Cross-Party MPs Criticise Weakness of “Rushed” UK Infrastructure Bank UPDATE

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), which is responsible for examining the value for money of Government projects, has today criticised various flaws in the “rushed” UK Infrastructure Bank (UKIB) that has so far only been used to provide financing to deliver gigabit broadband and build solar farms.

In case anybody has forgotten. The UK Infrastructure Bank is a fairly recent addition that was partly setup to replace the fact that, post-Brexit, the UK could no longer make use of the European Investment Bank (here). The goal of such a bank, which in this case was supported by an initial £12bn in equity and debt capital and could issue up to £10bn of guarantees, is to help crowd-in private investment for infrastructure projects.

The UKIB is now around 18-months into its life and is still in its early stages of development. So far it has deployed £1 billion of its £22 billion capital to 10 deals and its advisory function to local authorities is being piloted. For example, it’s helping to support Macquarie Group‘s (KCOM, Voneus etc.) related full fibre broadband builds (here and here) and has also provided some of the financial fuel for similar deployments by UK ISP Fibrus (here).

However, the PAC’s report found that it is “behind plan in its recruitment“, with only 16 permanent staff in post against a target of 320; and it does not yet have powers to lend directly to local authorities. The Bank expects to reach ‘steady state’ in Autumn 2023.

Questions have also been raised over its governance challenges (though this is said to have improved), independence and the added-value of its first investment deals. Furthermore, there’s “little assurance” that UKIB won’t be sold off, like the Green Investment Bank was in 2017.

PAC Summary of Additional Concerns

Given its limitations, it was sensible for the Bank to adopt a cautious approach to early deals. But the Treasury does not seem to have a reporting approach which allows Parliament early sight of any significant emerging problems. The Bank faces trade-offs in many areas, for example in taking on investment risk to open new markets, while protecting the taxpayer; and deciding which local authorities to prioritise. The Bank does not yet have a clear strategic approach to managing these trade-offs; nor a clear explanation of what it is doing, that the market is not (‘additionality’). It is essential that the Bank develops strong performance measurement and evaluation of its important objectives to ensure it is adding value in its work and remains accountable to Parliament.

The Treasury set up the Bank quickly and, in rushing, Treasury chose not to follow its own business case best practice and normal government guidance for the establishment of an arm’s length independent body. Gaps in the Bank’s initial governance arrangements meant it was non-compliant with the UK Corporate Governance code for its initial year of operation, and the Bank had to lean heavily on Treasury’s processes and controls. The Bank is still closely linked to the Treasury, which could limit its operational independence. But we acknowledge that it was set up very quickly on the insistence of Ministers. Time will tell whether moving at this speed has proved beneficial to the long-term stability and functioning of the Bank, as well as whether it was the best way for taxpayer’s money to be used to achieve its stated aims.

Overall, the PAC found that the Treasury and the Bank had “not yet put in place the conditions necessary for the Bank to be a successful and long-lasting institution“. Not that you’d know it from reading the UKIB’s first annual accounts, which in November 2022 hailed it as making “strong progress” in its inaugural year to become “a permanent and important UK financial institution” (here). The accounts also showed that, in the Bank’s first year, a £104m profit (after tax) was achieved.

Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:

“The UKIB was set up in haste to shore up Government’s stalled promises on Net Zero and levelling up, as we lost £5 billion a year of European infrastructure funding to Brexit. It’s really not clear what the UKIB is doing that the market wasn’t already, or would be doing with better functioning tax incentives – as just one example.

The Treasury didn’t need to reinvent this particular wheel, with all the attendant risk to benefit, value and taxpayers’ money. The predecessor Green Investment Bank was also sold to the public as an ‘enduring institution’ and then sold off to the Australian private sector 5 years later. It’s now turning bumper profits.

We need more assurance from Government that lessons learned are being implemented and the catalogue of policy and spending errors we’ve seen will not be repeated.”

A spokesperson for the UKIB said:

“Having launched 18 months ago, the Bank has announced 10 deals in total, unlocking more than £4.6 billion in private capital, supporting projects across a range of sectors, including transport, solar and digital infrastructure.  We note the PAC cites us as having initially taken a ‘sensibly cautious approach’ to deals, and in the coming year we expect to invest in an increasing range of sectors and technologies, with a particular focus on clean energy and storage, in line with our strategy published in June. We will continue to test our published approach to additionality in our deals.

Since our appearance before the PAC in November, we are pleased to confirm that we have made good progress on a number of the issues raised, including permanent staff recruitment, which at the end of 2022 stood at 31 out of a total of 181, and is due to rise to 66 soon.

We look forward to updating the PAC in our formal response to this report.”

Naturally, the PAC has proposed various recommendations to help resolve some of the aforementioned issues, and they’ve called upon the government to respond to these issues by April 2023.

PAC Recommendations for the UKIB

Recommendation:
The Treasury and the Bank should report to Parliament six-monthly on the roll-out of the Bank, including updates on recruitment, deals made and progress towards the operation of their own internal systems (e.g., IT systems). This should include timescales for future milestones.

The Treasury needs to be much clearer in its reporting of its expectations of the Bank, including its financing support, its plans for taking dividends, and the long-term ownership plans by defining more clearly what it means by the phrase ‘long-lasting institution’.

Recommendation:
The Bank should write to the Committee within 3 months outlining its investment strategy for making a full range of investments, including a timeline for when it expects to be making deals proactively.

Recommendation:
Upon completion of its three pilot schemes, the Bank should write to the Committee setting out how its advisory function will work in practice, including how it will design a funding model that reflects the cost of the support provided, and regulates demand. The Bank should also outline how it will ensure smaller authorities are not left behind.

Recommendation:
In its Treasury Minute response, the Bank should describe its engagement strategy for working with government departments, focussing in the very short term on how it engages with those departments most critical to delivering its mission, including the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Recommendation:
By March 2024 the Bank should write to us detailing how it has implemented a full suite of performance metrics and targets including productivity and green performance, together with a forward plan for evaluation that includes additionality assessments. It should at the same time outline how it will publicly report its performance and the results of its evaluation over time.

UPDATE 4:04pm

We’ve had a comment from the UKIB, which has been added above.