When Minister for Public Enterprise Jack Chambers asked me to serve on the Accelerating Infrastructure Taskforce, I had three thematic questions for him. “Are we serious about it?”; “Is everything on the table?”; “Are you personally invested?”
I’ve been involved in government initiatives previously, and know others who also have given of their time with mixed results. There are many who have contributed hugely but carry the scars of sensible suggestions from reports or taskforces gathering dust.
I also had a degree of scepticism that the Department of Public Expenditure, seen as the “Department of No” in some quarters and under whose remit the taskforce was operating, would dominate the proceedings to their agenda.
So far, I have been proven wrong.
READ MORE
Those three questions have been emphatically answered. The taskforce, containing representatives from agencies, utilities, planning, independent members and Department officials, has worked with a unity of purpose.
The team in the Department have been progressive and focused on problem solving. The Minister has been hands on, chairing every meeting and putting his stamp on the work.
When the taskforce was announced in May, it barely caused a ripple. Seven months later, there is a national consensus that we need to accelerate infrastructure delivery – now. Timelines have been put on our recommendations. If they are allowed to slip then the risk is of this report, like many others, running into the sand.
The final pillar of the taskforce report is public acceptance – winning hearts and minds
Generally, we build the “right” infrastructure and we build it well. The problem is that the time from inception to delivery of major infrastructural projects is twice what it was 20 years ago. This can’t continue from a societal and economic perspective.
Much of the public and media focus on the report will be on reform of the legal system, and judicial reviews in particular. There will be some sound and fury from vested interests.
But the broad aims are to make the JR process faster – by reducing frivolous cases designed only to delay, rebalancing costs in a more equitable manner (where the State carries almost all of the can in certain environmental appeals) and allow a more common sense approach where omissions or relatively minor deficiencies do not cause a project to go back to the start of the process.
It is difficult to see how reasonable people can object to this. It is time for the common good to come to the forefront in the judicial process and outcomes. Critical infrastructure and emergency powers legislation will also be useful tools in the Government’s armoury.
But there are three other pillars (regulatory reform and simplification; co-ordination and delivery reform; and public acceptance) where 23 of the other actions reside and, if successfully implemented, these will have an even greater impact.
On the need for regulatory reform and simplification, we have hamstrung ourselves in certain areas over the last couple of decades by introducing complicated processes and structures, “gold plating” of European Directives (going further than the rules demand) and overlapping regulations around infrastructure to little or no benefit to society or the economy.
We need a hard look at what is really necessary and appropriate for critical infrastructure (an exercise that could be useful in other areas). The proposals for a regulatory simplification unit, looking at past EU regulation implementation to see what flexibility we have, how to avoid these mistakes in the future and whether our regulatory systems are fit for purpose are all things that should have been addressed years ago. But the next best time to start is now.
[ Tweaking rules for judicial reviews will not solve the problemOpens in new window ]
The proposal to enable developers to build infrastructure in the area of electricity and water, where the utility concerned doesn’t have the capacity to do it, is a positive signal. It should result in faster delivery of infrastructure and the standards that the utilities are held to will be maintained.
Co-ordination and delivery reform will require the various organs of State to work in a more integrated way than has been the case. There are a lot of common sense proposals which, if we get right, should have an almost invisible but substantial impact on infrastructure delivery, build better pipeline confidence and stronger collaboration and partnership with industry.
But silently underpinning a lot of the cultural change required right across the system is an understandable inbuilt aversion to risk. If you’re involved anywhere in the infrastructure delivery system and making big decisions, likely at the forefront of your consideration will be that your decision might be picked apart at a future date in a court or, even worse, at the Public Accounts Committee.
In business, and in life, things will not always go to plan. One of our proposals is that the Government will introduce risk appetite statements. These will, in essence, acknowledge that the need for speed in infrastructure delivery may at times lead to costs – but these should still be a lot less than the economic, social and environmental costs of delay.
That needs to be understood, especially by politicians. A change of mindset everywhere in the system to reflect this new approach is the most important component of change.
The final pillar of the taskforce report is public acceptance – winning hearts and minds. We have been excellent at this for years on foreign direct investment with even taxi drivers being conversant with the benefits of Ireland’s policy approach. But somehow or other, critical infrastructure doesn’t have the same resonance.
A while back, I got a flyer in the door asking me to object against a proposal for wind farms off Dún Laoghaire – the essence of the argument was “not in my back yard”, even when the infrastructure was 10km out to sea. But critical infrastructure is necessary.
It is what will give people the opportunity to live, socialise and work where they want. It is also essential for our economy to remain competitive and to thrive. We need to be better at bringing that concept to life.
The members of the Accelerating Infrastructure Taskforce thought we had signed up until the end of this year. However we will now be kept in place to oversee and monitor delivery. Maybe this is the moment we’ll all get serious about critical infrastructure.
Feargal O’Rourke is a member of the Accelerating infrastructure Taskforce and Chair of IDA Ireland
