Both political parties agree that Britain needs more infrastructure and the National Infrastructure Council—suggested by Labour and set up by the Tories—is the symbol of that consensus. The disagreement is over where the money should be spent. Investment in economically strong areas is tempting as it yields immediate results. But it’s in the regions where growth is weaker that new infrastructure is most needed.
Below find the three pieces from the report—an interview with National Infrastructure Commissioner Bridget Rosewell , along with contributions from Stephen Kinnock and Stephen Hammond
Interview: the all-change Commissioner
Rosewell is also focused on energy, especially nuclear power, where the problem is cost. Is Hinkley Point in Somerset too expensive? “My personal opinion is that it is,” said Rosewell. And what can we do about it? “I’m afraid that ship’s sailed. The contracts have been written,” she said, meaning that the price of the electricity it will produce is already set—and set high.
And as for the proposed tidal lagoon in Swansea: “The proposed contract price is even higher.” Developers insist that it’s experimental and that subsequent tidal systems would be cheaper, “but that’s a hypothesis rather than a guarantee.”
“Infrastructure by itself does nothing,” she said. “You can put a bridge between A and B and if nobody’s going to use it then, well…” she said, doubtfully. “But if you put up a bridge that allows people to make trips they couldn’t otherwise make… out of that can come connections—investment activity which couldn’t otherwise happen.” Would the London’s mooted Garden Bridge have had that effect? “Frankly—personal opinion: no.”
Rosewell used to be chief advisor to the Greater London Authority, where until 2012 she focused on transport. Her tenure coincided with the 2012 Games. “I’m a sceptic about the Olympics,” she told me. Instead of regenerating the area around the Olympic Park, “the big benefit of the Olympics was in the London Overground [train] system… If you now go to somewhere like Dalston Junction, you now have a completely different kind of place.”
But what about gentrification? Dalston may look nicer, but that’s not necessarily to the benefit of people who lived there beforehand. “Well if they have a house it’s worth a lot more,” she said. “You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say ‘I want this place to stay poor.’ I don’t really think that’s a good answer. I’ve always found arguments against gentrification quite hard to swallow. Most people want the place that they’re in to get better… And if we want jobs to develop, we need that regeneration, and that must inevitably mean that the place changes a bit,” she said. “‘Gentrification’ is a name you give to regeneration if you don’t like it.”
Energy efficiency and decarbonisation are also high on her agenda. But can government give them the necessary attention while it’s got Brexit to deal with? “There are a number of big projects that are already in play, including Hinkley, including HS2,” said Rosewell, both planned with a time horizon of about five years.
“Many of the things we need to do don’t need to be planned by government,” said Rosewell. “In fact, government is very bad at it. In my view it should back off from some of that and let the people who are market-leading architects and engineers—and who are capable of doing all that work—get on and do it, within the context of a set of priorities.”
“The commission is trying to do something which nobody else in the world has yet tried to do, which is to set those long-term priorities. I think we’re doing well.”
Stephen Kinnock: Infrastructure investment—time to recapture the ambition of 1945
Stephen Hammond: For national success in infrastructure, go local
