Published 4 July 2025 in ConHome

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and an Eastern Region ambassador on the Conservative Policy Forum. He is also the former Chair of the European Parliament Forum for Construction and Energy Users.

The announcement by the Secretary of State for Energy that £14.2bn will be available for nuclear facilities at Sizewell in Suffolk must be welcomed: secure jobs will be created, and we need to extend our fleet to meet the target for nuclear to provide at least 25 per cent of electricity for UK consumption.

This is a long-term investment and the continuation of the Sizewell project means French technology (which some experts say is already out of date), but that appears the way in which we are obliged to work because we do need a fleet of nuclear plants to replace those to be decommissioned. The problem is these large plants take a decade to build and the costs spiral.

What about the strategy to build small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)? Ten SMRs were promised under a Conservative government based on the nuclear reactors supplied for nuclear submarines by Rolls Royce. These were to be commissioned throughout the country, producing indigenous electricity.

Only a few weeks ago it was rumoured that the Labour government had paused any future plans but I guess, like all Labour’s thinking, the idea has been raised – but perhaps with no intention of fulfilling the build. Nevertheless the Chancellor has referred to just one SMR (in Cumbria). Was this a fact or just grandstanding?

We need to tell the government that it is essential for this SMR project to be activated now – it is said they will be quicker to build and are cost effective. We need ten to be part of our nuclear programme all functioning as soon as possible; all part of growth, security of energy supply, and regional levelling up.

Remember our past economic fortunes resulted in ‘home made’ coal, oil and gas. We should stop importing fuel from countries that can hold us to supply and price ransom. We have to move away from imported energy and have an indigenous fuel supply to provide competitive prices for industry, as well as security of supply and competitive charges on homes and public services.

Sources such as solar, wind and other renewable energy facilities are intermittent and could result in the need to import expensive energy. Renewables are an important part of our decarbonisation strategy, and part of the energy mix required to maintain energy supply. But it is a mistake to cancel exploration of oil and gas (even fracking) until our indigenous energy supply is secure.

Nuclear must be supported and some of us have weathered the opposition for the last 50 + years. We cannot afford to ignore the SMR regime and therefore it is essential to get these built.

There will possibly be opposition, but as major infrastructure facilities to increase the nuclear fleet locations must be agreed, all the planning should be based on the same model criteria (in other words no individual local planning applications but a national template regime). In this way the process of location and planning, plus construction is controlled by a Panel of Expert Managers for all the individual projects. Procurement for each should be the same and managed with a view to them being commissioned under a strict timetable deadline. Some could be built simultaneously.

We need an active nuclear fleet now.

No more promises; a clear action line.

No doubt the question of funding will arise. Nuclear facilities, whether large projects like Sizewell, Hinckley Point, Sellafield etc plus the SMR facilities, are all long-term investments over 40-50 years. Indigenous fuel intention and guaranteeing our security of supply for electricity, for business and keeping the lights on generally, will also be created and the programme part of making industry competitive in the regions.

They are all assets and should be financed on that basis (over the lifetime of their commission).

The UK remains the sixth largest economy (and we must ensure that remains so). We should plan to borrow the costs, not as a debt as a percentage of GDP, but on a separate plan quite separate on the UK balance sheet as a continuing asset.

And facilities could be explored with the Bank of England to facilitate this nuclear infrastructure project under a similar QE scheme in conjunction with the UK Investment Bank.

Published 3 March 2025 in ConHone

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and  joint Eastern Regional Ambassador for the Conservative Policy Form

The amendment on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill must be opposed in Parliament as it will have a profound impact on Britain’s ability to control our product standards. It will mean alignment with all EU Directives on standards. These Directives and future legislation will come under the authority of the EU Commission and ultimately the European Court of Justice.

If this amendment is adopted, we will become a rule taker, not a rule maker. Our right to set our product standards will evaporate.

It is important to recognise that a product standard is governed where it is marketed to protect user activity. For example if windows are being manufactured in the UK and are sold in an EU member state they have to comply with EU standards. If they are to be marketed in any other country – such as the USA – they have to comply with the standards there.

Products imported into the UK have to comply with our standards. If this amendment is eventually passed, our control over product standards will be lost.

Little attention is being given to this amendment perhaps because many on the Westminster scene do not understand how important this is. The Labour government will argue this marks no return to the Single Market but this legislative trick will make all (and especially future products regulation) align with EU legislation

It will authorise the Secretary of State to issue Statutory Instruments on product regulation without detailed parliamentary scrutiny.

Prior to the introduction of the Single Market, standards in the UK were under the control of the British Standards Institute which drew up product standards in a flexible manner. Consultation with all parties took place.

After the Single Market was established, all standards were created by legislative proposals as EU Directives drafted by European law under the authority and enforced by the European Commission. This meant the final arbiter would be the European Court of Justice.

In the UK, we have OUR “common law” which gives flexibility not absolute inflexible and bureaucratic law making.

There was a problem encountered in Brussels, as It was realised that the Single Market was restrictive, bureaucratic, and protectionist. The UK, under the majority voting system, could never win a vote in the Council of Ministers.

My last activity in Brussels was to assist in the review of the Construction Products Directive which took 6 years to complete due to hundreds of rules having to be examined.  This Product Regulation amendment in effect cuts into our sovereignty rights

The problem could be resolved by mutual recognition between competent authorities but the Commission would not run with that and still won’t as they argue that the Single Market would be compromised – as we have seen in the Northern Ireland situation.

We must remember that the UK, USA, Singapore and Hong Kong together with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and many up and coming developing nations like India all operate under “common law”. That in itself raises the question of sovereignty.

The amendment would undermine our sovereignty and potentially scupper the flexibility in our financial services dominance – something the Commission has always wanted. The EU have attempted a number of times to bring energy under their umbrella control to influence trading of energy in the euro. This has not been successful, with the dollar remaining the trading currency

We need transparency from the Government and demanded they set out their objectives for the reset of relations with the EU

The Labour government is going to negotiate the reset of the relationship with the EU without a clear mandate and here we have a device introduced without any real scrutiny that will pave the way to control by the EU. There is a lot at stake.

Remember there was a referendum with 17 million plus voting in favour of leaving the EU. The electorate has a right to be involved.

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of the Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.

The Labour government is looking for a better relationship with the EU but they haven’t set out what they mean. So far, what we have seen is the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary cosying up to the President of the EU Commission. At the moment, it is all smiles and attempts to indicate that all is well.

During the Mansion House speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England they both indicated the need to have a closer relationship with the EU, but not going back into the Single Market or the Customs Union. What is the plan? What will the Government cave in to?

In the House of Lords, an amendment has been put down to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill for the UK default position on product standards to be aligned to EU legislation. No doubt this isn’t just a coincidence. This is supported by 150 Labour MPs in the Labour Movement for Europe.

This amendment would mean that any agreement with the EU would be encased in EU law and come under the authority of the European Court of Justice. It would be very difficult for us to retain our own product standards regime in UK legislation if we had a default clause imposed. In, particular we might find it difficult to enter into any trade agreement with the United States.

Be under no illusion whatever comes out of these talks the main objective of the EU Commission will be to take us back under their control and ensure they retrieve their lost funds.

The Labour government under the leadership of Keir Starmer has a reputation for caving in during negotiations. Just look at the pay rises they agreed on.

Imagine ministers (and civil servants) who never supported leaving the EU in charge of trying to get better relations with the EU. Who will be put in charge, and what will be their mandate?

During the Leave negotiations, sovereignty, was an issue as was the demand that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings were not to be applied in the U.K. It is vitally essential that the U.K. does not fall under EU control and is influenced by European law.

Do you trust Keir Starmer and David Lammy to honour the legal sovereignty and integrity of the U.K. under our common law? I don’t.

EU legislative policy initiatives can only be created by the EU Commission. Individual directorates’ secretariat can investigate and propose a legislative proposal at any time. They must get the support of their EU Commissioner. If refused the proposal goes into the pending file to await a new Commissioner.

The proposal for a directive under European law is then scrutinised by the European Parliament, and the European Economic and Social Committee, and examined by working groups (of member state civil servants), before finally being adopted by the Council of Minsters (member state ministers).

There is a process of negotiation between the European Parliament and the Council. The EU Commission can at any time amend or withdraw the proposal. The U.K. is not now involved in this process. It is complex and difficult to stop EU legislation.

Starmer is a polished technocratic lawyer who led the charge against leaving the EU. He supported the call for a second referendum knowing only too well – as a lawyer – that there is a major difference in the way law is practiced and implemented in Europe from the UK. What is his objective during his chummy chats with the EU?

In the House of Commons, the European Affairs Scrutiny Select Committee has been abolished by the government. No direct scrutiny is taking place. Statements might be made but what discussions and briefings are taking place at the Ministerial / EU Commissioner level and U.K. civil service / EU Commission directorate level?

The Conservatives should demand the government spell out more information. Our MPs need to study the game of the last 50 years. To bring the government to account we need:

• A Green Paper setting out the Government’s objectives (for open consultation with interested bodies)
• White Paper giving a specific and clear policy pathway to be taken that sets out red lines that must not be crossed.

We have to be mindful that when the EU published its ‘White Paper establishing the EU Internal Market in 1985’ (the single market) the Commission were convinced that trading standards introduced by Directives under the competence of the EU Commission and enforced by the European Court of Justice would be recognised throughout the world. The CE mark was introduced that verified all products could be safely marketed in the EU – and as they thought throughout the world. This was fantasy land.

It was the same EU Commission secretariat that took the view that the single currency – the Euro – would become the reserve currency for all financial trade in the world. That too was a fantasy. Every EU Agreement and Treaty is composed under European law and ECJ interpretation and control.

Today the U.K. has the UKCA (United Kingdom Conformity Assessment) mark to verify that the product is safe to be marketed. This replaces the CE mark for products placed on the market.

Sovereignty must not be taken away by stealth.  The EU Commission will have a long-term objective. If the HoL amendment goes through or informal talks develop, Directives will be enforced by the EU Commission under ECJ control to enable new Directives or amendments concerning EU trading standards legislation to be implemented in the U.K.  Once we start to go along that path we will be required to agree to changes in our laws and practices that will be difficult to appeal against.

We need transparency and democratic Parliamentary scrutiny taking place at all levels of government during these discussions.

Subjects on the agenda appear to include joining military exercises with an EU army (which does not exist), and undertaking foreign policy and diplomatic actions under the authority of the EEAS “European External Action Service”.

Other issues yet to be fully disclosed include recent discussions with Interpol and the National Crime Agency and the exchange of information on national security. Will all this put into question the ‘5 Eyes Intelligence Alliance (FVEY)’ between the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. and deter any free trade deal with the USA?

Any subjects being considered in these discussions with the EU will be carefully crafted by an agreement composed by the EU Commission under European law and exercised under the authority of the ECJ. This practice must be rejected.

Could we see a potential erosion of U.K. sovereignty that will slowly bring about a move for the U.K. to rejoin the EU? We must insist these chummy informal discussions are transparent and the Government accountable not just to Parliament, but also to the British electorate. There must be no policy for stealth.

Publications during Exit from the EU

Wilfred Aspinall written evidence December 2015 – Treaty Changes

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/2735/uk-governments-renegotiation-of-eu-membership-parliamentary-sovereignty-and-scrutiny-inquiry/publications/

Wilfred Aspinall Written Evidence to HoL Scrutiny Committee

Click to access 50.pdf

Pathway to Exiting the EU – Analysis

https://eustrategy.wordpress.com/blog/

Northern Island Protocol – Analysis by Wilfred Aspinall

https://brexitstrategy.wordpress.com/

Published 4 November 2024 [ConHome

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.

We lost the election on a massive scale, but it shouldn’t stop us from coming forward with ideas that demonstrate to all ages that the Conservative Party is alive and still has the wish to contribute to the prosperity of Britain.

In May this year, I wrote about the creation of Investment Zones as a means to promote growth, trying to encourage the Conservative government to get their act together by introducing fiscal and other incentives to promote inward investment throughout the country as part of the levelling-up process. That approach is dead under the Labour regime, but we see a hint of more devolution alongside big state interventions that will further bring about central Westminster control

We have Conservatives have to move forward to spearhead inward investment if Labour are not willing to. Growth is not created by Westminster speeches. It is created locally by initiatives brought about by investment funds (whether public or private) obtained with a view to a capital gain. Nobody owes anybody anything for free. We must promote capital investment, not indluge in Labour’s pursuit of the redistribution of wealth

Labour increased taxes in the Budget: a massive discouragement towards inward investment. We must be prepared to oppose such tax increases.

I have been shouting for years that building houses of all types is a growth process. Stability to borrow funds for the builder (large contractors, since small local builders are often squeezed out by the large contractors, alongside the self and custom builders). Employment is created for those building. These employees pay their taxes and spend in the retail markets. Money spins around from one source to another.

One learned lesson is that nationally controlled public investment developments appear to be a case for chaos with out-of-control spending. Whatever the project it cannot be managed from a desk in Whitehall.

Our objective in promoting public and private investment should be to bring forward policies that deliver at the best price and that means giving more powers to the devolved regions, the metropolitan and combined Councils, but also to county and unitary councils. I personally want to examine the election of more Mayors as that will allow ideas to be shared across regions but with one local named person accountable to the electorate.

Their localised expertise is essential to bringing local communities along to support these initiatives. This will require more skilled local authority Officers to deal with this input of funds and enable them to deliver projects. It will require Councillors to spend more of their time fully understanding the new planning regime, contractural control of the projects and a lot of training to fulfil their devolved tasks

In May 2025 County Council elections will be held and if we don’t show we have ideas and initiatives we will lose control of those councils where we are currently in control or have a controlling interest.

We cannot be complacent. It is but six months away. Labour is on an electoral roll, but hopefully, by May, voters will be fed up with them.

We know that the last Conservative government didn’t get its act together to promote localised funding therefore we have to adopt a learning role to listen to our members as a sounding board but also involve the electorate. I think they want to be involved

We should promote devolved powers. It would take time but with patient determination, we could find we maintain a counterbalance to national powers which are currently concentrated in Westminster.

Under that approach, it will be essential that Conservatives control county councils. We must retain that position and by May 2025 when many voters will be realising what Labour policies are really about we will have a great opportunity to take control of additional county councils.

We could take on board the creation of elected mayors and work to promote these authorities to bring investment to the area. The initiative would capture the imagination of a lot of people – young and old need encouragement to vote Conservative.

We will need Conservative candidates who have expertise in business occupations to have oversight and initiate managerial and political ability to understand the functions of investment and construction best practice. They will be elected for the remainder of the Labour government tenure. Their role will be 24/7 involvement especially where we do not have a local MP: a true springboard for the election in 2029.

This concept may be ambitious but who better to bring about better value for money, establish what local communities need, and get the infrastructure built quickly than Conservatives elected locally?

Conservative Associations need to work now to set out their tent, call for enthusiastic candidates to commit to a 24/7 tenure as a councillor, and then again in 2026 for the Unitary Council elections.

The idea of elected Mayors with the same powers as the Metropolitan Mayoral teams using their influence is worth considering. Councillors are not paid a salary but they do get an allowance that together with expenses brings them well above  £13-14k per year. We need to have a maximum presence on “the street” not doubling up. No twin hatters as they will be too busy just doing one job very well.

Finally, we must set in place a scheme where Conservatives can promote infrastructure and building infrastructure under local initiatives.

Published 12 September 2024

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.

This week’s vote in Parliament on the Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) was a test of whether this Government has any consideration for the pensioner.

The Labour government scrapping of the Winter Fuel Allowance discriminates within the pensioner group. The WFA has not been means-tested; it is an allowance paid annually to help aged people pay for their home heating to keep them warm in winter. It is not defined as a benefit.

Keeping aged people warm is a precautionary measure rather than see them ill and potentially needing GP and other medical assistance and even admitted to hospital. Blaming the previous government has nothing to do with this current political decision

Many pensioners rely on the WFA to top up their gas and electricity bills so that they maintain heating in their homes during the winter; this especially applies to those aged over 80 years

The nagging point is that suddenly the Labour government has moved the goal posts by scrapping the WFA except for those receiving pension credit, opening up an ideological question of who is defined as wealthy. Many pensioners may have assets but are income poor.

How do pensioners get the means-tested pension credit? Well, for a start they have to declare their earnings and savings – not something this group of the population has been brought up to do.

They are law abiding, value privacy, have been prudent in their finances, and most will not have a chartered accountant to look after them. They do not wish to be a burden on the State; many live alone.

But here we have a Labour government suggesting they could claim pension credit. The argument appears to be counter-productive. The Chancellor has said in parliament this WFA withdrawal will save £1.5bn – but if every person eligible claimed pension credit it will cost more than the savings made from the withdrawal of WFA!

This group of people have been brought up all their lives to be prudent. Always have funds for a rainy day. Many will have lived through  rationing during and after WWII.

Rationing did not cease until 1954 and even after that certain commodities were difficult to obtain. The idea of having no funds was to be avoided. During that rationing period many people had to do without, or barter” to obtain food, clothing, and perhaps even coal for the fire.

To obtain a pension credit means no savings above £10,000 – and every £500 over £10,000 counts as £1 income a week. For example, if you have £11,000 in savings, this counts as £2 income a week. you therefore exceed that figure.

The point, in any case, is they don’t want to declare what savings they have, and that today’s pensioners are now being discriminated against simply because they are not seeking the pension credit. They like to have savings for emergency needs; they do not want state handouts.

The basic pension is £156.20 per week, or £8122 per annum; the new state pension is £203.85 per week, or £10600 per annum. This is well below the minimum living wage (£11.44 per hour, equivalent £21,670 per annum) recognised as being required to have a decent standard of living.

The majority of pensioners are not able to supplement their earning, although some do. Instead of cutting out the WFA, is there not an argument for examining a Pensioners Living Wage?

Their pension is calculated based on what NIC contributions they have made during their working lives. It is not a handout, not a benefit, but what they have paid into the system. It is a payment by right and not means tested.

Perhaps if Labour were being logical they would scrap the WFA for everybody. Of course that would create  considerable opposition. It would certainly destroy their ideology that people without savings deserve protection. Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to care and look after our aged population?

These pensioners are not working people, although they are being treated that way. But working-age people are where the Government should be looking for savings.

Labour needs to investigate fully all recipients of sickness and disability benefit to establish if they are fit to work. There are 2.9 million people on sickness and disability benefits; perhaps some savings could be made there. We see reported that some GP’s  after a six minute telephone consultation charge £35 to sign the patient off; there is clearly something wrong there.

There are also nine million inactive people who don’t pay tax and NIC; some might be on benefits. The Government should investigate saving from this sector of the population – not penalise pensioners.

Remember, the reason the WFA is not means-tested because (unlike pension credit) it is not a benefit. Nothing was said about in the Labour manifesto about changing that. This is a process of taxation by stealth.

The Labour Government is penalising pensioners who have some savings and forgetting that a basic pension is not a living wage. If they were being logical they would withdraw the WFA for everybody. But no – they are working on an ideological idea that if the pensioner is not in receipt of the pension credit, the pensioner is wealthy.

We as Conservatives should oppose this petty approach and speak up for pensioners

Published 2 August 2024

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.

There is a mix of opinions on how the leader of the Conservative Party should be elected. But most favour a procedural change and more involvement by Party members. Without any rush, we have to get this right.

I noted from ConHome “comments” the desire for transparency, democracy, integrity, and life experience,  managerial ability, ability to delegate and smell a problem, and the quality to act calmly, get “stuff done” and lead.

We may have a problem when MPs have a vested interest in who becomes the leader based on their chance of a frontbench position and therefore they think it is in their best interest to support a particular candidate.

Normal survival I suppose but not best practice in a subscriber-based organisation.

Too much obvious maneuvering has taken place in the past which has not given a good result, and is often hampered by outside influencers.

The 1922 Committee decided that candidates who wished to stand as leader need to declare before recess. These are the same MP’s who had difficulty in organising the vote for their new Chairman. Did someone say get back confidence?

The Party needs to accept that it is not business as usual.

With only 121 MPs we may get well-funded organisations, even former MPs influencing the process.

Following this election the 121 MP’s may not know one another (certainly that applies to those newly elected). Those MPs mentioned as self-nominees are from the body of the 14 years of well-known government ministers. Frankly, a government that had run out of ideas to present to the electorate. Of more importance are actual policy ideas for the future.

The parliamentary party had ceased to listen even to Constituency Association members.

So what is the current potential group of known candidates going to offer that is different? How are we going to find out?

Perhaps Conservative MPs should have taken time to meet one another and have time to chat to one another before nominations were declared. Even to have internal hustings.

With only 121 MPs voting put them all in an isolated place, with no outside contact (no mobiles and no leaks), and get them to come forward with not two but three or four nominations (to avoid the self-interest saga). No manoeuvres.

Those three or four candidates should have been found to be put to the membership of the party with hustings internally organised throughout the UK only attended by Party members and then a final vote of all members.

I noticed that as the pre-election debate was closing three spokespeople were frequently fielded for the press circuit. All Secretaries of State, all knowledgable, and in positions where they were working to restore some credibility in their department of state. They all appeared to be genuine and competent, and didn’t come across as vying to denigrate colleagues during their interviews

I am referring to  Victoria Atkins, Mark Harper, and Mel Stride. All were competent performers. All have worked outside the Westminster bubble with a credible career history.

During the next 5 years a new Leader will be tested to keep their Shadow Cabinet and all MPs working within an agreed policy strategy that aims for the 2029 General Election and in the interim holds the Labour government to account. A responsibility they must take on with total cohesion.

It will mean absolute vigilance and a lot of work from all MPs listening to Constituency Association Members who in turn have a responsibility to express their policy preferences

The transparency and democratic process will kick in during the vote by party members hence not two but three or four nominations from Members of Parliament. All are vetted and supported.

I must admit I have not considered what role, if any, should be played by members of the HoL but there are so many of them and they will have their vote like all Party Members.

It has to be said the Conservative Party has not been well managed under a Constitution that centralised everything and put fear into local Constituency Associations that if they did not toe the CCHQ  line action would be taken against them. Individuals were threatened with expulsion from the Party under the direction of anonymous people, and prevented from participating in the selection of their constituency’s candidate.

The words “stitch up” have been heard. We need a more democratic and transparent Constitution with greater power given to the membership. Let us be clear: the Party should be better managed and under the control of the subscribing members not by inexperienced CCHQ staffers.

I finish where I started. The Party has not been well managed under the present Constitution and CCHQ needs to be revamped under a new mode of operation to advise the Shadow Cabinet and Ministers, Parliamentary Party, members of the HoL and Constituency Associations. Certainly not act as the Party controller under anonymous people in CCHQ.

Members of Parliament do not own the Party. They represent Constituency Associations.

It is the Members that are the Party

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of the Hitchin Conservative Association and a former Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy

As we gear up for the Conservative manifesto later this week, we should examine some of the unsung initiatives that the Government has pursued that will impact of all our daily lives – for example, the use of nuclear power to indigenously produce 25 per cent of electricity from nuclear power, the better to meet our Net Zero commitments.

It was good to hear Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, recently setting out the argument. Now is the time for the government to openly declare this nuclear initiative and promise to action  the programme

Nuclear power plants take a considerable time to establish: agreeing on where they will be sited, sorting out funding and procurement, local consultations, planning regulations and bureaucracy, the tendering process, finding and employing professional people to undertake these tasks, arranging how and where nuclear waste will be safely dealt with… all these things take time.

The UK has a bad habit of leaving good ideas to the last minute – and then wondering why construction cost has gone up. Nuclear is a project especially at risk of falling foul to the modern British disease of kicking cans down the road.

We must waste no time; the GBN (Great Britain Nuclear) project could be an unstoppable programme. Set out the contracts and tenders, get to work as quickly as possible. The objective must be to extend our nuclear fleet and to do this urgently. Better to meet deadlines early than never.

We have to adopt policies that secure our energy supply well beyond 2050, and that move us away from imported fuel supplies.

It is a fact that importing our energy supply leaves us vulnerable to increased prices from dominant suppliers. As a sovereign state we have had the benefit of rich oil and gas fields, and these will continue to be needed for some time. Licenses must continue to be given where oil and gas fields are discovered.

Security of supply is of utmost importance, not only in order to maintain business competitiveness but to keep the lights on.

The last industrial revolution only happened because we had at our disposal vast quantities of high-quality coal. It was this that allowed us to capitalise on the innovations and entrepreneurial spirit of that age, and transform both this country and the world.

We can, and must, do the same again – and this time in a manner that protects the planet by delivering a step-change onto newer, greener sources of energy.

An industrial-revolutionary attitude towards energy will turbocharge both economic growth and levelling up, with new infrastructure and cheaper prices boosting our productivity and competitiveness whilst creating skilled jobs. Work on that should start as soon as possible.

Of course, we have wind and solar at our disposal and these should not be neglected. But security and reliability of supply demand that we look beyond these technologies.

The need for nuclear is inescapable. Moreover, constructing new plants throughout the country would offer an immediate boost to economic growth: inward investment, good jobs, and all the secondary economic activity entailed by modern supply chains.

Our mission should be to create the conditions for nuclear energy to provide 25 per cent of our electricity supply. Earlier this year, the Government published Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050. It was a good start, but the moment demands even greater ambition: we need to be getting on with developing a fleet of nuclear power plants, in line with this road map, as soon as possible.

Nuclear power is a product that is safe, secure, and clean; historical objections have been overtaken by modern, rigorous regulations. 2050 looms on us and we have a lot to do, starting with the deployment of a fleet of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) throughout the country, supplying local electricity needs at competitive prices. As many as possible to be up and running by 2030s, if not before.

Government must learn from the past that all potential regulation must be carefully considered – and take care not to allow this nuclear project to fall into monopoly control, especially by foreign investors.

The advantages of the SMR project is that they can be cost-effectively and swiftly built and brought online – unlike the big nuclear plants such as Hinckley Point, Sizewell, and Sellafield, which take a decade even just to start construction and are thus at greater risks of mid-project modifications, with all the associated costs.

We need to decide where these SMR’s are to be located; planning applications cannot be left to local authorities. There must be a dedicated, national plan covering every SMR to be located and built – not each plant dealt with on a separate basis. Every SMR will have the same design, and thus very similar infrastructure and associated requirements.

No need to waste vast amounts of time, and forests of paperwork, making individual cases in innumerable consultations.

On top of this, the Government currently plans to build a £196-million uranium enrichment facility. Located at Capenhurst in Cheshire, this will cement the status of the North-West of England as a world leader in nuclear fuel production and support around 400 highly-skilled jobs, as well as bolstering the local economy and national growth.

By 2031, Capenhurst will produce fuel which can be either used domestically or exported. At a stroke, this would end Russia’s reign as the only commercial producer of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), bolstering our balance of trade and helping wean other nations off Russian exports.

Nuclear energy is vital to a prosperous future for Britain. The Party must make a clear case that a national nuclear programme will not only deliver energy security, but lead to lower consumer prices and bolster our exports too. A properly-resourced infrastructure project such as this will benefit every British citizen – voters must not be left in any doubt about that.

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of the Hitchin Conservative Association and a former Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy

Another opportunity for a Conservative policy to be given prominence is the Investment Zone Initiative to develop growth in our economy across the country. We must be reminded that local initiative contributes to actual growth in our economy, showing the way forward through Levelling-Up.

We have to take every opening to create growth. That means involving every aspect of our society. Businesses (both large and small), research, and the development of technology, together can create emerging hubs of excellence.

We are the world’s sixth-largest economy. To maintain that position and be influential on the world stage we cannot afford to stand still.  A lot is going on out there and it has to be harnessed by providing incentives and the means to get finance. How many times have we heard excellent innovative ideas being ignored (and then going abroad) rather than encouraged in Britain? Banks require certainty and the Incentive Zone projects will be one way to provide that guarantee.

In different parts of the country, we should encourage local councils to participate, and incentivise local businesses, organisations, and trade unions within these Zones to offer a vision of future prosperity. Get the message across to the electorate that we mean what we say: that we intend to have growth in our economy in order to provide a better quality of life for everyone.

Prosperity will not come about randomly. It does not grow on a money tree. It will not happen unless we work hard, productivity improves, and new ideas are given the green light. To go further, we must take on board what these Investment Zones can do.

Each Investment Zone will offer generous, targeted, and time-limited tax cuts for businesses, backing them to increase productivity and create new jobs. This could encourage investment in new shopping centres, restaurants, apartments, and offices – creating thriving new communities. They could direct inward investment to develop research and development hubs and create Artificial Intelligence activity – the route to the prosperity of tomorrow.

These areas will also benefit from further liberalised planning rules to release more land for housing and commercial development, and reforms to increase the speed of delivering development. It will include reforms to environmental regulation to meet the objective of net zero emissions and see streamlined local and national planning policies. This include removing height restrictions on development, so that Investment Zones can bring forward more building – including housing and commercial sites – together with infrastructure projects at the pace needed to boost growth.

Time-consuming negotiations between councils and developers for each project over affordable housing contributions will be scrapped. This will be replaced with a set percentage of affordable homes, whilst ensuring communities get the infrastructure they want and need. The Government has laid out more of its objectives here.

This system of encouraging potential growth in the economy appears to have been abandoned on an extended basis due to a lack of local interest. Councillors are concerned that their constituents may not approve. In addition, there is the stifling culture of NIMBYism. In my view, this is a minority point of view, and not that of the silent majority. After this last local elections, Conservative councillors can afford to be more ambitious and actively promote growth initiatives using both private and public finance

The scheme currently involves large combined regional authorities. However, the idea could be expanded to cover large County Council and Unitary areas, which would conform to the criteria set out above. In some areas, County Council elections will take place in May 2025 and therefore Conservative candidates should be ambitious in encouraging inward investment. It is essential to improve the economic growth of the whole nation but much of that growth will come from local initiatives. This will emphasise the Levelling Up Process

We should widen the remit of where Investment Zones can be established.

Here we have another good idea thwarted by local inactivity and perhaps lack of any entrepreneurial instruction to council officers. Investment Zones should be recognised as an added value for the area as they create business initiatives. But they break the local council orthodoxy simply because they have never come across this type of scheme in their planning experience. Political stagnation occurs where councillors do not understand what the scheme can bring to their area

Perhaps local district authorities do not have the expertise nor vision to move forward. As such, the Government does not trust that local authorities can deliver. The initial call for tenders had a very poor response. Lessons can be learnt from that. Indeed, in some cases, the call for tenders was at short notice.

To encourage greater inward investment to any area would best be managed by a competent national and regional authority that deals with the complexity entailed and is aimed at resolving problems, giving guidance, and providing advice that acts against stifling local restraint.

Unitary Council and County Council structures might be the best applicants. Conservative Councillors should take up the challenge.

It will undoubtedly mean a change in policy orthodoxy. More detailed analysis will need to be undertaken. But, if all this is carried out, it will bring prosperity and growth to many areas of the country.

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association and convenor of the HCA Policy Forum. He previously served as Chairman of the Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users.

It is commonly agreed that under-40s have turned their back on the Conservatives. We need to adapt to meet the aspirations of the younger age groups.  We need to go further and set out a clear forward projection of how a future Conservative government will improve the lot of younger people. We need to think about the way they live and hope to develop in their careers, their living standards, their desire for a good quality of life for their family, and the hopeful prospects of their children.

We need to adapt from a different society of yesterday and recognise that the 25-40 age group wants more opportunities to come their way. I think this is true for the next generational grouping up to 55. They want to hang onto what they have and thrive to improve their lot. Those older fear for their children and also for their future. The Conservatives can and should make a serious pitch to answer some of these age groups

The first issue is growth. Without it, all our aspirations are negated. We must build more houses and create the climate in which more people can buy and enjoy their own property, since the Conservative dream of house ownership appears to have been abandoned. We need to reform the planning regime to make the building of houses easier – together with commercial and infrastructure projects. These will release capital, provide a better quality of life, and make our citizens proud to own their own home.

The route is clear. Make the rules simpler, so it is less costly to build. Cut out unnecessary bureaucracy. Create an environment where builders have the certainty to borrow funds to build. Ensure that financial institutions are encouraged to do what they have always been good at and provide funds for the builder and mortgage schemes for the buyer. This would stimulate the economy.

We need to stop the ever-cautious regime where local authority resistance to building is governed by the NIMBY culture. There is a demand for more houses of all types and sizes but planners appear to have a field day in following out-of-date planning rules – restraint and the constant ability for some people to object. Demands to protect the “green belt” as against providing houses for the needs of people

This is an out-of-date strategy. Affordable houses will emerge according to a market economy demand – local amenities will be built in the deals that can be negotiated. We need to adopt a total change of attitude. Relax building rules, get more houses built, and demonstrate that buying a house is purchasing an asset for the future. Planning conditions should be reduced to a minimum. Many aim to satisfy a minority of vested interests, many of whom live in houses that have been built in areas that would today never be permitted to build.

Small builders and self-builders should be given maximum encouragement. Stamp duty on the purchase of land and the purchase of houses should be waived on all developments of 50 houses and under as a start to the future revolution to actually build 300,000 houses every year for the foreseeable future. Areas of land adjourning towns and villages should be made available to build on with permission granted. These and other incentives would add value to the nation’s wealth. The green belt is for all our usage.

The most interesting point is that this type of planning and building regime would come from private funding. The authorities (national and local) would see a win-win from tax on profits, tax on those employed, and council tax. The funds from the building levy could be used to improve local facilities.

Remember in a market economy the “same” money spins around from one activity to another. If an area becomes prosperous it is because there is employment, subsidiary trades to the house build are earning, all other private services are increased, taxes and council charges increased, all because assets are being purchased that one can be proud of for the future.

Under my plan, the nation gets new houses providing a better quality of life, and opportunity for the younger generations to own their property, ensuring future happiness for many people. The Conservatives should take this on board and make a pitch to our younger generations that the market under Conservative leadership can provide them with a better life in the future. Even the pensioners will be happy to see their own family prosper.

Help for Mortgage holders

WHY NOT INTEREST ONLY MORTGAGES

SOLUTION 

• 3-5yr suspension of mortgage capital repayments 
• Instead – Monthly repayments based on interest only

A mortgagee will pay less each month by having a mortgage repayment scheme based on interest only

£200,000 mortgage contract would pay £500 pm  – £600 pm less

£400,000 mortgage contract would pay £1,000 pm – £1,300 pm less

Introduction

The Bank of England are increasing their rate of interest and predicting higher rates to follow. This will, in most cases, have more of an economic impact on households than the energy crisis. Not just for homeowners and those renting their dwellings but also commercial and retail buildings. Therefore added costs passed on to the consumer resulting in financial hardship.

Reports over the last  weeks indicate hundreds of mortgage plans were shut down and whereas a mortgage offer was made at the beginning of the week it was subsequently withdrawn and then offered again with an increased interest rate. Some might say this was pure opportunistic financing for profit – especially when the proposal was on a remortgage plan. The mortgagee will already have been vetted. Should we accept that there is risk when the remortgage takes place.

Financial Institutions Bailed out in 2008/9

Remember the financial institutions were bailed out in 2008/9 and they seem to have forgotten that every tax payer had to make some sacrifices to carry out that bailout. Urgent discussion needs to be had with the (financial services) mortgage industry. Should they not accept they can assist mortgagee’s.

Should we bail out Mortgagees and Renters

Now is  the time for some creative action to bail out mortgage holders together with creating incentives for those seeking a mortgage for the first time.

Perhaps during the coming weeks interest rates may become more stable but we cannot rely on that as it  is hard to see with inflation rising on a global basis brought about by the war in Ukraine. We are not in uncharted waters as we have seen interest rates rise before and world oil prices increase but we seem to have forgotten what happened. Petrol rationing in the 1950’s and 70’s, high unemployment, high interest rates, the 70’s three day working week and electricity cuts. We coped with these developments.

We cannot be over optimistic that interest rates will reduce in the medium term and therefore the mortgage issue has to be addressed. The markets also have to adjust to protect individuals economic stability 

The impact of higher interest rates on those holding a mortgage means an increased monthly expenditure. Those renting (houses, commercial and retail) will also find their monthly rents going up..

Interest rates have been much higher decades ago  and we have to learn from those experiences.

We need to further assist the house owners dream to own their property. To do that the financial services sector has to adjust. In 2008/9 the financial crisis was mainly brought about because lenders were offering extended loans beyond the actual value of the property. Once the bubble broke everything started to tumble. We obviously do not want to replicate that situation. Nor do we want to see the housing market crash with potential negative equity due to forced property sales because owners cannot meet mortgage repayments.

The High Street lender who offers the mortgage does not hold that debt. They offset their risk in the markets to other (often anonymous) financial institutions – this is the securitisation process. So taking out a mortgage with a high street bank does not mean only one main lender is involved. The risk is spread.

When an application is made for a mortgage the form asks (in most cases) whether the repayment programme will be with “capital repayment” or “interest only”. Most interest only mortgages are not offered. This needs to change

(Various schemes could be initiated to cover the needs of individual mortgage holders hence the suggestion of a 3-5 years process. Some mortgagees could have a longer period dependent on individuals economic circumstances and credit rating. There could be variation in interest rates to meet financial circumstances but the overall affect would be an immediate and considerable reduction in monthly repayments).

This would be neutral free to the exchequer.

Past Mortgage Policy

Those old enough will remember the fiscal incentives which provided a homeowner tax relief – mortgage interest relief (MIR) and the Mortgage Interest Relief At Source (MIRAS) both were withdrawn from April 2000 under the Labour government Chancellor Gordon Brown (it was said the schemes only benefited the well off). 

Prior to 2000 a mortgagee could attract the MIRAS scheme and could also benefit from an interest only mortgage. It meant a tax advantage on the interest charged but also provided  a reduced monthly repayment programme based on interest only. Many, including myself, received that incentive and I was not well off.

We keep hearing that the older generations were able to buy and sell houses, increase their equity stake in their property. Well this was one way to afford such overall house investment.

The downside of interest only repayment plans is that the capital sum does not decrease (nor does it increase) but it should be repaid at the end of the mortgage contract. This could be offset by various options to pay off the residue debt, all economically managed. Also the mortgagee could continue to pay the interest on the mortgage. These proposals created help to a house owning society.

Of course capital loans taken out at that time were far less than today but as a percentage to the value of the mortgagees property perhaps on average the same.

Mortgage lenders are cautious in their lending policies, especially following the 2008/9 financial crisis. They scrutinise applications in a more rigorous managed fashion, mainly on a box ticking process. Nothing suggested in this paper takes away that scrutiny process (or loan refusal) nor the choice of the mortgagee to have a capital or interest only repayment programme. That choice does not appear to be on offer.

I have heard that mortgage lenders will only consider an interest only mortgage if the borrower has an income over £100k and an absolute clean credit rating. All this needs to be questioned and a more equitable plan would be the relationship between the amount borrowed and their actual salary and disposable income.

We know that many young people cannot get on the house ownership ladder but think why is this compared with the way in which their parents or grandparents managed their mortgages repayment.

Those wanting to own their own home should be encouraged to take out a mortgage and by having tax and repayment incentives they can maintain / improve their living standards. That process helping the cost of living affecting everybody at this time. Levelling up in certain areas would benefit.

If the homeowner has extra monthly funds they are likely to spend more – helping local and national retailers

The funds spin around in our society in order for economic prosperity to create growth in an area.

Those Renting

Let us divert to those renting who have to continue to pay their rent during times of financial hardship and even after retirement. They up/down size as their situation changes. As do homeowners. Incentive to buy as against rent must be a reasonable aspiration but it is their choice which option will benefit them, rent or buy. 

Renting, as mentioned above, continues after retirement and can present serious financial hardship. As rents increase this will become a worse situation which may have an impact on state intervention in the form of housing benefits. The inability to get off the renting option and it’s future impact on state finances must not be easily dismissed.

Interest only mortgages impact on Lenders

Let us look at the financial impact on mortgage lenders and the securitisation markets.

The banks are already lending capital sums on house purchases. Through the securitisation process mortgage lenders offset their potential risk to other financial and investment operators. Mortgage profit comes from interest charged on lending so no loss of profit for the financial services sector under the interest only  proposal. In fact even a larger profit as more buy their own house and if interest rates remain high.

I accept that monthly capital repayment compounded provides funding for the next generation of borrowers but taking into account the securitisation process and that an ever continued access to capital repayment at the maturity of the plan this can be managed. 

Financial institutions can borrow from the BoE at a much reduced interest rate.

For the record it should be noted that other schemes do exist where interest only is operating so it is nothing new. The schemes for “buy to rent”, “shared ownership”, “first time buyers” and other contracts all with an element which involves interest only repayments at certain levels of purchase (and income).

An interest only scheme would be no cost to the government exchequer as the whole process initiated in the private financial sector. Specialised lending rules and powers could be initiated that would guarantee economic control, and regulation to maintain consumers protection

Further articles on :-

1. Building more houses (at all levels) as part of the growth package. Past experience shows more houses built creates a growth climate
2. Encouraging the self and custom builders (resulting in more locally built houses by SME builders)  
3. The “new” Investment Zones” to encourage house building, employment (new jobs), bringing investment into these Zones to improve living and leisure conditions, and attracting tax incentives, cutting out onerous building conditions on (houses, commercial and retail building) which results in costly time consuming delays

WILFRED ASPINALL

Doddingselles, Pirton, Hertfordshire, SG5 3FR

Tel: +447872953922    Email:  wilfredaspinall@me.com

wilfredaspinallblog.Wordpress.com