It is a truth rarely acknowledged in Whitehall that the United Kingdom is sleepwalking into a crisis. Our bridges creak. Our water mains leak. Our energy grid, designed for a bygone era, struggles to meet the demands of a net-zero future. The problem is hardly new. But the solution has been hiding in plain sight: a sovereign wealth fund for critical infrastructure.

Critics will call it socialism. They will mutter about Norway and its oil. But Norway, for all its oil wealth, understood one thing we have forgotten: that a nation’s infrastructure is not a cost but an asset. The UK has sold off its crown jewels: the electricity, the water, the rail. We sold them cheap, and we got short-term cash in return. Now we pay the price in crumbling roads and delayed trains.

Consider the figures. According to the National Infrastructure Commission, the UK needs to invest between £20 and £30 billion a year over the next decade just to maintain existing assets. Actual spending is far lower. The private sector, which now owns most of this infrastructure, is not interested in long-term resilience. It cares about quarterly returns. A sovereign wealth fund would change that calculus.

How would it work? The fund would be capitalised by the Treasury, perhaps through a mix of gilt issuance and a small levy on the windfall profits of companies that benefit from our public goods: the tech giants, the banks, the extractive industries. The fund would then invest directly in projects: a new high-speed rail line, a modern water management system, a fibre-optic network for every home.

This is not fantasy. The UK already has successful sovereign wealth funds: the Crown Estate, the National Pension Reserve Fund. But they are fragmented. We need a single, focused fund with a clear mandate: to build and maintain critical infrastructure for the long term.

Some will argue that the government already borrows to invest. But borrowing is politically constrained. A sovereign wealth fund, by contrast, operates independently. It can ride out political cycles. It can invest in projects that take decades to mature. It can also provide a buffer against economic shocks, as Norway’s fund did after the 2008 crash.

There is a deeper point. Infrastructure is not just about concrete and steel. It is about sovereignty. Who owns our power lines? Who decides where our water flows? If a foreign state-owned enterprise buys our energy grid, are we truly independent? A sovereign wealth fund would keep control in British hands.

The objections are predictable. The fund might be mismanaged. It might become a piggy bank for pet projects. But these are risks we can manage with transparency, independent oversight, and a strict legal mandate. Other countries do it. Why can’t we?

I spoke to a former Treasury official, who asked not to be named. He said the problem is not money but mindset. “We treat infrastructure as a cost rather than an investment. A sovereign wealth fund forces us to think differently. It makes the long term tangible.”

This is not an argument for Big Government. It is an argument for smart government. A sovereign wealth fund would harness market discipline while pursuing public ends. It would attract private capital by de-risking projects. It would create jobs and boost productivity.

We have a choice. We can continue to patch and mend, watching our infrastructure decay, watching our children inherit a poorer country. Or we can think boldly. A sovereign wealth fund for critical infrastructure is not a radical idea. It is common sense. It is time we acted.