132 high-risk projects have been pushed out to departments and local authorities without central challenge and support, while Canada is strengthening central oversight.
On 1 April, NISTA, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority, cut the Government Major Projects Portfolio, or GMPP, from 213 projects to 81.
Those projects ejected from the list have been pushed to government departments and local authorities, organisations that in many cases lack the capability, oversight structures and track record to deliver major projects.
It’s the most significant structural decision the new authority has made since its creation a year ago and, for the construction sector, it might seem a positive step.
To stay in the GMPP, projects must support a top government priority, exceed £1bn in whole-life cost, and stand to benefit from central scrutiny.
Before the cull, the GMPP had ICT, service delivery and construction projects. Now, the list is dominated by construction. Roughly two-thirds of the 81 retained projects involve significant construction or physical infrastructure.
They include HS2, East West Rail, Sizewell C, Northern Powerhouse Rail, Lower Thames Crossing, the New Hospital Programme, the School Rebuilding Programme, six major prison expansions, and the full slate of defence infrastructure.
More focus is good, but …
For the contractors and supply chains working on these schemes, a more focused NISTA with its expert advisory resource concentrated on fewer, bigger programmes should mean better support and sharper oversight where it matters most.
So far, so encouraging.
But the 132 ejected projects haven’t gone away. Indeed, their departure adds to the pressure on government departments and local authorities.
Most of the removed projects are ICT and service delivery programmes that carry cost overrun risks comparable to building a nuclear power station, according to our analysis at Oxford Global Projects.
The budgets are smaller, but the probability and scale of failure are just as high. These high-risk programmes will now be managed by government departments and local authorities without the backstop of central challenge and support that the GMPP provided.
Those government departments and local authorities are construction clients as well, and will now be managing more complexity on their own.
Local authority capital expenditure on new construction, conversion and renovation alone was £20.2bn in 2024-25. Highways and transport spending by councils ran to a further £8.3bn.
Construction depends on these markets, and on clients capable of managing them adequately.
When a strong centre matters
A study we conducted for the European Court of Auditors found that when delivery is fragmented across multiple bodies without strong central coordination, projects take significantly longer and cost significantly more.
The Court revisited those findings earlier this year and found that none of the projects examined had made meaningful progress. Fragmentation does not distribute risk. It multiplies it.
It is also worth noting the direction other countries are taking. Canada established a federal major projects office at the end of last year, having recognised that provincial-level delivery was producing poor results.
The Canadians are broadening central oversight. The UK, with this reset, has chosen to narrow it.
None of this undermines the case for a more focused GMPP. A Construction Products Association report last year found that only 14% of the government’s strategic projects and programmes were on track: a figure that argues powerfully for concentrating expert resource where it will have the greatest impact.
But the construction sector should be clear-eyed about the mounting pressure on public sector clients.
Dr Alexander Budzier is the CEO of Oxford Global Projects. He served on the advisory panel that contributed to the creation of NISTA and has led research for the European Court of Auditors on cross-border infrastructure project delivery.
