Transkrip penuh untuk Why don’t we look back in anger? If we did, would we find out why infrastructure projects are plagued by unrealistic objectives, missed deadlines and overspent budgets?

00:02:49.280 Many of them, of course, um who look at the 2008 Planning Act, which introduced Dita NCIP's Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects as a sort of specific category to be dealt with by a new mechanism, a new planning mechanism, which was supposed to save time and money and strip out um excessive bureaucracy and so on. 00:02:49.520 --> 00:02:59.360 But we've sadly, since 2008, has really been more honored in its um ignorance, if you like, than in its observance. 00:02:59.439 --> 00:03:08.879 And that's I think an issue that we need to deal with today because, you know, in very simple terms, I'm afraid, I don't think we do infrastructure at all well. 00:03:09.759 --> 00:03:11.919 Setting a stall out already, I love it. 00:03:12.159 --> 00:03:14.400 Heather, would you like to introduce yourself? 00:03:14.719 --> 00:03:15.680 Hi, Ricky. 00:03:15.840 --> 00:03:25.120 I'm Heather Sheffield, I'm head of strategic planning at Northern Gas Networks, and I'm also working as an associate director here at Independent. 00:03:25.439 --> 00:03:39.120 I'm a civil engineer by background, and I've spent the vast majority of my career working across water and energy sectors, focusing on how we plan and deliver infrastructure that underpins everyday life. 00:03:40.639 --> 00:03:41.199 Ferb. 00:03:41.360 --> 00:03:41.919 Thank you. 00:03:42.159 --> 00:03:43.680 Well, let's get straight into it. 00:03:43.759 --> 00:03:46.560 So uh I'll start with quite a pointy question, I think. 00:03:46.719 --> 00:03:50.000 So we've known for decades why infrastructure projects fail. 00:03:50.240 --> 00:03:53.120 So why aren't we getting any better at fixing it? 00:03:53.360 --> 00:03:55.599 I'm gonna start with you, Steve. 00:03:56.560 --> 00:04:05.680 Well, I think it's because um uh the UK has a sort of unique um status in this little world of ours. 00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:35.199 There was a time when we covered two-thirds of the planet in pink, and you know, it covered most of the developed world, India, the whole of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as they now are, uh, Australia and New Zealand, and then of course South Africa, other parts of Africa, um, and of course in Europe, not only um the United Kingdom, but we had, of course, in two world wars established ourselves as the guardians of uh democracy and freedom. 00:04:35.360 --> 00:04:50.480 And of course, a couple of centuries ago, we allowed the Americans to um to secede, as the king has so magnificently um uh confirmed when he went over to celebrate the anniversary of uh of independence. 00:04:50.720 --> 00:04:59.600 Um what it's led to is a form of government which is obsessed with bureaucracy. 00:05:00.160 --> 00:05:05.839 We uh we we we're remarkably, for example, free from corruption. 00:05:06.319 --> 00:05:15.920 I'm sure there are the odd corrupt civil servant and official in either local government or even central government, but they are very, very, very few and far between. 00:05:16.160 --> 00:05:24.879 And uh I certainly never encountered anybody in my time in government in four or five different government departments who I would put in that category. 00:05:25.040 --> 00:05:27.040 We're very honest, but very open. 00:05:27.279 --> 00:05:30.639 But frankly, we are too obsessed with detail. 00:05:30.879 --> 00:05:38.800 And I'll just, for example, uh going from the general to the specific point to the case like the Lower Thames Crossing. 00:05:38.879 --> 00:05:45.519 Anybody in this industry will know that this is almost an unbelievable case, and yet it's true. 00:05:45.680 --> 00:06:02.160 The Lower Thames Crossing project involves a road from the M25 under the current Dartford Bridge to two new tunnels, which will create lots of extra capacity to get goods from the West Midlands to the Kent Ports where our major markets are. 00:06:02.480 --> 00:06:05.439 But that project has been going for ten years. 00:06:05.680 --> 00:06:22.560 It's already cost 300 million pounds just in planning and costs alone, and in the process has created an unimaginable£130,000 pages of documentation to be presented to the planning inspectorate. 00:06:22.800 --> 00:06:38.319 Oh, and just to add insult to injury, although the current Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, has indicated that she wants to proceed with the project, we're a million miles for deciding who's going to build it, how they're going to build it, how long is it going to take. 00:06:38.480 --> 00:06:44.639 And all I do know is that I doubt I'll be alive long enough to actually see it delivered. 00:06:44.800 --> 00:07:01.519 And yet it's quite vital because what it does is it provides hugely um uh wanted capacity um i f for goods from the Midlands where we make them to get to the ports where we need them to go to sell to our customers. 00:07:01.920 --> 00:07:03.680 I uh I rest my case. 00:07:03.839 --> 00:07:09.040 There is no other country in the world that would have treated a project like this in that way. 00:07:09.120 --> 00:07:19.519 And the Norwegians, of course, I suspect with a very wry smile, point out that for half the money we've just spent on planning, they actually built the world's longest subaqueous tunnel. 00:07:20.240 --> 00:07:20.800 Wow. 00:07:21.120 --> 00:07:23.120 That kind of puts it into perspective, doesn't it? 00:07:23.360 --> 00:07:25.040 Martin, is there anything you'd like to add? 00:07:26.160 --> 00:07:37.759 Um Yes, I think I'd take a step back, and I don't accept necessarily that we are universally bad at infrastructure. 00:07:39.279 --> 00:07:44.959 Um if you look across the world, every country has failed infrastructure projects. 00:07:45.279 --> 00:07:53.439 The two countries I think are best at infrastructure, which probably France, in my view, and China, have their own problems. 00:07:53.680 --> 00:07:59.600 So even the French have managed to build railway stations that can't take their trains because the trains are don't fit.

00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:08.160 The Chinese are extremely successful in building large numbers of new buildings, but have got a major property crisis at the moment because there's no one to fill them. 00:08:08.399 --> 00:08:08.720 Yeah. 00:08:09.040 --> 00:08:17.120 Um, so you don't have to be a kind of um a Spain building an airport which no one's going to use. 00:08:17.199 --> 00:08:19.199 Even the good countries get this role. 00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:23.680 Um equally, we do have some success stories. 00:08:23.920 --> 00:08:24.319 Yes. 00:08:24.560 --> 00:08:27.279 So Thames Tideway Tunnel, for example. 00:08:27.439 --> 00:08:34.320 Um, I share Steve's view of some of the bureaucracies that were associated with the start of it because I was involved in it. 00:08:34.399 --> 00:08:43.120 But the fact is, it's a highly successful infrastructure project opened roughly on time, doing something that's absolutely essential. 00:08:43.360 --> 00:08:54.960 Um equally, in one of my other hats, we're just completing a£180 million flood scheme, coastal defence scheme in Portsmouth, which I think is going to be the envy of the world. 00:08:55.840 --> 00:09:01.519 It's beautiful, it's public realm, it's completed on time, and part of it is actually completed on the budget. 00:09:02.879 --> 00:09:16.159 Where I agree with Steve is that there are, well, firstly, there are some schemes which I would describe as largely public sector mega projects that we get badly wrong. 00:09:16.480 --> 00:09:16.960 Right. 00:09:17.200 --> 00:09:31.039 And this is the it would be impossible not to mention high speed two, but we have a comprehensive track record of picking the wrong technologies and then having an extremely expensive build on nuclear. 00:09:31.279 --> 00:09:39.200 Um I don't think I agree with Steve, I don't think any other country would have faffed around on Heathrow Third Runway to the extent that this country has. 00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:47.440 So I think our problem, and it is a problem, is associated partly with very large public sector projects. 00:09:47.679 --> 00:09:47.840 Okay. 00:09:48.080 --> 00:09:58.639 And I don't quite know what the solution is there, and I don't think it's um simply a factor of bureaucracy. 00:09:58.960 --> 00:10:10.240 The other problem that Steve's raised is of planning processes, um, environmental impact assessments, um business cases, etc. 00:10:10.960 --> 00:10:14.080 There I have more sympathy with what we do. 00:10:14.879 --> 00:10:25.600 Because compared to almost every other industrialized country, we are firstly a democracy, and secondly, we're very densely populated. 00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:34.080 Now, the richer countries get, the more their people in general value quality of life and environment. 00:10:34.480 --> 00:10:42.879 If you're a densely populated country, then you have fewer places to put things, and the consequences of putting things places are greater. 00:10:43.759 --> 00:10:56.320 Um, while I think we're bad

at big mega projects in the state sector, I think some of the bureaucracy is a function of the nature of country we are, viz. 00:10:56.480 --> 00:10:58.320 being a densely populated democracy. 00:10:58.399 --> 00:11:01.120 And I'm not sure there's all that much we can do about that. 00:11:01.200 --> 00:11:02.720 We can play around things at the edges. 00:11:02.879 --> 00:11:05.440 Some of the things are bonkers, I agree. 00:11:05.759 --> 00:11:12.799 But a number of them are actually a reflection of what the body politic demands in this country. 00:11:13.200 --> 00:11:23.200 So I would narrow the problem down a bit, I think, to some of the bureaucracy, but the particular issue that we are awful at big mega projects in the public sector. 00:11:23.600 --> 00:11:26.639 So you think it's a public sector versus a private sector? 00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:32.080 Well, if you actually look at where the if you look at where the projects are working. 00:11:32.480 --> 00:11:33.120 Yeah. 00:11:33.519 --> 00:11:41.279 Um, say the projects over a billion that are working, um, it tends to be in the private sector. 00:11:41.519 --> 00:11:44.720 So Thames Tideway was definitely private sector. 00:11:44.879 --> 00:12:00.639 If you look at offshore wind, for example, which I think is a huge success story for the UK and has been billions, that's been done in the private sector through rightly, I think, a system of auctions, which means we get the most for the cheapest price. 00:12:00.960 --> 00:12:10.240 I think it's too early to tell where the big grid upgrade is going to go, but I'm reasonably hopeful that quite a lot of the big grid upgrade will also get through reasonably successfully. 00:12:10.399 --> 00:12:14.320 So I I do think actually the evidence, where's it gone wrong? 00:12:14.559 --> 00:12:19.840 Nucle is effectively a state sector project, even if it is done by third parties. 00:12:20.399 --> 00:12:25.039 High Speed 2 was entirely a state sector project, albeit contracted out. 00:12:25.200 --> 00:12:29.279 And Heathrow Third Runway, all the problems are from the state sector. 00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:33.120 Um, we can't tell whether it will be a state sector project because it doesn't exist yet. 00:12:33.840 --> 00:12:34.960 True, very true. 00:12:35.279 --> 00:12:50.080 It's really interesting because I still think a lot of those examples, Martin, that you've um sort of given there, there's still a very strong relationship between public sector planning to set the strategic direction for those projects like Thames Hideway. 00:12:50.559 --> 00:12:56.799 Um and I do think that where we are falling down is some of that longer-term thinking. 00:12:56.960 --> 00:13:05.759 So there wasn't, there was an example today, I think, in the telegraph, Rachel Reeves has announced 10,000 houses to be built outside of Cambridge, but they've realized there's not enough water. 00:13:05.919 --> 00:13:18.159 So my question immediately as an engineer is how did we get to the point where they've announced this huge development with massive society impact on customers without actually looking at whether or not the essential services are in place. 00:13:18.320 --> 00:13:28.960 And for me, that just shows that there's this lack of um whole system planning or thinking in place that sets that direction to even enable the projects to be delivered in the first place. 00:13:30.159 --> 00:13:43.840 I think in part that's because the current government is desperate to sort of show activity and in the process has, if you like, not taken sufficient account of things which are blindingly obvious. 00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:48.399 I mean, the idea that there's a serious water shortage in the Cambridge area is not new. 00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:56.879 For several years I chaired Cambridge's arm's length Crocco when it was run, when the council was run by the Conservatives. 00:13:57.120 --> 00:14:01.279 I uh I was retired when it was run by a Liblab coalition. 00:14:01.440 --> 00:14:03.360 But I know that part of the world very well. 00:14:03.519 --> 00:14:09.360 And it it's been in it it's not a secret at all that there's a serious water problem in the area. 00:14:09.519 --> 00:14:18.320 So the first thing you do if you want to start building a lot of homes, which of course are highly desirable, the came you should be a growing city, is to solve problems like that first. 00:14:18.639 --> 00:14:36.480 Yes, and I think you're right, Heather, that the lack of joined up thinking there is just another manifestation of too many cooks, too many cooks spoiling the broth, you know, that an over an overcomplicated solution to a problem that really that nobody's thought through properly. 00:14:37.200 --> 00:14:41.440 And the bureaucracy point that you made earlier, Steve, I completely agree. 00:14:41.600 --> 00:14:44.080 Um, we are obsessed by regulation. 00:14:44.320 --> 00:14:52.159 Um, you know, I've worked in the regulated utility sector in the UK now for over 12 years, and we are completely obsessed with regulation. 00:14:52.399 --> 00:15:10.720 And that is sometimes often, and Vicky's gonna smile when I say this, at the cost of customers and the fact that we're not thinking about customer outcomes, and you can extend that across right across infrastructure delivery to say, are we delivering the right projects in line with what we need to be doing for our community and society to be prosperous? 00:15:11.279 --> 00:15:32.639 You know, Martin talked about uh and made an interesting point about us being, you know, a small island, highly populated, and so on, and that that might uh introduce issues which other countries with more space in which to build high-speed railways, for example, you know, Spain, very easy, France pretty easy, UK very difficult indeed. 00:15:32.799 --> 00:15:37.360 Um, it doesn't excuse HS2 for reasons we might come on to. 00:15:37.600 --> 00:15:43.919 But more importantly, I'm not entirely sure that I buy Martin's, if you

like, proposition. 00:15:44.159 --> 00:15:58.399 Because why is it in this really dense island that we have totally failed to just deal with planning issues around bats, around jumping spiders, and around, you know, um great-crested newts. 00:15:58.799 --> 00:16:06.480 I mean, the I mean we with the 2025 uh Planning and Infrastructure Act was supposed to deal with issues like this. 00:16:06.639 --> 00:16:10.240 Everybody knows that they can be an incredible drag on projects. 00:16:10.320 --> 00:16:20.080 I mean, I've known projects held up for years because of bats or in one case um uh it was great crested newts, and in a case I was involved in, it was jumping spiders. 00:16:20.159 --> 00:16:21.360 I mean, it's ludicrous. 00:16:21.519 --> 00:16:24.720 No other country in the world is that obsessed. 00:16:24.879 --> 00:16:32.960 Now, if you're gonna tell me we're the only country in the world that cares about bats and jumping spiders and whatever, I'm sorry I don't buy that for a moment. 00:16:33.039 --> 00:16:39.919 The truth is we simply have so much bureaucracy that we manage to avoid the issues that actually matter. 00:16:40.080 --> 00:16:51.519 And incidentally, even when we're talking around, uh, for example, the project which uh Martin uh rightly pointed to, which is the 10 times vertunnel, it's a great project, no question about that. 00:16:51.679 --> 00:17:04.480 It is just worthwhile remembering that originally the promoters put 50,000 pages of evidence to the um to the planning inspectorate, and the planning inspectorate came back and said, I'm afraid we need another 20,000 pages. 00:17:04.640 --> 00:17:06.720 So in total, it's actually 70,000 pages. 00:17:06.799 --> 00:17:10.960 And the people who are involved in that project, who I know very well, will tell you that that's the case. 00:17:11.200 --> 00:17:13.759 It's not that it's not a great project, because it is. 00:17:13.920 --> 00:17:25.839 But the question is whether you needed 70,000 pages and God knows how many millions of pounds worth of words and time and money and whatever, to simply say, what a good idea, let's get on with it. 00:17:25.920 --> 00:17:32.720 Because it certainly didn't bother uh, you know, um the original builders of uh the of the sewage system. 00:17:32.880 --> 00:17:33.119 Mr. 00:17:33.200 --> 00:17:36.880 Basajet didn't have to deal with 70,000 pages of evidence. 00:17:36.960 --> 00:17:38.079 I can promise you that. 00:17:38.319 --> 00:17:43.039 His his uh his proposition was pretty cool and has lasted the last 130 years. 00:17:43.279 --> 00:17:46.720 So, you know, I think I think we ought to be careful. 00:17:46.799 --> 00:17:49.839 We ought to accept that we do some of these things very badly. 00:17:50.079 --> 00:17:59.359 There's, for example, the appalling example of um uh Hinckley Point C and its attitude to protecting fish. 00:18:00.160 --> 00:18:11.680 Now, you probably know that uh one of the things nuclear power stations like to do is to be sighted near open water so that they can discharge the warm water into fresh water, and that's logical. 00:18:11.759 --> 00:18:25.200 It uh occasionally causes problems like Fukushima, where it the proximity to water, of course, um uh had some dangerous consequences, but normally it's what what nuclear power stations, large nuclear power stations, are always planned to do. 00:18:25.440 --> 00:18:46.319 But in our case, uniquely, Hinkley Point C has so far spent in excess of, wait for it, 700 million pounds on trying to make sure that fish don't float the wrong way or don't swim the wrong way into the power station and might get bumped on the head. 00:18:47.039 --> 00:18:50.960 700 million pounds, massive structures. 00:18:51.200 --> 00:19:03.920 You want to see the pictures of these structures, huge concrete mountains with great, you know, housing, great sort of gates that have to be pulled up and set down and God knows whatever else. 00:19:04.160 --> 00:19:06.079 I mean, nobody else in the world does that. 00:19:06.160 --> 00:19:14.960 That's why Hindley Point C, which incidentally got its playing concern very quickly because it was one of the first NSIP projects in um around about the turn of the century. 00:19:15.039 --> 00:19:20.000 And so actually, in that sense, we have we were off to a standing start, still hasn't been built. 00:19:20.240 --> 00:19:26.240 And when it is completed, it will be the most expensive nuclear power station in the world. 00:19:26.480 --> 00:19:27.680 Only in Britain. 00:19:28.000 --> 00:19:29.839 Only in Britain would we ever consider. 00:19:30.240 --> 00:19:34.240 Incidentally, the later evidence was that the fish weren't swimming that way anyway. 00:19:34.400 --> 00:19:36.079 So the whole thing is a complete waste. 00:19:36.240 --> 00:19:40.079 And there is nobody else in the world who does what we do. 00:19:40.480 --> 00:19:50.000 We're either the nicest people in the world and the only ones thinking about the fish, or we're just over massively over bureaucratized dealing with the problem that nobody else thinks is a problem. 00:19:50.480 --> 00:19:54.880 Do you think that's uh like a a a mismatch of risk appetite then? 00:19:55.759 --> 00:20:03.279 That actually we are we are quite risk averse, so we want to make sure everything is exactly as it should be before we progress. 00:20:03.759 --> 00:20:04.799 Well, who is we? 00:20:05.039 --> 00:20:08.000 You see, I don't think the promoters of the project are we. 00:20:08.400 --> 00:20:13.119 I don't think those of us who would like to see that nuclear power come online are we. 00:20:13.440 --> 00:20:32.400 I think we're talking about this issue of us being obsessed with dotting every I, crossing every T, and exhausting every potential issue to the nth degree, and in the process, creating a process in which nothing happens for years and years and years. 00:20:32.880 --> 00:20:39.200 I mean, Hickley Point C was originally thought of before the start of the current

century. 00:20:39.440 --> 00:20:43.519 We're now quarterway through that century, and it's still not built. 00:20:44.079 --> 00:20:50.640 It's you know, the the I took the first um uh the bill for crossrail through. 00:20:50.799 --> 00:20:54.240 The scheme was uh drawn in the 1950s. 00:20:54.319 --> 00:20:58.400 I picked it up in the 1990s because it was still obviously a very good project. 00:20:58.720 --> 00:21:02.319 1995 I took the bill through the commons. 00:21:02.559 --> 00:21:12.000 Um 27 years later before it was actually opened, and within six months it was the country's busiest railway and an enormous success. 00:21:12.319 --> 00:21:18.079 But 27 years it was as good a project 27 years earlier as it was when it opened. 00:21:18.480 --> 00:21:23.599 You know, we would the terrible at it absolutely there are a lot of people. 00:21:23.759 --> 00:21:27.359 Can I come back to your question about long-term planning, though? 00:21:27.599 --> 00:21:28.079 Yes. 00:21:28.559 --> 00:21:35.920 Um this is in some respect another another reflection of democracy across the world. 00:21:37.039 --> 00:21:44.960 That there are few ministers or ex ministers, present company accepted, who have a long term viewpoint. 00:21:45.200 --> 00:21:45.440 Yes. 00:21:45.680 --> 00:21:47.599 That's because they have to be elected every five years. 00:21:49.279 --> 00:21:59.759 Um actually, in a number of areas, administrations from across the world are coming to the UK because we are one of the better people at long term. 00:22:00.319 --> 00:22:01.200 Term planning. 00:22:01.440 --> 00:22:11.440 So, for example, every time there is a major flooding incident in the States, the congressional committees all come to the UK and the Netherlands. 00:22:11.759 --> 00:22:23.200 Because we have forward-looking projections on climate change and on um sea level rise, and we have a forward flood programme, and we do it pretty well. 00:22:23.359 --> 00:22:27.039 It's too bureaucratic, I agree with Steve, but actually it does look forward. 00:22:27.279 --> 00:22:33.519 Equally, the reason we're spending£70 billion on operating the grid network is because of forward planning. 00:22:33.599 --> 00:22:39.200 It's because of where the government and the and the NISO have done the planning. 00:22:39.519 --> 00:22:42.960 And we are building seven new reservoirs. 00:22:43.200 --> 00:22:48.480 We've docked the issue of long-term planning in water for some time, but actually at the moment we're pretty good at it. 00:22:48.640 --> 00:22:59.359 And other countries are coming to me and my colleagues saying we want to talk to you about how you get doing this, because we're finding it hard to get the climate to do this. 00:22:59.839 --> 00:23:09.359 So the areas where we're bad at long-term planning I think we're very bad at long-term planning on the built environment. 00:23:10.400 --> 00:23:14.640 And this is partly because it's so connected with the planning system that Steve's mentioned. 00:23:14.880 --> 00:23:25.200 So if you looked at the climate change risk assessment the government published, it said amber, amber green for water, amber green for floods, red for the built environment. 00:23:25.920 --> 00:23:33.599 And that's why we're already finding buildings which were built two years ago, which are too hot to operate, to occupy in a heat wave. 00:23:35.680 --> 00:23:38.319 So there are things where we're good at long-term planning. 00:23:38.480 --> 00:23:41.759 There are things where every country is not very good at it. 00:23:42.000 --> 00:23:46.000 I think you need we need to be a bit more segmented in our criticism on long-term planning. 00:23:46.240 --> 00:23:57.440 And I do think the built environment, what our cities ought to look like, which is a series of very small decisions, which aggregated, make a huge decision, is something we're uniquely bad at. 00:23:58.079 --> 00:24:25.759 And that's really interesting, actually, Martin, because and at the risk of contradicting myself, the examples you've given are so flooding and water resources are where the utilities are incentivized from a regulatory perspective, either through, you know, the business planning process or water resource management plans or drainage, now drainage and wastewater management plans to get those long-term plans in place. 00:24:25.920 --> 00:24:30.720 So they are from a regulatory regulatory framework requires them to do that. 00:24:31.200 --> 00:24:44.319 Yeah, and I'm not necessarily giving the industry the credit here, because between the industry, the regulator, government, and the consumer bodies, and I was part of this, we ducked the issue of future infrastructure for a decade in water. 00:24:44.880 --> 00:24:51.279 The period when the cost of capital was falling, we should have been using that money to invest in the future. 00:24:51.519 --> 00:24:58.480 We weren't, we were using it to keep a tidy relationship, so bills didn't go up and there were decent dividends, and we're now paying the cost. 00:24:58.640 --> 00:25:06.079 But to the credit of this administration and the end of the last administration, we are now doing that forward planning in water. 00:25:06.400 --> 00:25:10.319 And I can give you a number of countries examples where they're not. 00:25:10.559 --> 00:25:15.920 In fact, the only one, the only other country I think that are really doing forward planning in water is Australia. 00:25:16.799 --> 00:25:25.440 Wow, that's a topic we we probably, from my background, maybe need to steer clear of based on the fact I've spent the other half of my career in Australia working in water in water. 00:25:28.079 --> 00:25:31.039 Let's not make this top about water and wastewater, shall we? 00:25:31.359 --> 00:25:44.880 You see, but in a sense, Martin's made an important contribution to our subject today because he's rightly making the point that we're very, very good at the theory, but very good at the planning. 00:25:45.359 -->

00:25:48.240 My proposition is we're just terrible at execution. 00:25:48.400 --> 00:25:55.119 I mean, we haven't actually built a reservoir for more than a quarter of a century when the need has been there for a very long time. 00:25:55.279 --> 00:25:57.599 We're now going to be struggling to catch up. 00:25:57.759 --> 00:26:00.240 Water's not just an issue in the Cambridge area. 00:26:00.319 --> 00:26:03.119 There are demands for water in most parts of the country. 00:26:03.200 --> 00:26:05.200 After all, the population is growing. 00:26:05.359 --> 00:26:15.440 Um when I was born, um, the population in this country was, I think, just around 50 million, something like that, is no near as 70 million. 00:26:15.599 --> 00:26:20.480 You know, that's a huge increase in population in one gener one big generation. 00:26:20.640 --> 00:26:23.200 And, you know, we haven't kept up with that at all. 00:26:23.440 --> 00:26:43.920 I agree with Martin, incidentally, uh, that um the issue of the built environment is where, in a sense, possibly the most the the greatest damage is being done, because you know, we really ought to be cleverer at planning new settlements, um, getting them started, getting them actually built. 00:26:44.079 --> 00:26:59.599 Um, all that's happened since the local elections in May of this year is that one or two of the schemes that the previous government, um previous local authority had designated as uh one of the new towns is now no longer to happen, and that's very sad. 00:26:59.839 --> 00:27:07.599 The real truth is, of course, despite build baby build, we're building at a lower rate now than we've been building for the last 30 years. 00:27:07.680 --> 00:27:13.359 So there's a big, big problem both in terms of numbers and in terms of quality. 00:27:14.240 --> 00:27:20.079 All part, though, I think, of just too many regulations, uh too much bureaucracy. 00:27:20.240 --> 00:27:29.920 Let me give you two examples in terms of the built environment, both introduced by the last Conservative administration, Michael Gove being the guilty party in both cases. 00:27:30.079 --> 00:27:32.079 One is the Building Safety Act. 00:27:32.319 --> 00:27:35.599 We've never built unsafely in this country. 00:27:35.839 --> 00:27:50.960 This was a knee-jerk reaction to Grenfell, and whilst Grenfell was an appalling tragedy, and Narvis wishes to underestimate the the terrible consequences, as it happens, it was not about building safety. 00:27:51.279 --> 00:28:02.480 It was about wrong instructions being given on how to deal with a fire in an apartment for the rest of the building, you know, which normally meant you isolated the one apartment and the rest of the people were told to stay at home. 00:28:02.640 --> 00:28:09.680 That turned out when the building uniquely was burning from the outside in to be the worst possible advice. 00:28:09.920 --> 00:28:20.640 But I personally felt enormous sadness for so many people involved who did the best that they thought they could with desperate consequences. 00:28:20.880 --> 00:28:38.799 But you know, in London, the application of the whole Building Safety Act regime has led to, at one point, 44 weeks of delay between um setting out your project and having the Building Safety Inspectorate actually approve it. 00:28:38.960 --> 00:28:42.559 That's another year that I'm paying for the land that I've bought. 00:28:43.039 --> 00:28:45.839 You know, I'm paying for planners to do all this work. 00:28:46.000 --> 00:28:56.480 What I'm not doing is building the housing that London needs, which is why, for example, we built so little in London to target 80,000, outcome last year 5,000. 00:28:56.720 --> 00:28:59.599 And then there's the two, there's the two staircase rule. 00:28:59.680 --> 00:29:02.319 It's another piece of completely irrelevant legislation. 00:29:02.480 --> 00:29:10.480 It just makes many, many projects, um, higher rise projects, which is what you need to build in a crowded city like London, completely unviable. 00:29:10.559 --> 00:29:23.440 Uh and yet these now are part of the endless bureaucracy, which makes um the biggest single builder in the South East, which is Bartley homes, their chief executive Rob Perrins say, I'm not building in London anymore. 00:29:23.680 --> 00:29:26.400 Just too expensive, too bureaucratic, too difficult. 00:29:26.559 --> 00:29:29.839 I'll build similar single-family homes in the home counties. 00:29:30.079 --> 00:29:33.440 What a reflection on the way we operate as a country. 00:29:33.839 --> 00:29:42.240 So what you do find on regulation, particularly regulation that is designed to protect, is that you have a ratchet. 00:29:42.799 --> 00:29:48.160 You found exactly the same with financial services regulation after the 2008 financial crisis. 00:29:48.640 --> 00:29:49.920 That something happens. 00:29:50.559 --> 00:30:00.000 Politicians' reaction and those who serve politicians, and I'm not necessarily saying it's all politicians' fault, immediately lean to we need to do something. 00:30:00.960 --> 00:30:03.039 Typically, they overcompensate. 00:30:03.279 --> 00:30:09.519 I'm not saying whether building safety is one of these, because as a board member for Housing Association, I have to be entirely neutral on this. 00:30:09.759 --> 00:30:15.279 But um typically, I think they overreact. 00:30:16.160 --> 00:30:18.480 But that's also what the body of politics wants. 00:30:18.720 --> 00:30:21.119 It's what the public demands and it's what the media demand. 00:30:21.200 --> 00:30:23.039 And this isn't just in this country, by the way. 00:30:23.839 --> 00:30:29.839 The regulation goes up, and then over time it gets eroded, and quite often it gets eroded too much. 00:30:30.079 --> 00:30:42.000 So if you looked at what's happening potentially in financial regulation in the states, that is certainly a case of not looking back in anger because they're failing to learn all the lessons of the past, one might argue. 00:30:42.559

--> 00:30:47.279 Um so I do think you have to look at all of this through a political lens. 00:30:47.519 --> 00:30:50.079 And where does the bureaucracy arise? 00:30:50.720 --> 00:30:52.559 It arises in legislation. 00:30:53.119 --> 00:31:05.519 Now, the problem is the bureaucracy then creeps up like this, and the totality is never looked at until you get a Francis Maud or someone who comes in, has a bonfire, the Quangos, it goes down again, then it creeps back up again. 00:31:05.759 --> 00:31:08.799 I think that's the nature of the political world. 00:31:10.000 --> 00:31:24.000 Um and I think it's worse in this country for a number of reasons, but one is because we're densely populated, and that just means that the const there's far less space to do things, and the consequences of doing things will impact on more people. 00:31:24.480 --> 00:31:33.599 It is also probably a reflection of the nature of our judicial review and appeal system. 00:31:34.799 --> 00:31:57.119 Um, and I do think it is too easy to JR things, and it's also probably a reflection of the nature of the media that we have, which I think only again the Australian media is a type of ours, whereby journalists don't make their money by printing good stories. 00:31:57.359 --> 00:31:58.000 Yeah. 00:31:58.400 --> 00:32:01.599 So it's partly why I wanted to emphasize some of the good things we're doing. 00:32:02.240 --> 00:32:04.319 Because actually the baddies get all the PR. 00:32:05.039 --> 00:32:07.279 Yeah, the the failures is where the PR is. 00:32:07.440 --> 00:32:21.599 And if you've also got a public accounts committee who get their political um kudos from kicking people rather than praising people, then you're going to get risk aversion, I'm afraid, because that's built into the system. 00:32:22.079 --> 00:32:26.559 The reason for me is do you tackle that by a series of one-off things? 00:32:26.799 --> 00:32:31.680 Or is actually, there's a big, to you, Tony Blair's phrase, a big conversation here we need to have. 00:32:32.079 --> 00:32:37.839 In previous um forums, we've discussed about um the different the four C's, right? 00:32:37.920 --> 00:32:40.559 So you've got your consumers, but actually you've also got citizens. 00:32:40.799 --> 00:32:50.640 And what we see here is that there is a consumer issue that is responded to by politicians with a view of what does a citizen need and want and who are they going to vote for. 00:32:50.799 --> 00:32:56.240 So actually, you take the consumer view, but you may do a knee-jerk response to a citizen. 00:32:56.559 --> 00:32:58.000 The opposite is also true, though. 00:32:58.160 --> 00:32:58.400 Yeah. 00:32:58.640 --> 00:33:01.680 That the consumer view is portrayed as we don't want bills. 00:33:01.920 --> 00:33:16.880 So the political view is we'll ignore the citizen viewpoint and we won't allow bills to go up to build infrastructure until such a point as it becomes such a burning political issue that you have to do far more than you need to do in the wrong way, which is some of what we're doing in water in wastewater at the moment. 00:33:17.039 --> 00:33:25.440 We're spending 10 billion pounds on the wrong solution, in my view, because we've got to the point where we simply have to have a political gut reaction to say we're doing something. 00:33:26.079 --> 00:33:31.359 But that's and that but that's been driven by the fact that the problem has become visible. 00:33:31.599 --> 00:33:38.000 That problem with regard to wastewater and the solution required has been the case for a very long time. 00:33:38.559 --> 00:33:46.480 But it's not since we've had the data that's exposed the problem and made, and it's it comes back to that customer acceptance, doesn't it? 00:33:46.640 --> 00:33:50.960 And I think one thing I wanted to pick up, Martin was around the negativity. 00:33:51.119 --> 00:33:56.559 I love the fact that you want to create this like positive, positive view that we are doing things well. 00:33:56.799 --> 00:34:07.039 How much of this conversation is are we influenced by ourselves by the fact that we've got this perception that we're actually really bad at delivering some of this stuff, but there are some good examples around there. 00:34:07.200 --> 00:34:10.400 And does that influence our ability to actually get things done? 00:34:10.559 --> 00:34:13.599 Like almost like a vicious cycle, if you like? 00:34:14.639 --> 00:34:16.800 Um well, I think there's a lot in that. 00:34:16.960 --> 00:34:30.639 And I also think that there's a legal phrase that um something that you can make it's very easy to make bad law, but bad law shouldn't become a precedent. 00:34:31.360 --> 00:34:35.039 We tend to find, I think, is a lot of cases make bad law. 00:34:36.079 --> 00:34:37.519 That's it, absolutely. 00:34:37.840 --> 00:34:38.880 Yeah, thank you. 00:34:39.039 --> 00:34:45.920 Um there are one or two poor celebrities about tunnels, nuclear tunnels, etc. 00:34:46.320 --> 00:34:51.599 Some of which are actually apocryphal, which get a very large amount of publicity. 00:34:51.760 --> 00:34:57.039 That does inevitably change the political mood. 00:34:57.440 --> 00:35:03.199 Um I don't disagree with Steve as a problem. 00:35:03.360 --> 00:35:07.599 I think we do disagree on the scale of the problem or the legitimacy of the problem. 00:35:07.920 --> 00:35:14.800 I do think that part of the problem is legitimate, as I said, because we are a densely packed island in a democracy. 00:35:15.119 --> 00:35:25.199 If you have less space and more people packed into the space you have, it is legitimate for you to have more checks and balances on things that impact on that space. 00:35:25.280 --> 00:35:27.440 And infrastructure is the classic example. 00:35:28.239 --> 00:35:34.719 So I don't necessarily agree that we shouldn't have somewhat more bureaucracy than other countries. 00:35:35.199 --> 00:35:46.639 What I do agree with, Steve, is that it's very, very hard to look at the totality and say

this has got bonkers, because each individual case has just accreted over time. 00:35:46.880 --> 00:36:04.719 And that's why I think probably what we need, and maybe national infrastructure uh bodies could do this, because I don't think governments can do this very easily, is have some form of intelligent adult conversation, big conversation, call you what you will, about what do we want as a country. 00:36:05.519 --> 00:36:15.039 And don't look at what do we do on the river wind rush, don't look at what do we do on the communities in East Anglia that happen to have power lines going over their heads. 00:36:15.199 --> 00:36:17.360 Their concerns are legitimate, don't get me wrong. 00:36:17.519 --> 00:36:23.760 We look at the totality of the country, saying what we need is a country, what's what's the legitimate checks and balances? 00:36:23.840 --> 00:36:26.000 And where is this quite frankly getting silly? 00:36:26.239 --> 00:36:26.559 Yeah. 00:36:27.119 --> 00:36:37.440 I'd also add, incidentally, that um whilst we're reasonably densely populated compared to the rest of Europe, uh the rest of Europe is broadly democratic. 00:36:37.599 --> 00:36:44.239 I mean, you know, there's a democratic system in France and in Spain and in Portugal and Italy and southern Germany. 00:36:44.639 --> 00:36:58.400 And therefore, it's reasonable to ask ourselves, what do they do that enables them to deliver their grand projet, generally speaking, in a quarter of the timetable that we take? 00:36:58.639 --> 00:37:01.840 What is it that they just ignore, if anything? 00:37:02.079 --> 00:37:05.280 And if they do, why do they feel able to do it? 00:37:05.519 --> 00:37:48.239 Um, is it true, for example, as I believe it is, that their system of compensating landowners whose land needs to be acquired for a project, and that might include homes individual, individual homes never mind just open land, um, that their systems are much more, I would say, commercial and sensible and therefore quick compared to our own incredibly complicated process, which involves, you know, the treasury approving um, you know, compensation deals where we try and tell people what we think the house is worth rather than what they think it's worth, and in the process end up spending far more than we need to to acquire the property which we had to acquire in the first place. 00:37:48.480 --> 00:38:00.800 I mean, you you know, when, for example, France builds about build its last great uh TGV line down to Bordeaux, um, I heard a number of people say, oh, of course the thing is they just ride roughshod. 00:38:01.519 --> 00:38:02.400 Far from it. 00:38:02.639 --> 00:38:04.880 They don't ride roughshod for a moment. 00:38:05.039 --> 00:38:11.760 But they they tend to have a much simpler way of acquiring the necessary land, and it's largely about not arguing. 00:38:11.920 --> 00:38:15.599 It's about coming to a commercial agreement of just doing the deal and moving on. 00:38:15.760 --> 00:38:16.719 We

don't do that. 00:38:16.880 --> 00:38:27.440 I was dealing with some of the later compensation claims for HS1, the original route that went um through to Waterloo, years after the railway had opened. 00:38:27.679 --> 00:38:38.239 I mean, you know, we you you've got to explain to me why it takes so much longer to do things in the UK compared with um elsewhere in the world. 00:38:38.400 --> 00:38:39.440 I'll give you one example. 00:38:39.519 --> 00:38:47.920 Now, this is also about the way we organize local authority funding in this country, but it's the famous case or infamous case of the Dijon Trans. 00:38:48.320 --> 00:39:01.679 Dijon is a lovely town in France, um, and it has in its center a beautiful uh sort of semicircle of cafes and restaurants facing some really lovely municipal buildings. 00:39:01.760 --> 00:39:16.480 It's very, very popular with tourists, and as a result, the city decided that it wanted to take the tourism traffic away, the car traffic away, and build a tramway, um, which people could use if they wanted to access the center of the city. 00:39:16.639 --> 00:39:22.800 So they went to ask a couple of tram tram system builders to quote for the job. 00:39:23.039 --> 00:39:29.760 And having uh reached agreement, they started the project, and five years later they opened the tram. 00:39:29.840 --> 00:39:34.320 It's 12 miles long, and I'll I'll explain in a moment why I use miles. 00:39:34.559 --> 00:39:38.239 12 miles long, and it costs 24 million pounds a mile. 00:39:38.480 --> 00:39:44.000 Um, in Birmingham, meanwhile, they're trying to extend the tram by 1.1 miles. 00:39:44.159 --> 00:39:45.599 That's been going for 10 years. 00:39:45.679 --> 00:39:56.800 It's cost 176 million pounds, I'm told, and involves a 7,700 page environmental impact assessment to go 1.1 miles further down the line. 00:39:57.039 --> 00:40:02.480 Now, I'm sure that it's more complicated than that, but it can't be that much more complicated. 00:40:02.639 --> 00:40:16.480 That's in part because uh a modest city like uh Dijon could actually have the power, the right, to go out and decide it wants to, you know, fund a tramway and then just do the deal. 00:40:16.639 --> 00:40:19.519 Meanwhile, Leeds has wanted to have its own tramway. 00:40:19.679 --> 00:40:30.639 Leeds is a very substantial city, and let this be five or six times the size of Dijon, has wanted to have a tramway since I've been a minister, and still hasn't got one because the Treasury says no. 00:40:30.880 --> 00:40:35.519 I mean, in almost every way, it's that interwining of bureaucracy. 00:40:35.760 --> 00:40:40.159 Um, the various government departments have had to be consulted on everything. 00:40:40.239 --> 00:40:47.119 That must be part of the problem here, because we do these things badly, and if we don't accept that, then we're not facing a problem. 00:40:47.519 --> 00:40:47.679 Yeah. 00:40:47.760 --> 00:40:52.480 Well, Steve used the term grand projet, and I think there's a lot we can learn from France. 00:40:52.960 --> 00:40:56.800 I don't think that's universally the case, however. 00:40:57.119 --> 00:41:12.559 If you look at, for example, the Venice flood barrier, the solutions to Naples' horrendous waste system, the complete absence of any water infrastructure worth the surplus worth the name in southern Spain, which is the most drought-ridden part of Europe. 00:41:13.760 --> 00:41:18.079 They make Heathway Third Runway seem a model of how to do infrastructure almost. 00:41:18.480 --> 00:41:25.039 Um we do need, I think, to be a little bit focused on where it's done well. 00:41:25.280 --> 00:41:33.920 And I do think France, typically, with some exceptions, for example, a railway station that you couldn't fit the trains into, is actually one of the countries that does it pretty well. 00:41:35.119 --> 00:41:37.280 Do you think sorry, Martin? 00:41:37.440 --> 00:41:45.840 Do you think there's a societal so there's a school of thought that uh in France in particular, a lot more people rent than own their house. 00:41:46.079 --> 00:41:50.800 So they aren't as tied emotionally to the building. 00:41:52.079 --> 00:41:58.239 And I don't know if there's anything in that or not, but there are there are different societal pressures in France to what we have around in the UK. 00:41:58.320 --> 00:42:06.000 We have a much higher um home own home ownership, and you're much more emotionally attached to your home. 00:42:06.239 --> 00:42:08.800 Um I I don't know if there's anything in that or not. 00:42:08.880 --> 00:42:16.400 I I've not seen any um any kind of I've got no stats on it, but I do I wonder if there's something in there around how we approach our homes. 00:42:16.880 --> 00:42:19.119 I interviewed a sense project there. 00:42:20.159 --> 00:42:21.360 Yeah, definitely, definitely. 00:42:21.760 --> 00:42:22.639 There may be, Vicky. 00:42:22.800 --> 00:42:24.480 I honestly don't know the answer. 00:42:24.559 --> 00:42:30.559 Um although of course I accept that you're probably right that um there is more renting um than owning. 00:42:30.719 --> 00:42:33.760 Um it's more about, however, the speed of delivery. 00:42:33.920 --> 00:42:37.920 They decided to build the line from Paris to Bordeaux. 00:42:38.159 --> 00:42:41.519 It had been, of course, um that had been debated for a very long time. 00:42:41.679 --> 00:42:46.880 That's why it's the sort of last part of the of the big TGB infrastructure. 00:42:46.960 --> 00:42:54.639 It was said it was partly because Mitterrand didn't want to um build it because of all sorts of disputes with the mayor of Bordeaux and whatever. 00:42:54.800 --> 00:42:58.880 But um, but you know, once they decided to do it, they cracked on with it and they built it. 00:42:59.039 --> 00:43:00.639 It was extremely successful. 00:43:00.880 --> 00:43:16.800 Um, we we haven't talked about HS2, and funny enough, I want to put HS2 to one side because there the issues largely arose from the use of the Victorian

hybrid bill process, uh, which is utterly inappropriate for use in the 21st century. 00:43:17.519 --> 00:43:22.159 But most and good, I'm glad Martin agrees because it really is. 00:43:22.320 --> 00:43:29.440 I mean, I'm sorry to say it's hopeless, it's absolutely hopeless, and it produced all sorts of conclusion, which was simply wrong right from the start. 00:43:29.599 --> 00:43:31.280 I mean, it it's a terrible story. 00:43:31.440 --> 00:43:40.719 It's so bad that we can set it to one side, should never have been allowed to start in the form that it did, and it was inevitable that would go wrong once it was being built in the way that it was being built. 00:43:40.800 --> 00:43:50.159 Um, but I think no, the more general issue I go back to the fundamental question which we posed as the title to this seminar. 00:43:50.239 --> 00:43:55.280 Uh, and my conclusion is yes, I'm afraid we're really bad at this. 00:43:55.519 --> 00:43:59.599 It's a combination maybe of us being at Dense Island, but that's not a sufficient extra. 00:44:00.639 --> 00:44:03.440 We are massively over-bureaucratized. 00:44:03.760 --> 00:44:06.639 You know, we have a department for DEFRA. 00:44:06.800 --> 00:44:10.480 It's called the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs. 00:44:10.719 --> 00:44:13.440 Well, then why do we need an environment agency? 00:44:13.679 --> 00:44:16.159 Why do we need natural England? 00:44:16.400 --> 00:44:26.960 You know, why we we when in when I was in government, the um environment uh department, Department of Environment actually ran local government as well as all of the environmental issues. 00:44:27.039 --> 00:44:28.639 Maybe not to have done it very well. 00:44:28.800 --> 00:44:32.400 But we didn't need all of these agencies, all of these subsidiary bodies. 00:44:32.480 --> 00:44:35.039 They've all grown like topsy since. 00:44:35.199 --> 00:44:39.280 Every government says it's going to abolish Krangos and simply goes and opens some more. 00:44:39.360 --> 00:44:43.199 This government being no exception to all of its predecessors, it was just as bad. 00:44:43.360 --> 00:44:46.800 You know, we're just obsessed with bureaucracy. 00:44:46.960 --> 00:44:59.679 Um, India has never forgiven us for introducing the system of government which they still use and which they still rail against because we gave them a sense of what bureaucracy was all about. 00:44:59.920 --> 00:45:03.119 Of course, you know, in India it's become an art form. 00:45:03.440 --> 00:45:11.440 Um it's not something I'm very happy that we've sold to the rest of the world, because it really isn't a very useful or effective process. 00:45:11.679 --> 00:45:15.840 We've got to think about a really radical, radical, you know, program. 00:45:16.079 --> 00:45:28.880 And it's interesting that uh uh now the um some of the political parties are looking at saying that one of the things we've got to do is we've got to massively reduce the size of the state. 00:45:29.119 --> 00:45:42.559 And what that means is that in the process we start taking this great burden of bureaucracy off people's backs, off people's chests, if you like, and let them breathe, let them do the job that they're supposed to do, just crack on with it. 00:45:42.719 --> 00:45:45.840 Because when we do it, the Liz line being a very good example. 00:45:45.920 --> 00:45:55.679 The Liz Liz Line, now it has opened, you know, from 1950 to 2022, and a hell of a long time. 00:45:55.840 --> 00:46:01.920 Nonetheless, it's an absolutely brilliant rail, but when we do it, you know, and some of the things that Martin was talking about are absolutely brilliant. 00:46:02.000 --> 00:46:04.159 The Thames Tide Bay Tal, absolutely marvelous. 00:46:04.239 --> 00:46:07.840 It's uh Basel Jet 2, and it's been a great success. 00:46:08.159 --> 00:46:14.719 But it's just getting there that's so appallingly difficult, so long-winded, and so expensive. 00:46:14.960 --> 00:46:24.320 It'd be really nice to think that if somebody had a great idea about a project we ought to deliver, I might actually think I could see it completed before I shuffle off this mortal coil. 00:46:24.480 --> 00:46:26.639 At the moment, I'm not sure that's the case. 00:46:27.039 --> 00:46:28.800 I think it's interesting. 00:46:29.280 --> 00:46:32.800 There's a number of conversations going on um across Independent. 00:46:32.880 --> 00:46:35.519 Um, but time and time again, trust comes up. 00:46:35.599 --> 00:46:40.159 And a lot of what you're talking about there is let's just trust people to deliver. 00:46:40.400 --> 00:46:48.559 And if they don't, then we have a look, rather than let's assume you're not gonna deliver it well, and put some barriers in to make sure that you do. 00:46:48.719 --> 00:46:53.840 So I do, I think that might become our link based on the conversations we're seeing across forums. 00:46:54.079 --> 00:46:55.840 Trust just comes up time and time again. 00:46:56.320 --> 00:47:05.119 How we build that trust across government, across consumer, across public and private sector is gonna be really interesting, I think. 00:47:05.440 --> 00:47:07.519 It's Vicki, we have the same brain. 00:47:07.679 --> 00:47:16.719 I have just written trust on my page before you said that and put a big circle around it because we are, and the trust deficit from the public. 00:47:16.880 --> 00:47:27.119 I think we that's a sort of a phrase that's being used at the moment, is just getting worse and worse and worse with the advent of social media, you know, the doom scrolling, now AI. 00:47:27.519 --> 00:47:30.639 People are very, very cautious and they don't trust everything. 00:47:30.800 --> 00:47:42.320 And I think what you've just described, Steve, is very much a result of lack of trust because we don't trust our public bodies or government um to do the right thing for us. 00:47:42.559 --> 00:47:49.280 And that is, I think that's probably compounding the problem and might be a real challenge for us to be

resolving this in the future. 00:47:49.760 --> 00:47:55.519 I think it's also one of the sad consequences of social media because Martin would agree with me. 00:47:55.679 --> 00:48:02.320 I know that in the main, civil servants um are desperately trying to do a decent job. 00:48:02.719 --> 00:48:09.760 I have no complaint about the attitude or the people who are part of this vast bureaucracy. 00:48:09.840 --> 00:48:11.920 They're simply doing the jobs that they're employed to do. 00:48:12.079 --> 00:48:33.039 In my experience, the officials that I worked with in every department I was in, which was the environment, it was trade and industry, and then the home office and then transport, were all, almost without any exception, really dedicated, decent people doing a decent day's work and you know, really trying to solve problems. 00:48:33.199 --> 00:48:35.039 But the system defeats them. 00:48:35.360 --> 00:48:36.480 The system defeats them. 00:48:36.960 --> 00:48:40.000 The system defeats I think they allow it to in some cases. 00:48:40.800 --> 00:49:02.880 So for as long as I can remember, 15 to 20 years, it's been diagnosed that one of the issues with the civil service is the people who are at the top of the civil service are the people who have done the policy who have serviced the ministers the yes minister types, if you want, not the people who've delivered things. 00:49:03.840 --> 00:49:06.159 And you don't get to the top by taking risks. 00:49:07.440 --> 00:49:15.679 I mean, Steve and I uh all civil servants want to do a good job, but we've all met the civil servants who can find the 17 definitive reasons for never doing anything. 00:49:17.199 --> 00:49:22.880 And that's because the system rewards touching a minister's back, avoiding risks. 00:49:23.519 --> 00:49:25.679 The system does not reward taking risks. 00:49:25.840 --> 00:49:28.400 You take a risk, you get it wrong once, bye. 00:49:29.199 --> 00:49:38.960 You don't take a risk, even though not taking a risk has is it making a big decision, a big bad decision in many cases, you can't you aren't held to account for it. 00:49:39.599 --> 00:49:52.079 So there is still something I think about the way the civil services run that rewards a certain type of person and a certain type of behavior. 00:49:52.719 --> 00:49:58.000 Those behaviours and people are not the things that you need to get major projects delivered. 00:49:58.320 --> 00:50:03.440 And if you look at the major projects that have been delivered successfully, they haven't been delivered by policy wonks. 00:50:04.320 --> 00:50:11.360 And I was speaking as a policy wonk who turned himself into the delivery person, intentionally proud to do so, because actually delivery is much more fun. 00:50:12.000 --> 00:50:19.840 But um I do think I do think there's an institutional issue here, which is particularly bad in this country. 00:50:20.079 --> 00:50:23.519 And I think trust is an issue across the world at the moment. 00:50:23.840 -->

00:50:25.519 Social media is an issue across the world. 00:50:25.679 --> 00:50:42.000 I do think our particular climate of risk aversion and our culture of um find the reasons not to do something rather than find the reasons to do it, and our cultural challenge uh is something that is a genuine problem. 00:50:42.079 --> 00:50:45.440 I think it's a cultural issue rather than necessarily a trust issue. 00:50:46.079 --> 00:50:48.000 Yeah, I think that's fair. 00:50:48.239 --> 00:50:48.639 Right. 00:50:48.800 --> 00:50:51.280 I am going to draw the conversation to a close there. 00:50:51.440 --> 00:50:53.360 I am gonna have one final question. 00:50:53.840 --> 00:50:57.119 So I am going to be uh the genie of Independent. 00:50:57.199 --> 00:51:04.480 I'm gonna get my magic lamp out, and you wake up tomorrow and you can make one decision that is gonna change this. 00:51:04.800 --> 00:51:06.480 What's your decision, Martin? 00:51:07.760 --> 00:51:09.280 What would my decision be? 00:51:09.440 --> 00:51:15.599 Um I think I would aboris the public accounts committee. 00:51:18.320 --> 00:51:29.440 Because it it more than anything else embodies the system which sets up the inherent risk aversion in politicians and civil servants and in delivery. 00:51:29.840 --> 00:51:37.599 Because it is the thing which always looks at the problem and it's a thing that everybody is scared of. 00:51:38.239 --> 00:51:42.159 And handling the public accounts committee is an art which gets you promoted. 00:51:42.480 --> 00:51:45.519 Delivering things is not an art that gets you promoted. 00:51:46.000 --> 00:51:46.719 Fantastic. 00:51:46.880 --> 00:51:47.519 Great answer. 00:51:47.599 --> 00:51:49.440 Thank you very much, Steve. 00:51:50.800 --> 00:51:53.039 I would keep the Public Accounts Committee. 00:51:53.679 --> 00:52:08.079 And I would do it because uh I think parliamentarians are there to ensure that public money is well spent, and the Public Accounts Committee is there to tell MPs what they have spent and what they've spent it on. 00:52:08.239 --> 00:52:12.400 Um I think it's a vital part of the democratic process actually, so I would keep it. 00:52:12.559 --> 00:52:28.400 But what I would do, and I'm very serious about this, is that I would set out a 10-year program to reduce the civil service to the size it was in if I picked a date, I'd probably say something like 1987-88. 00:52:29.199 --> 00:52:31.039 That's a long time ago. 00:52:31.360 --> 00:52:44.559 But uh in those days we were able to operate without all without all the benefit of email, of um, you know, uh of technology, no AI, no um social media, no nothing. 00:52:44.960 --> 00:52:51.519 Uh and we employed a couple of hundred thousand people less in government. 00:52:51.760 --> 00:52:56.719 It will take ten years to slim everything down, but you have to have a very clear vision, and you will do it. 00:52:56.880 --> 00:53:16.719 And at the end of it, we might then have the kind of lean focused government, which would enable us to deliver what we need to deliver vitally: homes, infrastructure, water, power, of course, crucially, if we're going to be an EV world in the future and a hydrogen world for trucks and um and plant. 00:53:17.039 --> 00:53:18.559 Uh uh it's vital. 00:53:18.639 --> 00:53:20.239 It's the only way we'll get it done. 00:53:20.400 --> 00:53:30.000 Otherwise, 20 years from now, we'll be regretting that we haven't really done anything of the big things we needed to do to face a zero uh carbon world. 00:53:30.159 --> 00:53:37.920 Uh, and to me, that would be a terrible thing for my children and their children to have to face the challenge of solving. 00:53:38.480 --> 00:53:39.199 Thank you. 00:53:39.519 --> 00:53:41.199 Heather, you get the third wish. 00:53:41.440 --> 00:53:42.079 Oh, goodness. 00:53:42.159 --> 00:53:43.760 I didn't I got a wish. 00:53:43.840 --> 00:53:44.480 This is exciting. 00:53:44.559 --> 00:54:00.480 I think I'm going to pick up on Martin's point, and it's probably something Vicky, you and I are quite passionate about, is I'd really like all um civil servants, politicians to immediately have the lived experience of customers transported into their brains. 00:54:00.639 --> 00:54:16.239 So until you've actually experienced internal sewer flooding or surface water flooding or um frequent outages, or you've had to, or you've gone and handed out hot heaters and blankets when it's minus seven degrees because people are off gas or electricity. 00:54:16.480 --> 00:54:18.639 They that is more important to me. 00:54:18.719 --> 00:54:29.199 And I think it comes back to Martin's point around um you get to the top by being risk averse and you don't really go out there and deliver things and understand what's actually impacting customers. 00:54:29.360 --> 00:54:34.639 So that's a that's more of a personal passion of mine, but I think I think that's really, really important. 00:54:35.599 --> 00:54:36.800 No, that's been fantastic. 00:54:36.880 --> 00:54:38.800 I I am very much with you on that one. 00:54:39.119 --> 00:54:44.159 A huge thank you to you all for sharing your thoughts, experiences, and expertise. 00:54:44.639 --> 00:54:49.760 What really strikes me from that conversation is this none of these issues are new. 00:54:50.000 --> 00:54:56.000 We've had the insights for years, and yet the system still struggles to turn that insight into different outcomes. 00:54:56.719 --> 00:55:03.679 So maybe the real challenge isn't knowing what to fix, but creating the conditions to actually do something differently. 00:55:04.239 --> 00:55:18.159 And that means being more honest about the trade-offs, more open to challenge, and more deliberate about the choices we make, particularly when the consequences are ultimately carried by customers, investors, and society as a whole. 00:55:18.960 --> 00:55:21.760 That's all for this episode of the Independ Exchange. 00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:29.280 If this conversation has shifted your perspective or reflects challenges you're seeing in your own world, we genuinely value hearing from you. 00:55:29.519 --> 00:55:34.639 You can continue the conversation with me at Vicky.mustard at independ.uk.com. 00:55:34.719 --> 00:55:37.679 And if it resonated, do share it with your network. 00:55:37.840 --> 00:55:39.199 I'm Vicky Mustard. 00:55:39.360 --> 00:55:42.320 Thanks for listening, and I'll hope you'll join us again next time. 00:55:42.480 --> 00:55:50.079 Because in infrastructure, it's not just the decisions that matter, it's whether customers will support them and investors will back them.