The report on accelerating the provision of key infrastructure offers a clear-sighted analysis of the problems and proposes 30 actions to combat them. These fall into three key areas – changing legal processes, reforming regulation and improving delivery and coordination. None of these will be easy, even if some – such as ensuring departments, State agencies and local authorities work efficiently together – would appear to be just common sense.
That the plan has such strong support from within Government reflects the pressure to deal more effectively with the housing crisis as well as the need to provide key infrastructure to underpin economic and social development. Delivery in all these areas has become extraordinarily slow, mired in regulatory and legal processes and overseen by a nervous and inefficient administrative machine.
A subtext of the report, drawn up by a committee chaired by Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chamber and including private sector appointees and senior public servants, is that there is much to fix. While there may be some “quick wins” to be had, it lays out a complex process of legislative and regulatory reform, as well as far-reaching changes to administration and practices right across the public service.
Getting all this done – or even the bulk of it – will be difficult. Legal challenges inevitably await in some areas and push-back by State agencies and lobby groups in others. The first task will be to develop some momentum to the reform process – and by doing so send a message out that the Government is determined to get the recommendations implemented. If this is not achieved, then there will be a real risk of the whole thing running into the sand.
READ MORE
But this does not need to happen. Given the right level of political support, there is no reason why a significant amount of what is proposed cannot be achieved. Much, after all, involves various parts of the State machinery, ostensibly under control of the Government.
A clear message needs to be sent out across the public service and to State bodies. For example, the nonsense we have seen of States agencies fighting to try to stop the release of “their land” for housing or vital infrastructure projects can be quickly ended, given the political will. So can the turf wars among regulatory bodies and the endless processes which some projects have needed to get through the departmental ”system.”
This plan cannot be seen as a strategy to avoid vital environmental or regulatory assessments, but to do them appropriately, efficiently and as quickly as possible. Proper local planning and more straightforward regulations can, in turn, reduce the number of judicial reviews and make them less likely to succeed. This plan can make a difference. Whether it will is the question.
