Infrastructure investment plan 2021-22 to 2025-26: lessons learned

Executive Summary

This short process evaluation considers what can be learned about how the previous Infrastructure Investment Plan (IIP) document has been used, to help the Infrastructure team, in Director-General Exchequer, Strategy And Performance (DGESP), prepare for a new Infrastructure Strategy.

The evaluation gathered evidence primarily through four focus groups (involving internal SG staff, and external stakeholders), and a subsequent short review of key documents raised in the focus groups. The draft results were presented and discussed with the Planning Infrastructure and Place Advisory Group (PIPAG) in August 2025, representing the final stage of gathering views for the exercise.

The focus groups did not reach firm conclusions, but issues discussed included the following:

• There were general discussions of the scale of the challenge facing Scotland on infrastructure, with views expressed that the scale of the challenge had increased since the last IIP, concern about affordability, and how major issues could be tackled for example on transport, housing, drainage, climate adaptation and wider resilience.
• Focus group participants expressed awareness of the previous IIP, but mostly reported limited use since publication, except for specific issues such as budget bids.
• There was uncertainty about the status of the IIP, and the extent to which it had “teeth” in guiding decision making. There was also discussion about its fit with other strategic documents, and degree of duplication.
• Focus group participants did not raise any objections to the three themes in the IIP. Some said they made sense, but were very broad, and for example that the same project might be classified under all three. A suggestion was made that environmental goals might now specifically incorporate climate adaptation, or possibly even a wider theme of resilience.
• Participants were asked about the timescale for a new strategy. Most participants supported a longer-term perspective for a vision or framework but recognising the fast pace of change the plan must adapt to.
• Transparency and engagement were actively discussed by all groups, with requests for easier tracking or profiling of costs on a consistent basis, and suggestions of building a “live,” “dynamic,” interactive resource.
• Some participants discussed the role for the new Infrastructure Strategy to act as a prospectus to help lever in private sector investment.
• Some participants discussed the scope for greater focus on the spatial dimensions of the plan, with a local or regional focus.
• Other suggestions included the case to start with a needs assessment. It was also suggested there could be stronger link with UK infrastructure plans (for example via the UK Industrial Strategy Advisory Council). The challenges of effective delivery of infrastructure were also discussed.