Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to the newest version of your browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of Construction News, please enable cookies in your browser.

Welcome to the Construction News site. As we have relaunched, you will have to sign in once now and agree for us to use cookies, so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

IUK no more: IPA needs to prove itself in wake of merger

If any in the infrastructure industry had thought that Christmas had come early this year, following last month’s creation of the National Infrastructure Commission, then they may have been tested a little by last week’s rather sudden demise of Infrastructure UK.

Of course, the government’s stated intent is that IUK’s good work will be carried forward by the newly created Infrastructure and Projects Authority, born from its merger with the Major Projects Authority. 

Mr Osborne described this merger as “the next stage in our plan to ensure Britain’s economy gets the transformational projects it needs”.

Most would acknowledge that the prospects for the nation’s infrastructure have clearly benefited in recent years from a sustained focus on long-term strategic planning.

Get digging

Equally, many would argue that we have had plans aplenty, and that the next stage should be a relentless focus on actual implementation of the national pipeline (a task which is unlikely to get any easier as we rapidly approach a spending review that will continue to be defined by austerity).

“Most would acknowledge that the prospects for the nation’s infrastructure have clearly benefitted in recent years from a sustained focus on long-term strategic planning”

To be fair, implementation seems to be what the government has in mind for the IPA, to judge from the limited explanation so far given for the merger, with its emphasis on combining expertise in financing, delivery and assurance.

The implication seems to be that the IPA will be a more technocratic body, leaving the strategic heavy lifting to be shouldered by the big beasts of the National Infrastructure Commission (assuming, of course, that the Treasury finds the commission’s recommendations acceptable, once they come to fruition).

This approach has a logic, but there was also a good case to argue that IUK was already well placed to fulfil this role, and would have done so with the benefit of continuity and recognition within the industry. 

Fruitless endeavour?

Conversely, every restructuring and relocation inevitably diverts some of the energy and resources of an organisation away from its external objectives and towards internal dynamics and politics.

“Every restructuring and relocation inevitably diverts some of the energy and resources of an organisation away from its external objectives”

It is reasonable to assume that the migration of IUK to its new identity and home in the Cabinet Office may not be immune to this.

At a time, therefore, when it sometimes seems that infrastructure has never had a higher profile on the national stage, both the commission and the authority will want to be seen to be moving quickly and decisively to establish their credentials as drivers of project delivery, rather than being perceived as the next instalment of an already lengthy process of reports, evidence and plans.

Robert Meakin is a partner at Clyde & Co

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.