Continuity - it's the one post Election priority that underpins every other

Nick Baveystock
22 April 2015

Twitter FacebookLinkedIn

Print

Topics 

Politics

Business

Creating stability is vital for the infrastructure supply chain and investment community -  perhaps the “holy grail” for our industry, says ICE director general Nick Baveystock.

I was recently asked what I thought should be the top three priorities for the next Government. A longer term vision for infrastructure?  A framework that stands the vision above political fault lines?  Developing the NIP into an investment and delivery plan which offers transparency to investors? 

Yes, these are absolutely fundamental. But the three words burning on my lips, which perhaps underpin everything, were “continuity, continuity and continuity”. 

"Each party recognised the role of infrastructure in fostering growth, the need for devolution and appeared to grasp the gravity of the UK’s energy situation"

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as “a state of stability and the absence of disruption” – and this, I argue, is the single most important thing for the supply chain and investment community. One might say the “holy grail” for our industry. 

What makes this more pertinent is our starting point. Since 2010, we have seen great strides forward – not least the publication of our first NIP. The benefits of infrastructure investment are established and it has a front row seat in plans for economic prosperity.   It is crucial therefore that we build on this progress, maintaining momentum and certainty.  Starting from scratch will prove detrimental.

While none of the main party manifestos acknowledged the need for continuity explicitly, the manifestos did give us much to be pleased about. There was no indication of wiping the board clean and many ICE recommendations were adopted.   

Each party recognised the role of infrastructure in fostering growth, the need for devolution and appeared to grasp the gravity of the UK’s energy situation - with the Liberal Democrats and Labour marking out some ambitious decarbonisation targets.  

Labour also reiterated plans for a National Infrastructure Commission.   Our concerns around the stalling of momentum in the transition to any new system remain, however a well-argued solution to our governance issues is on the table. 

"What is omitted from the manifestos is as significant as what is in them.  While all parties acknowledged flood resilience, commitment to a long-term investment programme for flood defence maintenance was notable by its absence."

This is something that must be tackled regardless of the outcome on 7 May. The delay and indecision in resolving the UK’s hub capacity – and indeed the lack of any real commitment in the manifestos to act on the Davies Commission recommendations - demonstrates why this is so important.   

Of course what is omitted from the manifestos is as significant as what is in them.  While all parties acknowledged flood resilience, commitment to a long-term investment programme for flood defence maintenance was notable by its absence. Flood management is a long-term challenge and we need a shift from annual funding, to a 6 year investment programme - matching the 6 year programme for new flood infrastructure.  

Our local roads suffer from the same short termism, as we are without commitment to a more preventative maintenance regime – one which addresses defects on a long-term basis, instead of reactive “quick fix” work that doesn’t last. 

As public finances remain tight, and the scale of our infrastructure requirements continues to grow – the need for a longer-term, strategic approach will become more pressing.

Nick Baveystock is director general of the Institution of Civil Engineers

ICE has produced analysis on how the recommendations in its Manifesto for Infrastructure have been adopted by each main party. Click here to view the analysis