The Government's 'Infrastructure Plan' is nothing more than ‘a list of projects' with no ‘strategic vision [or] clear priorities', according to an influential group of MPs.

The criticism of the Treasury's National Infrastructure Plan – which lists 500 prospective infrastructure projects designed to boost growth at a cost of £310bn - came in a Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report published today.

The Planning for economic infrastructure report warns that consumers ‘will bear the brunt of the costs for projects' through higher transport fares or utilities bills, but the burden ‘has not been quantified'.

It states: ‘The Treasury's Infrastructure Plan is a list of projects, not a real plan with a strategic vision and clear priorities. We are not convinced that a plan requiring £310bn of investment in infrastructure is credible given the current economic climate, the cutbacks in public finances and the difficulty in raising private finance for projects on acceptable terms.'

The Treasury has hit back at the criticism, with a spokeswoman stating: 'We do not agree with the committee's depiction of the Government's infrastructure delivery plans. Planning and delivering vital long-term infrastructure is a central economic priority.

'That's why we launched the first ever National Infrastructure Plan, setting out a strategic approach that monitors the performance of our key infrastructure sectors and identifies the projects needed to build an economy fit for the future.'

Transport projects identified by the Treasury's plan include High Speed Rail 2, Crossrail, motorway improvements and local schemes - 21 of which are schemes scheduled to start construction by August 2013.

The PAC makes clear that ‘most of the costs of economic infrastructure will fall on citizens as consumers rather than taxpayers', with some 64% of the plan's £310bn total, expected to go on infrastructure ‘wholly owned and financed by the private sector'.

It goes on to warn that ‘with household budgets under pressure consumers have limited scope for adjusting their spending on costs arising from infrastructure investment in many areas such as utility bills and fares'.

The PAC does suggest some government intervention would be necessary to support and attract private investment, potentially including ‘direct grants, guaranteed prices for outputs, or agreeing to bear certain risks'.

In return investors ‘should provide sufficient information to show that their returns are reasonable and that any government support is justified' and the Treasury should reserve the right to audit such information.

Chris Leslie MP, Labour's shadow financial secretary to the Treasury, said: 'The reality is that deep cuts to capital spending mean the Tory-led Government has seen over £5bn less in capital investment in its first three years when compared to the plans inherited from Labour.

'Delay, indecision and inaction on key projects risk holding back our recovery, with output in the construction sector down 12.2% since the Spending Review.'