|
ACE’s annual conference heard a range of expert views from a panel session on the government’s approach to infrastructure.
John Qualtrough of Bircham Dyson Bell suggested that government deserves a tick for recognising the need for a timely consent system for infrastructure. However, he warned that what emerges remains to be tested.
Localism, he said, is still an unknown quantity as the bill goes through parliament. He noted that it raises expectations among campaign groups and pointed out that while major infrastructure is set aside as an exception, smaller projects will face possible distraction and complication under government plans.
Tim Fitch of VINCI the spoke and suggested that, in terms of stimulating markets, energy market reforms remained to be put into practice.
Additionally he said industry are looking at how more private finance will be bought through for rail investment under new structures.
Alongside that he said he did not think there was a shortage of private money for most schemes. Politics was playing quite a positive and negative role however. He expressed concerns about a change in direction on the IPC and whether TIF funding will eventually move forward.
Mr Fitch also said that greater uncertainty around a project going forward makes it harder to commit resource through the contractor markets. He offered the example of waste to energy incinerators, which were hampered by effective local lobbying.
Stephen Bamforth of Griffiths & Armour spoke next to suggest that the industry has a fundamentally flawed system by which clients dump as much risk as possible on contractors.
This, he said, was hugely inefficient. He explained that claims against consultants saw only one pound paid out by insurance for every five pounds spent on legal proceedings.
Worse still, he said that the present arrangements can undermine constructive feedback.
So he made the case for a system of integrated teams operating on a no blame basis under insurance covering the scheme as a whole. He warned that insurance firms were cautious about this kind of product. It likes the concept, he said, but it needed to be actively convinced that the construction industry as a whole could deliver effective integrated working.
Alex Tosetti of URS/Scott Wilson asked the panel whether, as the government looks for solutions and ideas from industry, there was a case for joined up infrastructure in single corridors?
The panel responded that the government may not see its role in directing corridors. Rather, that would be the role of national grid in the energy sector. The government’s role would be to ensure benign regulatory conditions for that process to move forwards, so that infrastructure bodies can decide on the risks and benefits of such proposals.
|