Consultation responses

Consultation title: Improving National Infrastructure Project Delivery

Consulting organisation: House of Commons: All-Party Parliamentary Group for Project Delivery

Deadline: 11am, Tuesday 6 May 2025

How to respond: Please send your comments to contact@appgprojectdelivery.org by 10am on Tuesday 6 May 2025. Responses should be limited to 500 words per question as a Word document or email.

There is no need to answer every question, just those linked to your area of expertise.

About this consultation 

The APPG seeks solutions, innovations, and recommendations that will support the UK in ensuring it has the skills, policies, and people needed to deliver major infrastructure projects that drive economic growth, spread innovation, and provide societal benefit across the country.

This inquiry will assess the barriers to successful project delivery, the effectiveness of the current approach, and opportunities for improvement. We hope to hear input from a variety of sectors including but not limited to construction, infrastructure, engineering, technology, transport and energy.

A key focus will be on the ways in which project management best practices from the UK and internationally can drive improved results. The inquiry welcomes evidence that explores wider issues, including skills base, technological change, and collaboration between the Government and the private sector.

If you have evidence on these issues, please let the APPG know.

https://www.appgprojectdelivery.org/news-and-updates/parliamentarians-launch-inquiry-to-improving-the-delivery-of-national-infrastructure-projects

Background to inquiry

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Project Delivery has launched an inquiry into how the UK can improve the delivery of those major projects that lead to economic growth and improved infrastructure.

This will be the APPG’s first inquiry. It aims to support policy discussions and recommendations that improve the delivery of national infrastructure projects and promote the uptake of best practice from project management around the world.

Consultation questions

1. What are the major challenges facing major infrastructure project delivery in the UK? How can these barriers be rectified?
2. What lessons can the UK learn from international approaches?
3. What lessons can the UK learn internally, from best practice in individual Government departments and arms-length bodies? What lessons can infrastructure projects learn from project management in other sectors?
4. How effective do you feel the Government’s current plans are for improving major infrastructure project delivery?
5. How can the Government work more effectively with the private sector to improve project outcomes?
6. How can the Government work more effectively with the project profession to improve project outcomes? What impact will technological advancements have on infrastructure delivery, and how can the Government better harness innovation?
7. Are there any other comments or recommendations the APPG should be considering?

Consultation title: Mission Government

Consulting organisation: House of Commons: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Deadline: 14 April 2025

How to respond: Please send your comments to external.affairs@apm.org.uk by 9 April 2025, letting us know which consultation you’re responding to. There is no need to answer every question, just those linked to your area of expertise.

About this consultation 

This Committee will look at the Civil Service that the UK needs and how we get it. The first of these targeted inquiries focuses on Mission Government. The Government has announced a series of five “missions” on which policy will be focussed. This focus on missions will, it claims, enable government to operate in a less siloed and more long-term manner.

If you have evidence on these issues, please let us know.

Background to inquiry

The Government have announced five missions which they believe will rebuild the UK:

1. Kickstart economic growth
   to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 – with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of the country making everyone, not just a few, better off.
2. Make Britain a clean energy superpower
   to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero.
3. Take back our streets
   by halving serious violent crime and raising confidence in the police and criminal justice system to its highest levels.
4. Break down barriers to opportunity
   by reforming our childcare and education systems, to make sure there is no class ceiling on the ambitions of young people in Britain.
5. Build an NHS fit for the future
   that is there when people need it; with fewer lives lost to the biggest killers; in a fairer Britain, where everyone lives well for longer.

Consultation questions

• What are the key components of mission government? What changes have been made to the operation of government to facilitate mission government and are these sufficient to successively deliver it? Is enough being done to ensure consistent prioritisation of missions across departments? How are they being held to account for progress? Is a change to the way money is allocated needed to ensure sufficient priority is given to the missions?
• What measures are being used to mobilise other devolved governments, public bodies, local government, and the private and voluntary sectors in delivering missions and are these sufficient?
• The Government has advocated a ‘test and learn’ approach to policy as part of its missions approach. What is being done to encourage this and what are the potential obstacles to its successful adoption?
• What lessons can be learnt from other jurisdictions’ experience with mission approaches to governing?

Consultation title: Further Education and Skills: Call for Evidence

Consulting organisation: Education Committee

Deadline: Response submitted

About this consultation

The further education sector is currently navigating a series of reforms and challenges. In this inquiry the Education Committee will explore these issues and other pressures currently facing the further education sector, including the pay gap between school and college teachers, maths and English GCSE resits, students’ mental health.

Background to inquiry

The further education sector is currently navigating a series of reforms and challenges. The Curriculum and Assessment Review group will publish its recommendations later in the year, including on what the Government describes as the ‘ceilings to achievement’ built into post-16 education. Meanwhile, the Government has said it will transform further education colleges into specialist Technical Excellence Colleges and replace the Apprenticeships Levy with the new Growth and Skills Levy.

Yet the sector has undergone real-term funding cuts in recent years and, as the Committee recently heard, students and teachers have faced uncertainty over which qualifications will be available to them in the coming years. The Education Committee will explore these issues and other pressures currently facing the further education sector, including the pay gap between school and college teachers, maths and English GCSE resits, students’ mental health.

The Government has also established Skills England in order to address the country’s skills shortages and shape the technical education pathways necessary to respond to the skills needs. The Committee will assess the work of Skills England and the Government’s response to the skills crisis more broadly. It will also consider how the entire further education system could better equip young people with the technical skills and qualifications they need for a range of sectors experiencing labour shortages, whilst offering parity of esteem with more academic post-16 education routes.

Find out more here.

Consultation questions

The Committee welcomes evidence on the following points.

Curriculum and qualifications in further education

• The post-16 curriculum.
• The assessment system.
• Driving better standards in further education; the quality and consistency of provision and outcomes.
• Post-16 numeracy and literacy, including GCSE resits.
• The strengths and weaknesses of T Levels as the main qualification option for students wishing to pursue a technical route into further education.
• The reform of level 3 qualifications.

Delivering further education

• Funding for further education, including whether the additional £300 million announced by the Chancellor in last year's Budget is sufficient and how it should be distributed.
• The effectiveness of current funding arrangements in tackling the attainment gap in further education.
• Workforce pressures, including college teachers’ pay and the recruitment and retention of staff in all further education settings.
• Funding arrangements for specialist colleges.
• Quality of facilities and capital investment strategy.

Skills and apprenticeships

• How to resolve the skills shortage and narrow the gap between the skills that employers want and the skills that employees have.
• The level of collaboration between the further education sector, local government and employers in responding to the skills shortage.
• The role of Skills England in meeting the Government's industrial strategy and boosting economic growth.
• Current challenges for apprenticeships, including employer engagement, funding issues, and apprentice pay.
• The role of devolution in addressing regional skills needs and apprenticeships.
• The quality and availability of work placements within vocational courses.

Supporting young people, widening access, and narrowing the attainment gap

• The difficulties facing further education students, including mental health issues and access to mental health support, and cost of living pressures.
• The specific barriers to accessing and pursuing further education for those with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND), and children and young people in care across specialist and mainstream settings.
• Access to higher education, other qualification levels, and employment; career and course guidance.
• Disparity in attainment, including by gender, area of the country in which a student lives, ethnicity, and between disadvantaged students and their peers.

Consultation title: Governance and decision making on major programmes

Consulting organisation: House of Commons: Public Accounts Select Committee

Deadline: Response submitted

How to respond: Please send your comments to external.affairs@apm.org.uk by 4 February 2025, letting us know which consultation you’re responding to. There is no need to answer every question, just those linked to your area of expertise.

About this consultation 

Based on the NAO report, the Committee will take evidence from interested parties on Governance and Decision Making on Major Programmes.

If you have evidence on these issues, please let us know.

Background to inquiry

The PAC has long scrutinised the governance of major projects. Its 2024 report on delivering value from government investment in major infrastructure warned that the UK Government and wider economy lacked the necessary skills and capacity to deliver ambitious plans over the ensuing five years. It also predicted that skills shortages in technical and engineering disciplines were set to worsen, with gaps in the UK’s workforce compounded by competition from major global development projects.

The NAO’s 2025 report explored why governance arrangements that look suitable on paper do not always work as intended in practice, with lessons and insights drawn on successfully delivery and value for money. Based on the NAO report, the PAC will hear from senior Treasury officials on topics including governance and decision-making structures on Government projects and information that has fed into key decisions on projects.

Consultation questions

See consultation website for details.

Consultation title: Delivering value from government investment in major programmes

Consulting organisation: House of Commons: Public Accounts Select Committee

Deadline: Response submitted

About this consultation 

Based on the NAO report, the Committee will take evidence from HM Treasury and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, on subjects including:

• Examples of best practice in generating economic, social or environmental value;
• How to place such benefits at the heart of project design and delivery;
• How to review and evaluate delivery.

If you have any evidence on these issues, please let us know.

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8147/lessons-learned-delivering-value-from-government-investment-in-major-programmes/

Background to inquiry

Both the Committee and the National Audit Office (NAO) scrutinise how major projects are delivered, including inquiries on resetting of Government programmes and lessons from major projects and programmes.

As part of this theme, the NAO’s report on delivering value from Government investment in major programmes looks at a small selection of projects, including High Speed 1 and the Millennium Dome, to identify lessons Government can learn to generate value from major programmes.

Consultation questions

This consultation asks for evidence on the following:

• Examples of best practice in generating economic, social or environmental value;
• How to place such benefits at the heart of project design and delivery;
• How to review and evaluate delivery.

Consultation title: Major Capital Projects Review

Consulting organisation: UK Labour Party 

Status: Response submitted

About this consultation 

The Major Capital Projects review will look at all major aspects of infrastructure project delivery, including what is needed to get growth in the economy and save costs to the taxpayer.

The review will make recommendations on how to: improve the initial scoping and budgeting of major projects and infrastructure, improve the capacity of public bodies to effectively deliver infrastructure;  unlock wider growth around projects, deliver value for money and better performance management, and boost the British supply chain. It is set to conclude in the Spring.

It will cover:

• Improving estimates of costs, benefits, and timescales to completion.
• Whether the Civil Service has access to the skills it needs for successful delivery of major projects.
• How greater transparency and regular reporting of project data could help to improve delivery.
• How we can plan for changes in the external environment, including inflation, rising interest rates and other factors.
• How projects can contribute more to UK economic goals, including supporting UK supply chains, jobs, and skills.
• Investigating governance of how major projects are delivered and fast tracked nationally and locally.

Background to inquiry

As announced at Labour Party conference in 2023, a review led by the Shadow Chief Secretary into the delivery of major projects and infrastructure is now being undertaken. This work will run alongside the pre existing review launched by Shadow Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, which will focus on turning around Britain’s rail and urban transport infrastructure.

Consultation questions

Headline Questions

1. How can we improve estimates of costs, benefits, and timescales to completion for major projects?
2. Does the Civil Service have access to the skills it needs for the successful delivery of major projects? If not what is needed?
3. How can we ensure greater transparency and regular reporting of project data to improve delivery?
4. How can government plan for changes in the external environment, including inflation, rising interest rates and other factors?
5. How can projects contribute more to UK economic goals, including supporting UK supply chains, jobs, and skills?
6. How can the machinery of government be improved to support the delivery of major capital projects?

Current and future major projects

1. What projects or initiatives do you think should be prioritised for the future development of UK infrastructure, and why?
2. Are there specific technological advancements or innovations that you believe can significantly benefit infrastructure delivery?
3. What can we learn from the experience and approach taken by other nations in terms of accelerating infrastructure projects?

Procurement and supply chains

1. How can we enable more efficient local supply chains?

Future reforms, funding and investment

1. What do you see as the main obstacle to the private sector investing more significantly to help improve UKs infrastructure?
2. Are there regulatory changes or policy recommendations that you believe would be beneficial to accelerate investment and delivery?
3. What do you see as the main alternative funding models* available to the sector to fund stations and their surrounding city developments?
4. Are you aware of best practice approaches and case studies that have used alternative models with successful outcomes?

Consultation title:  Public Accounts Committee Inquiry: Resetting Government Programmes

Status:  Response submitted

Background to inquiry

Both the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee have examined a number of government programmes which have needed a “reset” for various reasons.

The Committee will question two panels of witnesses on programmes that have required resets for any reason such as a reset to what the programme is delivering, how or when it will deliver, or all of these elements.

For the first panel, the Committee will question the Senior Responsible Officers of a series of major projects and programmes that have required such resets:
The Department of Transport’s Crossrail project, the Department of Work and Pensions’ Universal Credit rollout, the MoD’s Ajax tank programme and the MoJ’s electronic monitoring (or “tagging”) programme.

The second panel of witnesses will include questioning on the governance of major projects by HM Treasury and the Infrastructure Projects Authority.

This inquiry, based on an NAO investigation, will aim to set out a common framework for thinking about programme resets and support decision makers in building a realistic understanding of the challenges. The inquiry will not be looking in detail at any individual projects subject to a reset.

Consultation title:  Consultation on proposed updates to the mandatory qualifications criteria

Consulting organisation:  Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE)

Status:  Response submitted

About this consultation

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is holding a consultation on proposed updates to the mandatory qualifications criteria.

Background

Learning from the last few years of apprenticeship delivery, IfATE believe there is room for improvement in how qualifications are used and operate within apprenticeships.

They are proposing changes to the requirements that are used when deciding whether an apprenticeship should include a mandatory qualification (a qualification which is mandated in the occupational standard, to be completed by an apprentice as part of their apprenticeship).

In updating criteria, IfATE will strengthen and make clearer the expectations for the suitability of a qualification, to ensure that only those which are truly necessary and deliver for apprentices and employers are included. They also present proposals to integrate a mandated qualification’s assessments with the apprenticeship end-point assessment.

Consultation questions

IfATE invites written submissions from APM members on any or all of the questions below:

Q1: To what extent do you agree that qualifications should only be mandated where they fulfil a regulatory, professional body, or labour market requirement?

Q2: To what extent do you agree that qualifications which provide ‘fuller occupational coverage’ or provide structure for off-the-job training should not be mandated on this basis alone?

Q3: To what extent do you agree with our approach to include more specific evidence criteria when mandating a qualification due to regulatory or professional body requirements?

Q4: To what extent do you agree with our proposals for requiring evidence of labour market demand for a mandatory qualification? We have made some suggestions of the kinds of evidence we would expect to see submitted – in your response, we would be interested to hear of other sources of evidence which could be used to evidence employer demand.

Q5: To what extent do you agree that where a qualification has not been approved through any current or future approval process, that outcome should inform decisions about its suitability for use in an apprenticeship.

Q6: To what extent do you agree that a qualification mandate should specify exactly which qualifications can be used to fulfil the mandate?

Q7: To what extent do you agree that qualifications should align with, and not go wider than, the KSBs set out in the occupational standard?

Q8: To what extent do you agree that mandated qualifications should be at the same or lower level as the apprenticeship?

Q9: To what extent do you agree that where possible, a qualification should be integrated into the EPA?

Q10: We have identified some scenarios in which integration might not be appropriate or possible. If you have further examples, please provide details to support our policy development around integration.

Q11: To what extent do you agree that all integrated assessments should assess the same subset of KSBs?

Q12: To what extent do you agree that the defined subset of KSBs cannot be assessed by multiple smaller qualifications?

Q13: To what extent do you agree that only one subset of the KSBs should be identified for assessment by integrated qualifications?

Q14: We have set out our preferred approach to integration and one we know to work. We would welcome your thoughts on how this approach might work for you and any alternative modes of integration you might wish to propose.

Q15: To what extent do you agree that the EPA’s assessment plan should indicate which of the integrated qualification’s grade boundaries should attest to occupational competence?

Q16: To what extent do you agree that awarding bodies setting the qualification’s integrated assessments is the best way to protect the independence and reliability of the EPA?

Q17: To what extent do you agree that it is fairer to apprentices if we do not allow awarding bodies to permit centre adaptation of an integrated qualification’s assessments?

Q18: To what extent do you agree that, for integrated written and onscreen assessments, at least one assessor must be independent in accordance with the description in the proposal?

Q19: To what extent do you agree that integrated practical assessments must be conducted by a person suitably qualified to make assessment judgements, but who has no vested interest in the apprentice’s or the assessment’s outcomes?

Q20: To what extent do you agree that, where such arrangements would present significant challenges to a centre, the tutor who has delivered the content may deliver the integrated assessment, provided they are joined by at least one other assessor who is sufficiently independent. Please provide examples of any potential challenges in your response, where applicable.

Q21: To what extent do you agree that integrated assessments must be marked or graded by the awarding organisation, independent persons appointed by the awarding organisation, centre staff with sufficient independence, or a combination of the above?

Q22: With reference to the General Impact Assessment (Section 4.1), are there any other impacts, including costs, savings or benefits, which we have not identified? Please provide examples, data and/or evidence where possible.

Q23: With reference to the General Impact Assessment (Section 4.1), are there any additional steps that could be taken to mitigate any negative impact, resulting from the proposed approach to approvals? Please provide examples, data and/or evidence where possible.

Q24: With reference to the Equality Impact Assessment (Section 4.2), are there any other potential impacts (positive or negative) that have not been identified? Please provide examples, data and/or evidence where possible.

Consultation title:  Developing workforce skills for a strong economy

Consulting organisation:  House of Commons: Public Accounts Select Committee

Status:  Response submitted

About this consultation

In July 2022 the NAO reported that the UK “faces a major challenge in ensuring it has a sufficiently skilled workforce”, with the head of the NAO, the Comptroller and Auditor General, concluding that “There is a risk that, despite government’s greater activity and good intent, its approach may be no more successful than previous attempts to provide the country with the skills it needs.”

A skilled workforce is critical to the country’s economic success and to achieving other government aims such as “levelling up”. Economic and societal changes are making the skills challenge more acute - the UK’s exit from the EU has reduced the supply of workers from member states and potentially increased the need for the country to train its own workers. The Government’s commitment to achieve ‘net zero’ greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will create new skilled jobs and around one in five existing jobs is likely to be affected by the transition.

But the NAO found that participation in government-funded further education and skills training has declined significantly, particularly in disadvantaged areas. The number of adult learners fell by 48% over the last decade, from 3.2 million in 2010/11 to 1.6 million in 2020/21. From 2015/16 to 2020/21, the number of participants aged 19 and over in England’s 20% most disadvantaged areas dropped by 39%, compared with a 29% drop overall.

Largely because of the drop in learners, there was a 46% fall in the Skills Index – government’s measure of the impact of the further education system on productivity – from 2012/13 to 2020/21.

The 2022 white paper Levelling Up the United Kingdom set out the government’s plans to address regional and local inequalities, but according to the NAO report “its aims go only some way towards addressing the decline in participation in skills training”. By 2030, the government wants 200,000 more people in England to successfully complete high-quality skills training annually, including 80,000 more people in the lowest skilled areas. Achieving this would only partly reverse the fall of around 280,000 learners in the 20% most disadvantaged areas since 2015/16.

If you have evidence on these findings and issues to inform PAC’s questioning of the departments, please submit it.

Consultation title:  Transport labour market and skills

Consulting organisation:  Department for Transport, UK Government

Status:  Response submitted

About this consultation

This consultation considers the barriers and opportunities to developing skills and careers across the transport sector.

Background

This consultation sets out 5 pillars that form the basis for the work the Department for Transport wants to carry out in collaboration with external partners, including the transport industry, academia and the third sector. These pillars are:

• boosting diversity, inclusion and social mobility
• improving training and employment
• promoting careers in transport
• preparing for future skills
• building evidence and evaluating progress

Informed by public response to this paper, the 5 pillars will set the direction for the work of an industry-led taskforce.  The taskforce and the Department will develop a programme to support the sector in accessing skilled workers to create a transport system fit for the future. 

Consultation Questions

The Department would like APM member comment on five questions, as well as any more general comments:

1) In your view, what skills does the transport sector need in the future?

2) How, in your view, can current qualification and training routes be made more accessible for those who want to pursue a career in the transport sector?

3) What, in your view, are effective ways to attract young people and career changers into a career in the transport sector?

4) What, in your view, are the barriers to further increasing diversity, inclusion and social mobility in the transport sector?

5) How, in your view, can barriers to diversity, inclusion and social mobility in the transport sector be reduced?

6) Any other comments.

Consultation title:  Draft Second Strategic Transport Projects Review for Scotland

Consulting organisation:  Transport Scotland, Scottish Government

Status:  Response submitted

About this consultation

Transport Scotland has developed the Draft Second Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2) for Scotland. 

It now wishes to get opinions, from Scottish members and others, on what has been proposed.  The review will inform Scottish Ministers decisions on transport investment in Scotland for the next 20 years (2022-2042).

Consultation on the draft second Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR2) for Scotland

Background

STPR2 is one of the mechanisms for delivering the Vision, Priorities and Outcomes of the second National Transport Strategy (NTS2). It is an important tool for achieving the Scottish Government’s commitment to 20% reduction in vehicle kilometres by 2030 and contributing to Scotland’s net zero greenhouse gas emissions target by 2045.

STPR2 considers the transport needs of Scotland’s people and communities and provides an overview of transport investment that is required to deliver the National Transport Strategy priorities and objectives of the Review.

It does not cover routine day-to-day motorway and trunk road maintenance and committed improvements; rail network operations, maintenance and renewal; and revenue funding for public transport services.

STPR2 makes 45 recommendations grouped under six themes.  The themes are:

1. Improving active travel infrastructure
2. Influencing travel choices and behaviours
3. Enhancing access to affordable public transport
4. Decarbonising transport
5. Increasing safety and resilience on the strategic transport network
6. Strengthening strategic connections

And the 45 recommendations for future project development can be seen on pages xv-xix in the consultation document - STPR2 Draft Technical Report.

Consultation Questions

There are 45 questions in total, too numerous to list here, but they can be accessed at Consultation questions and respondent information form.

Consultation Title:  Future of Post-16 Qualifications

Consulting organisation:  House of Commons: Education Select Committee

Status:  Response submitted 

About this consultation

The Education Committee will hold an inquiry examining how effectively post-16, level 3 education and qualifications (such as A Levels, T Levels, BTECs and apprenticeships) prepare young people for the world of work.

The Committee will consider the Government’s current work and proposals in this area and look at whether an alternative model, which enables a greater blend of academic and vocational pathways, should be explored.

The Government has several proposals underway on post-16 qualifications:

• Level 3 qualification reform: The Government has responded to its consultation on reforming level 3 qualifications, with a policy statement published in July 2021. This sets out a timeline for reforms to level 3 qualifications, which includes defunding from technical qualifications that overlap with T Levels
• The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, which had its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday 15 November
• The further rollout of T Levels

The Committee’s new inquiry will look at the impact of these changes and whether existing and proposed arrangements go far enough to prepare young people for the world of work.