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

3. Findings of Focus Groups

The focus groups highlighted a range of issues. These are summarised below, along with a selected quote from a focus group participant to illustrate the point.

3.1 Context: the importance of infrastructure

External experts highlighted the importance of infrastructure:

“Infrastructure is such a critical economic enabler. … it is just fundamental really to everything to our quality of life, but it also makes a significant contribution to our economy." [External expert]

3.2 About the IIP and role it plays

SG officials highlighted the strategic significance of the IIP, particularly when it was published but for some, interest had reduced. Several officials, although they were aware of the document, had not read it recently:

“At the time it was published, like all Scottish Government documents, I think there was a lot of interest in it and people paid attention to it. And then over time, it's probably seemed less relevant.” [SG official]

SG officials also expressed uncertainty about the “status” of the IIP, and its role in setting investment priorities and decisions:

“When [the IIP] first came out originally, I thought … this is setting the direction for Scottish Government and therefore we need to be very clear on it. But … it doesn't really influence the balance of investment across portfolios.” [SG official]

3.3 How have the existing documents been used?

There was brief discussion about how and when the IIP has been used by SG officials. Officials highlighted that the IIP was used as part of the budget process, to support the case for funding in certain areas. As indicated above, the point was made that was hard to understand the leverage or teeth it has. The point was made that budget decisions seem to rely heavily on whether a project or programme is legally committed.

SG officials also described how they are involved in strategic documents and strategies in their own areas (such as transport, or climate adaptation), and the overlap with the IIP. The investment hierarchy (which prioritises maintaining and enhancing existing assets over new build) was however described as useful by SG officials.

Some external experts reported limited engagement with the IIP documents. For example:

“They're not documents that I click into regularly. They're published. I'll look at them… and click off. But the only time I would probably go back to the documents is to refresh myself about a particular wording within it, if I'm needing to refer to it in any funding submission.” [External expert]

Staff in scrutiny bodies said they felt familiar with the documents, and that their purpose was clear. However, even for skilled information analysts, focused on this area:

“The challenge is to read across [and be] able to track progress over time and how things are changing at an individual project level.”

It was suggested it would also be helpful to understand risks including “how we are managing the risk and how the risks are evolving.”

3.4 General views on the next Infrastructure Strategy

Some SG officials pointed out that, although to some degree we were discussing the documents and their presentation, that the real interest is what gets into the investment plan, and the process around making difficult decisions.

Officials explored the possibility of the next strategy synthesising information from local and national sources, as a “single source of the truth.” There was also discussion about the role of the next strategy as a means of considering competing priorities, where for example national agencies might not be going at the same speed, or be “at odds” with local government plans on housing:

“Something that helps to bring some of the… competing priorities together ... so … that people can take a balanced scorecard approach … that would be really helpful.” [SG official]

Some SG officials also highlighted that only a relatively small selection of capital projects are listed:

“What sometimes strikes me is how few projects there are that are delivered …you would think that we would have pages and pages of things being delivered.” [SG official]

Having said that one SG official reported that:

“The updating process can be quite onerous, particularly if we have staff members change.”

Some SG officials suggested the next strategy should set the vision, and the principles underpinning decisions. One SG official said it should be about:

“Identifying those key strategic projects where we need public investment and we also need private investment.”

It was suggested that it was less useful to list projects in a pipeline, but a mechanism is needed to ensure transparency and allow accountability. There was some discussion among SG officials about how the strategy fitted with other strategic documents, including the National Planning Framework (NPF), the Capital Spending Review, the Programme for Government, which are all “vying for space.”

External experts discussed the scale of the challenge to be faced in the next strategy, with a particular focus on what it will deliver:

“...this is your delivery plan. This is Scotland's delivery plan. … How does the country actually deliver the level of affordable homes in perpetuity that the country needs.” [External expert]

External experts also discussed the “infrastructure first” approach (in which infrastructure needs are understood and identified early in the development planning process as part of an evidence-based approach):

“..the fundamental challenges of the country as we keep talking about for decades but don't move to an infrastructure first, or a truly integrated infrastructure… we just don't crack it as a country and we are decades behind many parts of mainland Europe, and the government has ditched the infrastructure first approach.” [External expert]

“My dream still is that Scotland becomes a country where infrastructure is integrated. It's upfront where it needs to be upfront.” [External expert]

External experts also discussed the need for the funding mechanisms to be considered. For example:

“…it's public private mix. There's got to be a cocktail in there.” [External expert]

There was also discussion about the need to speed up the pace of delivery, and the balance between that speed and developing a process that requires a buying into a collective vision.

Officials in scrutiny bodies highlighted a number of aspects they wished to see in an infrastructure strategy, relating to clarity of vision, rationale for decision making and ease in tracking details of spend on projects:

“One of our key challenges in this [parliamentary] session has been trying to follow the trail and to understand when things do change, whether it's [a result of] delays, increased cost, different scope. To be able to track that over time, so it's having a consistent presentation where we can easily map projects into programmes up to this high-level strategy and understand when we're seeing changes, and how that all links together.”

It was also reported that because six monthly updates had been “lighter” of late, this had affected parliamentary committees’ ability to hold their usual scrutiny sessions. Staff in scrutiny bodies made some suggestions as to what would be useful to see in future infrastructure strategy documents:

"a clear sense of when activities are going to happen; the profiling element.”

“Considerations of risks, to be clear that you've got a plan of managing those risks as when they arise.”

“The plan ought to be a dynamic plan, because planning over five-year period is a long period, given context changes, either on the finance or on the demands for, for infrastructure.”

“What I wouldn't want to see is a longer-term plan with even less detail. And the key thing for us that's missing is having a more detailed understanding about what activity we should see when.”

3.5 What issues need to be considered in the next Infrastructure Strategy?

Officials highlighted a number of the issues they felt needed to be addressed within the new Infrastructure Strategy. One of the issues highlighted was the infrastructure needed for climate change adaptation, with big changes in water, wastewater, and drainage, and for example the need to accommodate “big water users” down the East coast, including on housing:

“How are we going to deal with too much water and where do we put it when it falls out of the sky?” [SG official]

A recurring issue raised by SG officials was affordability and the need to tackle difficult choices and competing priorities.

3.6 A Prospectus for the private sector?

Some SG officials highlighted the potential role of the next strategy to act as a “prospectus” to lever private sector investment, and as a means to “unlock” collaboration with the private sector. For example:

“We're going to use our power to invest in infrastructure and this is what Scotland will look like as a result of that. And here are the big investment opportunities for the private sector coming from all of that. I think having that really compelling story about infrastructure and how it can drive growth and realise our targets.” [SG official]

3.7 A spatial, regional, or local focus?

Some SG officials discussed the scope for the next Infrastructure Strategy to have a more spatial, local, or regional focus, and how it might align with the National Planning Framework:

“If we were to give it more regional definition, would that help to differentiate between priorities and different parts of the country.” [SG official]

“that's where the relationship with the national planning framework could come in, in that more spatial take on how those various sectors play out together in different places.” [SG official]

[the Infrastructure Strategy could set out] “where the regional investment needs to go as well as local investment. And so … does this document bridge the gap between the national picture and the very local level and start to think about where investment is needed regionally and the major assets regionally to deliver against those three main themes of the IIP.” [SG official]

3.8 Views on the three themes

SG officials generally supported and understood the three themes, though they were not necessarily using them on a daily basis, as illustrated by the following quotes:

“They all still stand, and they all make sense.”

“We don't really consider them, they're so broad - they've got to be meaningful to all sectors.” [SG official]

There was also some discussion about the Investment Hierarchy, and that there was limited buy-in from stakeholders. There were some suggestions as to how the themes could be developed, with a suggestion about including climate change adaptation. This resonated with some other SG officials, who thought it related to the theme of “resilience,” which it was thought, could apply to the health service. Another suggestion was to include a focus on “delivering high quality public services.” One challenge is identifying which theme to suggest for an investment, when some infrastructure delivers on all three themes.

External experts discussed the three themes in the IIP, and whilst none disagreed with the themes, they questioned what they actually meant in practice:

“You've got to watch things don't become too fluffy and they actually are easily understood and [it is possible to] see what exactly it is. That's always the challenge with these bigger policy documents… What is it? What does it actually mean?” [External expert]

“How is that going to address the fundamental strategic infrastructure challenges that the Scotland has? To drive this economy, that's the question that needs to come through very, very strongly, because there's never been such a big issue in Scotland. So, it was easy doing the last document. But this infrastructure plan is very challenging because the scale has got greater and partly that's [because] the cost of things has got greater.” [External expert]

“If you want to have proper meaningful engagement around this, you need to break these things down and make them more concrete, because otherwise people and companies won't be able to like to relate to it. It can mean anything.” [External expert]

Staff in scrutiny bodies did not take a view on the merits of the three themes but did question on how useful they have been in guiding investment decisions:

"How well defined are they to actually guide strategic planning?”

It was suggested that “a clearer kind of statement of the intended outcomes” it might be useful to understand the thinking in the document.

3.9 Duration of next Infrastructure Strategy?

Most SG officials supported the case for the Infrastructure Strategy to take a longer-term perspective, but in with qualification about what aspects would be useful to be long term:

“The strategy should be longer term” in light of the UK infrastructure strategy going to be 10 years and the fact that transport projects take a long time to deliver.” [SG official]

“A ten-year plan is essential. I think of five years, by the time you've done it, you're starting the next one. So, I think that I think also it'd be helpful if it was directional rather than prescriptive.” [SG official]

“I think the strategy should take a longer-term view, but it should, maybe just be at a slightly higher level or intent and it should be live somehow as well.” [SG official]

Some suggestions on approaches emerged in discussions with SG officials. For example, the STPR (Strategic Projects Transport Review) was based on public consultation, which generated 14,000 ideas, refined down to 45 recommendations (or programmes) and five themes. There was also a suggestion about making the Infrastructure Strategy “backward looking” to a degree, to improve credibility. Other SG officials also highlighted the benefits of longer-term strategy:

“a longer-term vision that we can … hold to and try to hold to across administrations will be more beneficial than constant change.”

External experts had different perspectives on the timescale for the next strategy. In one case there was a view that:

“10 years is too long. The world is a fast-changing place, and I would have thought five years there has to be a way to review it. ...10 years is too long for such an important document that needs to drive deliverability.”

There was also a view from other external experts that a longer-term vision would also be needed, and this might even cover 20 or 30 years.

3.10 Transparency, communication, and engagement

Issues around transparency and communication were raised by some SG officials. For example, some officials said there was a need to think about the narrative or a story:

“We really need to start thinking about the narrative around looking after what we've got… How are we affecting the people of Scotland rather than constantly talking about costs and programmes.”

Other SG officials highlighted opportunities to be more proactive in communications, something which they said had also been highlighted by committees and might reduce the need for PQs (Parliamentary Questions) and FOIs (Freedom of Information), and the opportunity for a single information system. It was also suggested that transparency could be improved when money has “been taken and put somewhere else.” It was also questioned whether there were other ways to engage beyond the Planning Infrastructure and Place Advisory Group (PIPAG).

External experts discussed the degree of transparency on infrastructure. One expert said that:

“Scotland does really well in disclosing data on infrastructure projects. However, it's quite high level. The problem is that it's highly fragmented. As a normal user you wouldn't just be able to go in and let's say like look at the dual link from Perth to Inverness or whatever and very quickly find out what is the status of this project? What are the contracts involved in it? Is it on time and budget? and so on.” [External expert]

External experts made suggestions as to how the SG could improve transparency:

“It's got to be short and sharp. And if there's fundamentally key messages in that from government, it's maybe about more accessible mediums. You know, I'd probably look at why I do look at LinkedIn every day. I don't look at the Scottish government's website every day.” [External expert]

There was further discussion about how the “dry” or “flat” SG information could be brought to life:

“There could be short video clips demystifying how people actually access funding. You make it easier for entrepreneurs and investors in Scotland to get in there and find that funding to unlock challenges and actually deliver for Scotland.” [External expert]

“There's so much you can do with data nowadays. You can make it much more [of a] play space so you can go, and you can select a certain area… start working on actually having machine readable dates and so on. And a lot of these things could be updated in a real time in a real time basis, right?” [External expert]

3.11 Need for a more joined up approach with the UK?

One external expert highlighted a lack of join up with UK and Scottish industrial and infrastructure strategies, and for example pointed out that there is currently nobody from Scotland on UK Industrial Strategy Advisory Council . This was also in the context of noting that (in England):

“Mutual authorities being given the tools to create their own growth plans and that will include things like skills and infrastructure.” [External expert]

3.12 Needs assessment

External experts pointed to the benefits of undertaking a needs assessment, and asking some key questions:

“It's not about let's decide what the right projects are or what the right type of infrastructure is. It is actually where is the where's the greatest potential for growth? Where is it that the infrastructure is a key blocker to that or an enabler? What are the improvements that need to be made so it's good connectivity, its water, it's transport. You know, its energy, it's all of those things.” [External expert]

3.13 Delivery

Another issue raised by external experts was how delivery needed to improve. Experts suggested that based on research for the UK National Infrastructure Commission this might relate to:

“Lack of a perceived intelligent client that was not used to managing infrastructure projects of that scale. …and the other, the other piece here is of course that our local authorities have been completely hollowed out.”

“Very often projects that go over time or over budget and don't deliver on scope. We have many several examples from Scotland and certainly worldwide. It's a problem in any country to get this right.”