It is now a week since George Osborne announced his latest coup that a new National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) would be established with Lord Adonis as its ‘interim chair’. Nelson Ogunshakin assesses the future prospects - and commission candidates.

Much has been written in the past week about the new National Infrastructure Commission: a political masterstroke; will improve certainty, a gimmick – take your pick depending on where you sit on the political spectrum.

Of course, the idea of an Infrastructure Commission is not a new one, having been proposed by a 2013 Growth Commission organised by the London School of Economics and the 2014 review chaired by Sir John Armitt. They both identified the risk to economic growth posed by ‘the poor quality of our national infrastructure’ and that a lack of strategic priorities, and policy uncertainty meant that Britain was falling behind its rich-world peers in infrastructure.

"I am extremely pleased that Treasury listened to our collective voice and acted upon our advice in coming up with a solution that took account of our concerns. This will see Treasury itself effectively becoming the DfI with the aim of improving infrastructure delivery in the UK."

These risks, it was suggested, could be mitigated by an independent infrastructure commission, which ‘would dramatically reduce the policy instability that arises from frequent changes in political personnel and priorities’. 

At the time, however, ACE identified some potential weaknesses that the Commission as proposed by Sir John Armitt - separated from the machinery of a department and with a parliamentary approval process -  would have introduced, such as delay and bureaucracy to the system.

Solutions were proposed by the entire breadth of industry, including from ACE, which proposed that the commission should sit as an independent organisation, like the Office for Budget Responsibility within a government department, possibly a new Department for Infrastructure (DfI). 

I am extremely pleased that Treasury listened to our collective voice and acted upon our advice in coming up with a solution that took account of our concerns. This will see Treasury itself effectively becoming the DfI with the aim of improving infrastructure delivery in the UK.

The most important thing, however, is that the construction sector lobbied for this body and now it is being delivered we must all work together to ensure it is the success that we need it to be. The potential benefits of an expert body to provide robust, evidence-based recommendations on the UK’s infrastructure requirements are enormous.

That the Conservative government has adopted this idea, originally part of the Labour Party’s 2015 general election manifesto, displays a level of political maturity we often only hope for and should ensure a level of cross-party support for the commission. 

"Industry must also be represented on the NIC and with potential candidates such as Ray O’Rourke, Gregory Hodkinson, and Andrew Wolstenholme, that could be put up, there is an exceptional pool of talent to draw on to advise and bring expert guidance to the NIC’s deliberations."

In addition, the appointment of Lord Adonis, the political architect of HS2 and all round friend of infrastructure, as the interim chair is welcome. It will instil confidence that government understands the role infrastructure development will play in growing the U.K. economy.

The key question now is how the rest of the commission will be established and constituted, and we expect to be working with IUK and the Treasury on the Terms of Reference in the coming weeks to help put together a credible team of expert individuals.

One obvious candidate to fill a seat is Sir John Armitt, who may be able to take up a seat alongside his other responsibilities as President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and his wider industry commitments. This might allow him in due course to succeed Lord Adonis as chair, and perhaps follow him into the Lords!

Sir Danny Alexander and Lord Paul Deighton, former chief and commercial secretaries to the Treasury respectively, who both did so much to ensure infrastructure was at the heart of the last government’s agenda, are other potential candidates who could bring much and would reinforce the cross-party nature of this body.

I would encourage government and Lord Adonis to not confine their search to these shores alone, however. Similar bodies have long become an established part of policy-making in places such as Australia, Japan, and Canada, and if we are willing to install a Canadian as the head of the Bank of England, surely it makes sense to draw on the global expertise that is available to fill the seats on the NIC?

Industry must also be represented on the NIC and with potential candidates such as Ray O’Rourke, Gregory Hodkinson, and Andrew Wolstenholme, that could be put up, there is an exceptional pool of talent to draw on to advise and bring expert guidance to the NIC’s deliberations. The composition of the commission is now the key to ensuring the NIC is a success.

It is crucial that we get this right from the outset. We have important decisions to make on housing, the Northern Powerhouse, aviation, and these have to made with the long term in mind. The whole of industry must have confidence in the NIC and its first commissioners, and those it is seeking to convince must have faith in the recommendations it will produce. 

Nelson Ogunshakin is the chief executive of the ACE