up and running’ from day one. That leaves little time was left for the medium to longer-term issues such establishing cohesive teams, commencing corporate planning, organising comprehensive human resources, and finalising a financial plan.
Which option will be chosen?
The approach that will be decided on for overseeing the roll out of infrastructure will, in the heel of the hunt, be a political decision. There is little research available that would suggest what the ‘perfect’ solution might be. One piece of research, undertaken eight years ago by the National Economic and Social Council, provides some guidance. The paper was drafted by Dr Damian Thomas and Dr Rory O’Donnell in NESC’s Secretariat. The title of the paper is ‘Reflections on Infrastructure Policy and Institutional Developments in the UK’ – it can be accessed from https://www.nesc.ie/publications/nesc-secretariat-paper-12-2017-reflections-on-infrastructure-policy-and-institutional-developments-in-the-uk/ It should be noted that views are those of the authors and do not represent the collective view of the Council of the NESC.
The NESC paper presents evidence on the UK’s evolving approach to infrastructure governance using concepts from international research on the knowledge-policy relationship and the role of expert bodies. Taken together, the strands of UK research suggest that, in the first instance, the key question to ask in Ireland is not whether to establish a National Infrastructure-type body, but rather to ask to what degree can Ireland develop approaches that link analysis, politics and wider stakeholder and societal interests in an effective way. The NESC paper then concludes that – “…further work and discussion is required before one could reach a view on the precise institutional changes that are appropriate for Ireland. As happened in the UK, it seems prudent to begin by focusing attention on arrangements within government and to consider how the existing processes and arrangements could be enhanced.”
So, what option will be adopted? The answer is that, finally, it will be a political decision. We all will have to wait until the new Programme for Government 2025-2029 is agreed and published to find out what the new structure will be. That will generate many column inches and minutes of airtime.
To give a flavour of the data that were assembled, the UK’s Regulatory Policy Committee included some comments. Here are two of them: –
- Thirty-five assessments received Initial Review Notices (giving departments scope to make improvements). Over three-quarters (29) of these were then improved and ultimately received green opinions.
- There is significant variation across departments. Of the departments with more than five assessments, the former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy achieved 90% Good or Satisfactory ratings, while the Departments of Health and Social Care, Education and Levelling Up, Housing and Communities all received less than 55% Good or Satisfactory ratings https://rpc.blog.gov.uk/2024/05/24/rpc-provides-greater-transparency-on-government-impact-assessments/
Some conclusions
This blog has looked at the scrutiny work on impact assessments undertaken by the EU and by the UK. It is clear that having oversight bodies allow governments to keep the production of impact assessment under review. And it is not just a matter of producing assessments. There is also the need to ensure that they are published. Making impact assessments widely available helps to make the policy development process more transparent and accessible to stakeholders. Having such work widely available also helps those conducting impact assessments, for the first time, to have published examples of previous assessments to assist them in undertaking their own assessments.
Tom Ferris, Consultant Economist.
Tom Ferris is a Consultant Economist specialising in Better Regulation. He lectures on a number of PAI courses and blogs regularly for PAI. He was formerly the Senior Economist at the Department of Transport, Ireland.