Some old, familiar tunes

Still trying to catch up with the last month’s news, I’ve only just got around to looking at the widely reported criticisms, by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), of the government’s handling of major infrastructure projects – including the various broadband funds administered by BDUK. Primarily, the PAC berates the government’s National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) for being merely ‘a list of projects’, rather than “a real plan with a strategic vision and clear priorities“(phrases which will be all too familiar to Members of the House of Lords’ Select Committee on Communications).  However, it was another of the PAC’s observations and suggestions that I thought particularly apposite; there are only five Recommendations in total, and I think it’s worth quoting this one in full. 

“Investors must accept some degree of transparency over their costs, risks and rewards in delivering infrastructure projects given that the costs of government support will ultimately fall on taxpayers and consumers.  Most economic infrastructure investment takes place in a private sector market where investor returns are often supported by government and households bear the costs of infrastructure in their bills. In return, investors should provide sufficient information to show that their returns are reasonable and that any government support is justified. The Treasury should require investors to supply the information needed to facilitate this transparency and should reserve the right to audit such information”. 

For ‘investor’ in this context, indeed sole commercial investor, please substitute BT and its role in the BDUK affair.  Now, I nearly said ‘fiasco’ there but I know that wouldn’t be right because, as Ed Vaizey assured us all on 18^th April: 

 “It just so happens that BT has won the [rural broadband] contracts, and I reject the suggestion that it is behaving like a monopolist. We are getting value for money for our contracts, and BT is a great British company doing a great job for Britain.” 

Followers of Ian Grant will recall seeing that Vaizey quote in Ian’s original story of 22nd April.  The relevance of the PAC recommendation (above) to BT’s legitimate expenditure (and return on investment) is detailed in Ian’s reports on the variously reported costs of BT’s new, FTTC street cabinets – on 16th April and earlier.  Can we really ask ‘a great British company’ to provide (audited) justification of its costs…?