Debate contribution: Infrastructure Commission
Debate contribution by Mr Andrew McMurray on .
- MLA
- Mr Andrew McMurray
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 29 April 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Opposition Business
- Heading
- Infrastructure Commission
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4921955
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. I welcome the motion and agree with both parts of it independently, although I am not convinced that one will fully address the other. Alliance has long called for an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission to improve long-term strategic planning. We want the commission to have a 30-year vision to prioritise, report on and drive the delivery of infrastructure projects. It should assume the responsibilities of the existing Strategic Investment Board to assist Departments to deliver projects. Unlike the Strategic Investment Board, it must be independent. Independence is the norm for similar bodies across the globe and is widely supported by experts. We should not lag behind on that. The commission would support stability and could bring much-needed long-term perspective to strategic infrastructure planning, free from the pressures of electoral cycles. That is key to addressing some of the major challenges and long-term needs that we face as a society. I also agree with the first half of the motion. Indeed, I am alarmed at the continued failings in the delivery of capital projects that have been highlighted so clearly in the recent reports of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The majority of our major capital projects experience unacceptably long delays and huge overspends. Despite earlier reports highlighting the same failings, those issues have not been improved on. The NIAO estimated that the cost to complete the 77 projects that were in the pipeline at the end of August 2023 would be £2·45 billion higher than planned. That is a 44% increase in spending — money that could have been invested elsewhere to improve our public services. Importantly, I do not think that an infrastructure commission is the solution to all those issues. That is not because I do not believe in the merits of such a commission — I do — but because it would not address the root causes of the delays and overspends. The Strategic Investment Board looked into those root causes and found them to be excessively complex planning policy and regulations, insufficient attention to stakeholder engagement, lack of expertise in Departments and the unpredictability resulting from complex systems. The NIAO came to a similar conclusion in its report on the capacity and capability of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Those issues are at system and delivery level; they are not about strategy and are only marginally about advice. An infrastructure commission, as proposed by the independent ministerial advisory panel in 2020, would not be involved at the level of planning and stakeholder engagement in the delivery of infrastructure projects. It could advise on, but would not run, those projects. That is precisely where many of the problems causing delays and overspends originate. Yes, we need an independent, expert-led infrastructure commission for the sake of evidence-based advice and improved long-term strategic planning. Equally, however, we must urgently address the substantial failings in infrastructure delivery in Northern Ireland. To achieve that, we must continue to reform our dysfunctional planning system and address skills and culture issues in Departments in which projects are delivered.
518 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.96).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.96 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:27 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.