THE TOPIC

Wilfred Aspinall is a member of Hitchin Conservative Association, a CPF Eastern Regional Ambassador and Former Chair – Forum in the European Parliament for Construction

During the next few months we have to consider how we are to promote defence spending as part of an urgent national project. Our defence spending will need to increase in order that we are able to defend ourselves, also acting as a deterrent.

The U.K. has committed to spend equivalent of 5 per cent of GDP on defence spending. The decision on this spending cannot be kicked down the road for all the reasons that the reader knows. We have to provide the funds. We have to have a well thought out plan. We have to act now in order to meet a deadline.

That involves not just the size of our armed forces but also the development of our indigenous defence industry.

The armed forces are a priority to be enlarged in all aspects and prepared for all eventualities including actual combat but also acting as a peace keeping force and for humanitarian assistance. This includes the Army, Navy and Airforce and all the back up personnel required in this high-tech environment. We can find careers for young men and women in this new technological environment.

We also have to play an important role in developing the defence industry operating in the UK to manufacture all types of arms. The building of naval vessels (boats and submarines). The development of high-tech aircraft (fighters, helicopters, bombers and cargo etc) and the craft of developing high technology weapons (missiles, drones etc). Wherever we are able these should be manufactured in the U.K. but in addition built here too.

All part of the levelling up process.

We should bear in mind that arms produced have to come from somewhere and as the UK is the second largest exporter of defence products in the world our indigenous industry should be bolstered, UK jobs maintained and created – all part of our growth and prosperity programme.

Spending on arms and modern equipment to service all our armed forces creates growth in the economy and jobs. The development of high tech defence activity must be maintained and constantly improved. As a major contributor to the production of arms we have to ensure the UK position in that market is maintained.

The UK defence industry is a major contributor to the national economy, and contributes in recent years approximately £10-12 billion in domestic manufacturing output annually.

The overall turnover of the UK defence industry (including exports and services) is around £25-30 billion per year and is the second largest defence exporter in the world (after the US), especially in aerospace and naval technology.

Defence exports averaged around £10-11 billion each year in the last few years. That position could increase.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) remains the largest customer, with annual procurement spending over £20 billion, much of which is directed to UK-based firms. We have to maintain that position and under a plan to spend more on defence ensure that an indigenous industry is the main beneficiary.

140,000 (working people) are employed in the industry plus many more in the supply chain. Another important fact to put into the debate.

The debate on how new technologies will affect  our defence procurement has to be taken into account as does the overall industry R&D and scientific activities. These new technologies often have wider implications for society and spin off into other important sectors.

Our armed forces have to be prepared for new technology and  that means the U.K. has to be at the forefront in its training development. There will be innovative and entrepreneurial actions taking place and in our armed forces we will require  trained personnel some of whom will be delving into high technology research and development. The partnership between armed forces personnel and industry must continue.

The armed forces could play an important role for young men and women in future management, science and R&D training. A training that would decide whether their future is within the armed forces or industry.

A highly trained forces personnel together with the professional scientists and technicians in our defence industry must be well financed to maintain the position of the industry on the world scene.

We have to make arrangements to pay for this. Funding for the defence industry will be an added value in promoting growth in the economy and maintaining our prominent world position.

The Bank of England’s QE program during Covid-19 effectively enabled the UK government to spend heavily during a national crisis whilst retaining its budgeted funding plan by ensuring low borrowing costs and purchasing large volumes of government debt. While not officially “monetary financing,” in practice the lines between fiscal and monetary policy were certainly put into question

(The BoE took on board a sum of £450bn in Quantitative Easing to provide indirect funds for schemes like ‘furlough payments’ during the Covid pandemic).

Some would argue that this was part of the governments normal budgetary spending but at that time it was a national urgency and therefore the Bank was able to assist.

Developing the amount we spend on defence is an investment in a crucial asset for the future  and must be justified as an urgent requirement.

We are living in a volatile world.

The overall main objective is to have a low tax economy and a smaller state. That requires action to be taken to reduce taxes and ensure that the welfare state acts as a safety net for disadvantaged citizens as against benefits acting as an unemployment tool.

As an example the middle and higher paid (working people who appear to be ignored) in both the armed forces and in the defence industry (and in all other sectors of our society) must be given incentive to work here in the UK. If through promotion they receive a higher salary that takes them into a higher tax band we might find that these mobile motivated professionals will exit the U.K. finding a lower taxed country to reside in. Assets lost for the future.

The welfare state has become unsustainable and must be reformed. For instance nobody should be receiving state benefits for ever without giving something back.  Some have said that in order to receive benefits they must undertake some public service.

The strategy to urgently find funds for the defence spending project could be achieved by a form of creative financing…

Defence spending increase and the continued operation of the defence industry is an urgent national security issue but that has a spin off to not only make our country safe but an added value in possible increase in jobs for young citizens and  careers in the defence industry.

To promote the above we should examine and not discount  the role that  our  Bank of England can play to protect our national security. A new orthodoxy out of an old plan

THE WELFARE STATE

Discussion Document

Wilfred Aspinall

(Without Prejudice put forward for further Consultation and Member Comments)

Member of Hitchin Conservative Association

Former Chair – Forum in the European Parliament for Construction

Former Member of the European Economic and Social Committee

wilfredaspinall@me.com

The following Discussion Paper was first released to the CPF  in late 2023 and although there have been added political points the statistics need to be revised

Introduction Factual Analysis

In the fiscal year 2023-2024, the total cost of the UK’s welfare state is substantial. The overall public spending, which includes central and local government expenditures, is projected to be around £1,155.9 billion. Within this, welfare spending specifically is estimated at £157.8 billion. This covers a wide range of benefits, including pensions, healthcare, and various forms of social support 

      Public spending statistics: February 2024 – GOV.UK

  ](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-february-2024/public-spending-statistics-february-2024) [oai_citation:2,UK Central Government and Local Authority Spending in 2025 – Charts](https://ukpublicspending.co.uk/numbers).

To break it down further, social protection, which is a major component of welfare spending, accounts for about £321.5 billion in 2022-2023, reflecting its significant share of the public budget

      Public spending statistics: February 2024 – GOV.UK

  ](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-spending-statistics-release-february-2024/public-spending-statistics-february-2024). This includes expenses on state pensions, disability benefits, and other social security payments.

These figures illustrate the extensive financial commitment of the UK government to its welfare programs, highlighting the importance and scale of social support systems in the country.

INTRODUCTION

As we consider the future we need to discuss priorities that are required to satisfy the electorate’s views in relation to the Welfare State. The whole subject is very complex 

ASSESSMENT FOR THE FUTURE

Any reform, review, potential changes to the Welfare State cannot be implemented within a short period of time. Some issues may be implemented quickly if they are bureaucratic in nature and these should be drawn up. Other more systematic and cultural issues may take a decade to bring in. Government could initiate changes which could be set out in the next General Election Manifesto. It does need to be done

SOME FACTS

There remain over 2.8 million people who are inactive because of long-term sickness and disability (this is rising). … the proportion of people going through a work capability assessment who are being given the highest level of award and deemed to have no work-related requirements at all has risen from 21% in 2011 to 65% last year.” (Mel Stride, Work and Pensions Secretary, 5 September 2023)

Just over half (51%) of families in the UK received a type of state support in the three years to March 2021. Nearly half of all state welfare spending is on people of pension age (47.8% in 2021/22), most of this being accounted for by state pensions. The next largest proportion is spent on working-age benefits such as Universal Credit (30.9%). In July 2023, the number of people claiming Universal Credit stood at a record 6.1 million, including 2.1 million with ‘no work requirements’. Disability benefits and Child Benefit account for 10.7% and 4.7% of state welfare spending, respectively.

Several factors show that the number of pensioners is expected to continue increasing relative to the number of people in work. These include people living to older ages and increasing numbers of 50-64 year-olds deciding to retire early.

• The number of people aged 65 years and over increased from 9.2 million in 2011 to over 11 million in 2021. The proportion aged 65 years and over rose from 16.4% to 18.6%.

• By 2042, a quarter (24%) of people in the UK are expected to be aged 65 or older.

• One-in-forty (2.5%) older people were living in care homes in 2021. In addition, there were almost 1.2 million unpaid carers aged 65 years and over in England and Wales, just over 1 in 10 of the older population.

The current UK state pension age of 66 for both men and women is higher than the average for developed economies. It is legislated to rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028 and to 68 between 2044 and 2046. Despite this, as the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has observed, “The UK stands out among developed economies in having a growing inactivity rate and not reverting to its pre-pandemic trend” and “The biggest contributor to this change has been an increase in early retirement.” As the Lords’ report cautions, this all “damages growth in the near term” and “reduces the revenues available to finance public services while demand for those services will grow.”

DISCUSSION PAPER

The State benefit system has become a massive business in itself and is very costly. The objective must declare that benefits should only provide a safety net to those who are in need. We seem to have some people whose main job is to be on benefits. To change that culture will be a crucial political event – even a cultural change and will take more than a parliamentary term to sort out.,

We should encourage personal responsibility by reducing public expenditure (by the State) and at the same time reduce the taxes claimed off employees (at all levels). The high taxes currently in force gives no incentive to take on a working position. The tax thresholds should be increased to put more money directly into the hands of people.

I can remember a Labour government introducing such high taxes that those earning high incomes simply shifted their residence abroad. At that time we saw a top tax of 98% resulting in many going to live in the United States defined as an attractive destination. It was not until a Conservative government took over that high earners felt attracted to return to the U.K. 

OUR tax system is reaching that point where our public sector funding will become unsustainable and taxes will rise out of control

The Conservative Party should set out a clear pathway to bring taxes for all workers (high and low income earners) down during the next parliament. The tax thresholds which remain frozen until 2028 now possibly 2030 (except for pensioners) should be increased in a steady manner. It is a proven fact that the exchequer gains more revenue when taxes are low. All this suggests that more administration should be available for HMRC to investigate, charge and prosecute those earners who are avoiding taxes. (Similar powers that the Post Office had – and still have). Instead the tax system should be reviewed to make U.K. earners and any residents coming to live here no need to try and find a loop hole to avoid tax.

We should aim for a low tax society and by doing that bringing more investment into the U.K. We should investigate whether  a ”flat rate” could apply and meet exchequer expenditure

If you remember some observers during the Brexit debate were concerned that the U.K. would be set up to act as a tax haven. Well I am not suggesting that but the current orthodoxy is going in the wrong direction. High taxes discourage earners to strive for a higher income and business to resist making sustainable investments.

This issue is not going to go away and during the next parliament the Conservatives could initiate a clear revolutionary vision to fulfil a policy for the U.K. to be a low tax country. WHY NOT 

During the past year it is stated that 15,000 millionaires have exited the U.K. following the Non Dom being abolished.

That could equally happen when middle and higher income earners (working people) find their tax increasing without any obvious benefit to them. These professionals are mobile, motivated and aspire to have the best in life.

Let me now address the idea of abolishing NIC which is a tax on jobs. A supplementary tax on every worker. They are taxed a percentage of their earnings  at source and also taxed within specified tax thresholds a fixed percentage on income. It is suggested that this double taxation should be weaned away and a single tax system exist.

Let’s look back at why national insurance contributions were introduced. Was it not the objective for earners to pay NIC  to contribute for their future pension and health care but we all know that the NIC funds were just absorbed into the general taxation income. Pensions therefore come out of the total tax take and this is where we have a problem. The current welfare spend on pensions takes up XXXXXXX.

To make matters worse the older generation are living longer and the next generation to claim a state pension will potentially live even longer. As an added issue many cashed in their private or occupational pension rights and at their early retirement are not paying towards a retirement funding through either private or company funded schemes. Many are inactive and not earning therefore not paying NIC. This bubble will burst.

If we are going to promise to scrap NIC the provision of pensions must be examined

We should invest considerable funds in Artificial Intelligence to ascertain exactly who is on State benefits and to measure the implications if there is a large percentage that could be weaned into work (where they would pay their taxes and NIC). This point is controversial as there is an implication that there are some whose work practice is to claim benefits even if they don’t really qualify. In the first instance we need full disclosure of information in order to make that decision

We need to discuss the position of the pensioner who will have been paying NIC and taxes all their working lives and therefore deserve to be financially provided with a pension. The basic pension is £156.20 per week = £8122 pa :: the new state pension is £203.85 per week = £10600 pa. This is well below the minimum living wage that is recognised as being required to have a decent standard of living. The pension paid is calculated and depends on the NIC contributions that each person has made during their working time. We explore the anomaly where pension payments for the elderly comes out of direct taxation and not from an accumulated amount based on their earlier contributions and based on actuarial calculations.

For the future. People working should save for their retirement. Occupational pensions appear to be of the past yet insurance based retirement plans should be encouraged. Fiscal incentives and relief should be considered.

The non voluntary pension arrangement where the employee pays in 5% of their salary, the employer 3% and state 1%  is based on out of date actuarial figures.  This needs reviewing to increase the contributions to meet a reasonable pension entitlement on retirement.

There also needs to be a levelling out of pension contributions between the public and private sector’s. Currently employer contributions are totally disproportionate 

For future generations there is a case to establish a G.B.State Pension Fund to which all should contribute. Scrap the NIC.  Fully owned by the State and controlled on strict actuarial funding and investment requirements. These funds to be invested basically under the same insurance regulations applicable in the private sector. This arrangement would be self supporting and independently managed – the funds invested to boost the fund  and actuarially calculated.

Both employees and employers would contribute to this fund

This proposal will not prevent individuals from continuing to join private pensions

Another way of saving is be to encourage the well used method to purchase a house, prepare for the time of retirement and if necessary down size their dwelling to release equity or take out some form of equity release if they wish to remain in situ. (A problem with equity release is the compounding interest charges) 

If we encourage social housing and council house occupation the rent continues after retirement potentially requiring a back up from the Welfare State. This latter approach seems to be favoured by political thinking as a short term solution to the current housing crisis. We need to build more houses as a programme of growth with fiscal incentives provided to get people buying and selling houses (bank mortgage schemes, tax relief, stamp duty reform, planning reform). 

The economic and social implications are massive and the government should provide every fiscal incentive. House building is in demand. 

The potential 9m  inactive people seems to have increased since the furlough scheme was introduced. Life at first hard but they adapted to part time activity – many not declaring their total earning

We must be prepared to reduce the mind set of obtaining benefits and reward those who are in actual work.

Taxes at an all time high must change if we are going the get a proportion of the 9m inactive people back into work, why work to be taxed if you can get benefits to just live on.

The current tax thresholds must change and become an incentive to earn more. The tax rates must be as low as possible. It has been demonstrated that when taxes are low the amount raised from taxation increases. We need a complete reform of how the taxation process works to make it sustainable. 

VAT could be lowered to allow the market to function on a better competitive basis. (Remember there is no need now to pay over a percentage of all VAT to the EU . (Member States contribute a standardised 0.3% of their total VAT income).

We need to ask :: 

WHAT IS THE WELFARE STATE – 

It currently costs £347 billion per year. We know it includes pension payments to the elderly :: benefits to those out of work : benefits to those having a hard time :: credit to be able to bring those in or not in work up to a certain level of income :: universal credit :: tax credits :: job seekers allowance :: employment and support :: disabled allowance :: carers allowance :: help with heating and housing allowance and other living costs :: financial support for those on low pay :: local housing allowance :: cost of funeral expenses for certain low paid. Providing housing for the vulnerable :: Care facilities for the aged population. (Many more schemes)

These are in some cases self standing with separate application procedures.

:: We have “separate” funding for the NHS of £172 billion :: £27 billion for local authority adult social care (it appears some of this has been diverted to health care services) :: £116 billion for Education :: £56 billion for Defence :: £108 + billion for debt interest :: £365 billion for other subjects :: There are all sorts of additional benefits that a good housekeeper could no doubt identify. All these benefits need to be examined to ensure that they only fulfil the “safety net” criteria. These are some of the links:

A major issue confronting public expenditure is Defence spending. The system has been hollowed out based on complacency that the U.K. will not be involved in a major war. The government has a principle duty to defend the realm from our own resources. The government has a responsibility to choose how that objective should be fulfilled.

The recent agreement that the U.K. will provide funding at  5% of GDP needs to be addressed as it will take a decade to achieve that level of funding to become fully operational. That mean increase in spending now (see separate Note on how this can be done not just to comply with the criteria of 5% of GDP but as part of our growth and levelling up strategy)

A more detailed analysis is set out in this link prepared by the HoC Library

Government Spending (HoC Research)

Click to access CBP-8046.pdf

Benefits

https://www.gov.uk/browse/benefits

Work Capability Assessment

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-new-welfare-reforms-to-help-thousands-into-work

Autumn Statement

h t t p s : / / a s s e t s . p u b l i s h i n g . s e r v i c e . g o v . u k / m e d i a / 6 5 6 8 9 0 9 c 5 9 3 6 b b 0 0 1 3 3 1 6 7 c c /E02982473_Autumn_Statement_Nov_23_Accessible_Final.pdf

DRAFT SOLUTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 

The previous Conservative government introduced a new procedure in their 2023 Autumn statement where a person entered the “Restart” process then after 18 months and they had not found a job they would be allocated a placement – eventually leaning towards closure of the claim if they were still not prepared to take the job.

We should support the main thrust of the DWP consultation set out in the 2023 Autumn Statement. The initiative to review the “work capability assessment” is a first step to understanding the issue of why we have 2.8m inactive people claiming sickness and disability benefits.

The initiative announced in the Autumn Statement will only work if it is practiced in a uniform way.

The Universal Credit Scheme has worked well but whereas the idea was to simplify the welfare system there are massive opportunities beyond Universal Credit where benefits can be separately claimed online

The minimum wage has now increased to £11.44 per hour (many small establishments will have problems in making this payment on a full working week). Full time employment on the minimum wage equates to £21,670 per year. (Remember the lower tax threshold is £12,571 therefore tax will be paid on the difference). If a person is claiming benefits these will also be taxed. Will those on minimum wage only want to work up to a figure of £12,500 annually – claim benefits – also work “on the black”.

Fiscal Drag affects all those in work regardless whether they are low or higher paid. There is a case for a deeper examination of the tax thresholds to provide a fairer system of taxation. This review needs to be done. Having said that we should not go down the route of higher taxes on the middle and higher paid to pay for the Welfare State (Middle income earners are suffering as much cost of living problems as other wage earners. Everybody is a worker. The tax system should act to incentivise people to work. In addition as mobile professionals if tax deductions become unsustainable they will move from the U.K. 

Welfare State reform of ALL benefits should be on the basis of a “safety net” culture.

Any Welfare State Reform must include both – Care Home Strategy and the NHS. The NHS has a massive work force and this must be examined to ensure there is both productivity and value for money. The total amount budgeted for the NHS is £168 billion. 

There is a case for breaking up the NHS making it easier to manage and control. It is said that small is beautiful. A better way to manage funds to cater for demand. 

The Labour 10 year plan rather than devolving decision making to local centres is doing so by combining unrelated Areas under new designated Integrated Care Boards, frankly a bureaucratic money spending nightmare.

Social Care Services remain underfunded and no framework is offered to examine the future care especially with an ever growing aged population that will require increased facilities for the elderly. Care should be taken out of Local Government control (they do not have the expertise nor capability) and instead integrated into new Local Health Centres covering both the current activities of the NHS, GP Surgeries, Care Homes (perhaps Social Services).

We also have to take into account that national debt is rising, now annual interest payments of  £105+ billion on which high interest has to be paid. 

There has been a culture to constantly increase the size of the public sector with the result that the budget has become in the view of some – unsustainable

Another area for discussion is the “working from home” culture especially in the public sector.. Is this the best way to provide a service to the public – or with access by the public to the services direct – face to face application. Think about the mental health of those employees working from home :: productivity by a measure –  whether home working provides the best service for the public when the public demand better services. 

We hear that a 4 day working week should be allowed – as is being suggested by Local Government employee representatives. This should be rejected.

The ONS (Office of National Statistics) are to conduct a new pilot survey on “Time Use for the Public Sector”. ( the private sector is moving away from working at home).

The current funding of the Welfare State comes from general taxation which puts immense pressure on annual budgets. The percentage cost against GDP has increased considerably since funding sustainability was last considered

Let us now discuss the position of the pensioner the majority who will have been paying NIC and taxes all their working lives. The basic pension is £156.20 per week = £8122 pa :: the new state pension is £203.85 per week = £10600 pa. This is well below the minimum wage that is recognised as being required to have a decent standard of living. The pension calculation depends on the NIC contributions that each person has made during their working time. The “triple lock” is a means of trying to bring the pension up to a living wage. At present pensions do not meet that criteria. The suggestion that pensioners should not receive the benefit of the triple lock would be most unfair. If they were in a representative organisation they would be seeking a much higher annual increase than offered under the triple lock. This does not say that pensions should be excluded from the debate. 

The figures above are worth repeating. The number of people aged 65 years and over increased from 9.2 million in 2011 to over 11 million in 2021. The proportion aged 65 years and over rose from 16.4% to 18.6%. The benefits currently paid out to over +/- 7.5m inactive people – and it appears many are of working ages – must be examined as their potential to be paid from income taxes, NIC is not being utilised to fund pensions and other welfare state schemes. The  analysis of what percentage of those inactive are under 55, do not have a pension :: the millennial age group who often find themselves on temporary contracts.

We should initiate a plan to provide an insurance based scheme to enable those in work to join a “United Kingdom State National Pension  Scheme” run by the State Utility on a separate independent basis whereby pension payment’s could be phased in using a specific age at which this should start. Actuarial assessment should be possible to provide funding each year for a period of time from government budgets. 

This is not a privatisation project operated by individual insurance company’s but a scheme totally under government control and funding, well regulated in which All workers would be obliged to join. 

As stated above the whole benefits funding comes from taxes and NIC as the system was set up to run that way. With an ever increasing demand from various quarters the funding from current direct taxation has become unsustainable and not controllable. All funds in the new scheme could be invested to provide additional income

Clearly those pensioners who have contributed their taxes should continue to receive a pension based on best actuarial figures and funded from current taxes and NIC. The “triple lock” continue to level up the pension payable. We have to consider whether from a specific time a new fully funded scheme should be introduced for all which is financially and actuarially sustainable for younger ages. In other words fit for providing that safety net originally catered for and where the funds are invested to take into account growth on a modern actuarial basis

Is the civil service providing adequate provision of excellence or has it become Europeanised and able to frustrate the overall wishes of the public through influence on Ministers. For decades legislation has been initiated by the EU European Commission, scrutinised by EU Institutions such as the European Parliament (Elected member state representatives) :: European Economic and Social Committee (nominated by member state governments) :: European Committee of the Regions (nominated by member state governments) :: Council of Ministers working groups (consisting of Appointed member state civil servants)’ :: Council of Ministers (member state Ministers appointed to specific high level councils) :: European Council (Heads of State from individual member state governments).

The U.K. has but implemented these EU directives and regulations with minimal oversight conducted by the U.K. Parliament. 

Now outside the EU Ministers are responsible for initiating policy legislation assisted by their civil servants. Parliament has a different function. Could we say the U.K. has become apathetic and lazy in its ability to manage legislative and policy detail. 

Is the civil service too large. Not controllable. Does it need reform. Yes it does.

Devolution Policy

With the trend to create Unitary Councils (based on individual UK County Council boundaries) and Super Combined Authorities (some or both with an elected Mayor) is this they’ve right to examine whether on certain public expenditure policies (and therefore expenditure) should be devolved. A cultural change bringing decisions about services into devolved administrations and closer to those demanding certain levels of service. The creation of County Alternative Local Taxes – CALT. Whereby more Transparency and Democracy existed. 

More consolidation of services run by a Unitary and / or Combined Authority reducing bureaucracy costs and giving the local population more control over service expenditure.

CPF 

EASTERN REGION

Workshop on Housing

17 July 2025

Informal note Without Prejudice

Introduction

There have been to many empty promises to build more houses and it is incumbent on the Conservative Party to put forward policies to actually deal with building these needed houses under a new ambitious positive strategy.

Data on house completions indicate that more efforts are needed to meet demands and national targets. We need a positive building strategy which should be initiated as soon as possible with wide consultation 

To do that we must adopt a different approach to house (and infrastructure) construction

Homeownership is at the core of our British culture. The right to own your own home in which a prosperous economic society can be achieved 

Conservative Party to Champion Homeownership 

The Conservative Party should declare it is in favour of home ownership and champion policies to promote that aspiration for all. We must annually build more than 300k  houses with modern infrastructure alongside. Building houses  promotes growth and economic prosperity. The funding for this will mainly come from private sources

Looking to the Future

Looking to the future we have to note that there has been an increase in the number of young and older people who for various reasons live alone. This is a further reason to build more homes. House prices have rocketed and more could be done to incentivise the house ownership orthodoxy.

We should offer a direct contract with the British people 

Proposals 

for 

A Contract to build more houses

The Conservative Party should support and champion home ownership for young people. 

Set out a new house building strategy and contract based on the following practical policies to cover 

•  Promote homeownership for young people and instil the opportunity for economic prosperity by delivering the necessary incentives (financial and fiscal). This will fulfil the aspirations of many young people.

• All properties (houses and flats) should be freehold.

• The purchase of a property is a fantastic opportunity to save for the future. This should be recognised. All investment is and asset

• Houses / flats built with modern eco friendly design and materials, built according to demand and cost including traditional builds and modular construction with individual specifications with housing design codes adopted 

• Large developers should not be able to self certify their builds under Building Regulations Rules. Recent complications have demonstrated this is not good practice for the house buyer.

• The modular construction can be of various sizes and affordable and can be manufactured in a factory (including all utility fittings), erected on site in a day for the smallest and a little more for others. The cost managed, the size open to affordability. The objective to speedily get as many houses built covering all types and sizes. This action will go some way to fulfilling the aspirations of many young people. These structures – some with timber frames being well tested for durability 

• The same criteria applicable to a traditionally built property

• Clear positive guidelines for LPA’s to maximise the potential to build houses in their Authority to satisfy demand. New rules to ensure there are no preconditions or specific conditions set out to restrain house building. These have traditionally been used and introduced to pacify the NIMBY culture but also to restrain the building of houses

• Planning application determined within the 8 weeks timespan – no extensions – no additional demands – no excuses. Failure to comply resulting in permitted development to proceed to build.

• Encourage a secure funding strategy (often from private borrowing) for the builder, especially the local small builder and self builders. This will evolve if building permissions are speedily granted and houses erected and sold quickly. Turnover is essential for lender, builder and buyer. The mortgage lenders will respond

• Adopt a mortgage incentive plan with mortgage lenders to build houses bringing about prosperity for those living in that location. 

ALSO

• Better access to land with certainty to build without preconditions and conditions demanded as part of the permission to build. 
• A register of available land drawn up in each LPA. Cut out bureaucracy in planning rules to create a positive message to build. Adopt an attitude to solve the housing crisis. Let common sense rule

• Planning rules supporting viable property building both within and especially on land adjacent to Towns and Category A villages 

• Brown field sites and areas where flooding could disturb any building construction to be fully explored and economic and practical  viability tested

• Parts of the Green Belt and Areas beyond the Green Belt to be positively considered as development land following consultation. 

• Well designed individual homes to satisfy the aspirations of buyers. °All houses to be provided with an adequate garden for the resident’s private use 

• Green spaces surrounding the properties to accommodate leisure and play. The planting of trees and bushes.

• Incentives to establish local amenities such as community centres, a well stocked shop with services to provide affordable prices, facilities for youth gathering and for an aging society. Access to public transport. Future local medical support.

Economic and Fiscal Incentives

Mortgage lenders – Builders – Buyers

• Building Developers continue to introduce incentives such as help with deposits, payment of stamp duty, conveyance costs. (These incentives however are not affordable to the small local builder and do nothing for the self builder).
• Self builders many who could be aspiring young people given the chance to purchase plots that a developer has obtained planning permission and done the necessary utilities ground work. A percentage on the site allocated covering all levels of interest from first time buyers, downsizes, to those who want a custom design.

• Discussions to take place with mortgage lenders on the following 

• Extending the Right to Buy Scheme with reduced deposit and equity loans and repayment terms spread over longer terms.

• Mortgages to be made available based on market accessibility through the private lending sector taken out over an extended period covering the home owners working years. Incentive to buy.

Incentives through Government action

• Stamp Duty waived on purchases of houses up to £500k for first time, young buyers and for those downsizing 

• Mortgage interest relief at source be reintroduced for 5 years for an unlimited sum. This would provide additional monthly income to encourage homeownership. Also a fiscal incentive. This part of our policy to reduce state control

Building Houses brings Growth to an Area

Building houses and infrastructure creates growth in the economy. Employment for builders and other trades plus the services that follow on. In addition individual personal saving for the future.

Funding to build houses mainly coming from the private sector based on the logic that houses are an asset for the future.

Banks and mortgage lenders given confidence that their lending strategy is secure and the interest payments continue to bring in interest returns

Conservative Party Ideology

The Conservative Party should adopt policies to encourage building contractors (SME’s and self builders) and buyers  – to create certainty to borrow funds – Incentives for first time house purchase (and for down-sizers to vacate their family homes). This would include a contract between the above with banks and mortgage lenders

We as a Party must fulfil the aspirations of the many 

Look to a modern future. 

Champion house and infrastructure developments 

Buyers have to start somewhere

July 2025

Background Information 

The Labour Party policy to build houses really means more council houses. In the Public Spending Review £39bn has been marked up to build council houses. This is an ideology to deter homeownership and creates an economic problem for the future. If the majority of new houses are council or social houses the build will have to be funded by local authority or state funding. That means increasing taxes. The housing of migrants has to be put into the debate but their needs for a house / flat must not come above U.K. citizens.

Remember also the socialist ideology is actually to control the population by economic dominance.

Younger people could be tempted to move towards a renting society catching them into a socialist mode.

Those renting may not get the opportunity to acquire an asset which they can use for their future. Rent for a council house (or a private rent) continues after a person has retired which provides them with no financial equity backup.

Although some may prefer just having to pay rent with no maintenance cost on the property it is short sighted for both the individual and the economy of the country. 

We as Conservatives want to see individual prosperity.

Our Objectives

Our objective is to lower taxes and reduce dependence on the state. Foster individual prosperity and responsibility. Make life better for ourselves 

So the rhetoric has to stop and positive recommendations should be made (and delivered) by the Conservative Party. A period of serious consultation is needed involving everybody.

A New Vision to have a positive House / Infrastructure Building Strategy

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) still retains a strategy of restraint. The NPPF should encourage Local Planning Authorities, builders, self builders, mortgage lenders and the public with clear positive house building guidelines.

Current Legislation

The current legislation centres on the Town and Country Planning Act of 1948 – subsequently amended in the 1990 Act (this legislation is not fit for purpose). It needs to be repealed and a modern Act to replace it portraying the “principles” of our modern society

The Labour government have presented the “Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025” which is being considered by Parliament. It is intended to bring about a streamlined process for building 1.5 million house (parts of the Bill are being amended). The Party should scrutinise this Bill very carefully to ensure our principles are maintained

Suggestions 

We would urge the Party to come forward with an overall house building strategy that includes:-

• Building private dwellings of all sizes funded by the private sector through homeownership 
• Maintaining high standards of construction
• Catering for the increase in population that has occurred (especially under immigration policy)
• Taking into account modern ECO materials to build and a high level of insulation aiming to reduce emissions 
• Building dwellings in the right places
• Ensuring that infrastructure is a part of the strategy to build new houses
• There should be no objections to building houses on land adjacent to Towns and Category A Villages. 
• The building levy to be used in full to improve the facilities of the town or village where new building takes place 
• The strategy should declare that the objective in building houses will be to add economic prosperity.
• Concern in certain areas property will be purchased by investors – many potentially from abroad – that will not advance the strategic prominence to aid homeownership. This needs serious debate.
• Change the rules whereby currently developers can sign off on the Building Regulations on a large development site. (This does not apply to small local builders and self builders)
• Create incentives for self builders to be able to purchase plots on sites that have been made ready by establishing general service utilities. A means for individuals aspirations 
• Both Brown field sites and areas noted for flooding should have their status fully investigated for practical viability before being used

Use of preconditions and building conditions

The Consultee Regime

Stop the use of “Preconditions” and Consultee “Conditions”.

Planning Officers should stop using bureaucratic measures insisting on “conditions” that have to be undertaken before any actual building takes place. These conditions can hold up a development for many months even years. Large developers can weather the inconvenience but a small local builder and self builders have financial restraints if they are not able to get on with the build. This adds to the final cost of the house. 

We should scrap “preconditions” and all unnecessary other conditions to approve planning applications. These have  been used by planners to pacify the NIMBY culture which we hope is something of the past. Lengthy duplication of reports on the environment, habitat, archaeology, flooding etc. should be abolished. We need to just build. Same applies to important infrastructure

The “official consultees” regime is not transparent in the way they operate nor in this new age of digital activity do we examine what terms they operate under. Do these consultees have a mandate, maintain transparency, a consistent official guideline, even a veto, or just individuals expressing a personal view. Some are part of and funded by public service finance others, NGO’s and some external bodies, used to create restraint in building and infrastructure. 

(Just look at the history of HS2 – the bat tunnel being one example – but there are many other examples that do not become public knowledge). 

The waste of time and the cost becomes unsustainable. The “consultees” have no actual powers but LPA’s have allowed planning officers to defer to them. They can veto planning applications and insist actions be taken “on their insistence”°. All this is time consuming and costly and not necessary.

These consultees seem to take on a role to monitor the build as if they own the project.

As an example look for yourself at any local planning application. The application itself (perhaps for a small extension) may take up just 4 pages but all the reports demanded by the Consultee regime takes up another 24 pages.

The small local builder (and self builders) become overwhelmed 

Review the functions of Quango and National Agencies 

in house and infrastructure building

We should review all quango bodies, including national bodies ( and those they control) :: Environment Agency :: OFWAT (where this week announcements are being made). All and others involved in house building and construction projects. These external opinions are not necessary if we have well qualified LPA Planners.

Training for Councillors and local authority Officers

Councillors and planning officers must not hide behind the comments of consultees and other such bodies. We must have professional experienced planning officers and Councillors taking the view that if a consultee opposes a planning application – that is but a comment to be considered.  It is the responsibility of the LPA – their decision to decide. These consultees are only there to express a view not act in the decision process. It is the planning officer, under delegated authority together with Councillors that make the decision. It appears that the consultee expressing a negative opinion provokes the planning application to be refused or conditions set out that are time consuming, very costly and duplication.

Position of Local Residents

Local residents must continue to have their say within a planning application process in order that those interested can express their views. Many comments are duplication of a template which is drawn up by a small group. Planning Officers should however concentrate on planning rules and precedent.  Comments should be restricted to actual planning matters. 

Review the work of NGO’s

The Conservative Party should review the function of all publicly funded NGO’s to decide whether their existence can be justified certainly their terms and objectives should be examined 

Offering Sites for Self Builders

One way to develop individual prosperity would be to create sites on developments that are set up for self builders with utility services all included so that individuals are able to design and construct their own dwelling, find the funds and build. Another means to further individual aspirations 

Promoting house / infrastructure Decisions

We need to promote a housing and associated infrastructure strategy providing speedy  planning permission to provide private capital and fiscal  incentives otherwise we will not achieve annual targets. Delays result in the project budgetary increases creating undue stress on both political and social economic policy. This strategy can also include council / social houses since private funds can be made available as required. A Social housing policy, as against council houses, all financed within a strategy to build houses using a formula to cater for all parts of our society

Planning Application timetable

The 8 weeks for a planning application to be finally decided should be rigorous. If no decision forthcoming the application treated as approved. No excuses, no extension.

It is accepted that local residents should have their views taken into account and that can be achieved within the 8 weeks where consultation should take place. In the majority of cases the local community will be involved if the number of houses exceeds 50 on any site

Offering alternative building sites

Important that houses add value to the place where they are built and in some instances houses could be built over motorways and tunnels (even rail lines) which would be a revolutionary approach.

New Towns for The Future

The idea of building new towns must also be on the agenda where all up to date  structures can be employed including the use of solar panels, wind turbines, ground heat pumps, combined heat and power facilities and small nuclear modular reactors. All designed to be self sufficient in the new town

It is noted that a new town cannot be built immediately but if we adopt such a policy we should start planning now. No talk talk – complete the walk.

Infrastructure for transport / roads in and out of the new town and within. Encouragement for business to run alongside and generate employment locally without long commuting journeys. Electric and environmentally friendly means to be gained within the new town. Self drive all electric transport.

Some concern that the strategy for a new town will be swallowed up by outside investors and immigrant  housing.

Where we can we should regenerate all our cities and towns in a modern and progressive manner

It is realised that new towns being constructed in the way mentioned here could take time to build but we must stop talking and take decisions that will create the economic change required. All property in a new town should be freehold 

Listen to the Younger Generations 

Young people want to own their own home and in a changing economic environment to take advantage of the prosperity that follows. We must hear them.

The Party should design procedures of listening and implementing ideas generated by younger citizens

Local Government Reform

Devolution to the Regions / Creation of Unitary Councils

Election of Mayors

We discussed the benefits of local government reform and devolution to the regions from Whitehall. The creation of Unitary Councils where planning decisions – housing, infrastructure, business property, road and highways all come under one authority. A joined up policy model

This would avoid Councillors being pressured locally on planning issues by the nimby culture – it does happen

The Conservative Party should make a commitment – a contract with the young electorate to deliver more than 300,000 houses every year.

The election of  Mayors

Creation of Unitary Councils

The way in which we elect local Mayors needs to reflect the composition of the community.

If Unitary Councils are created taking on board responsibilities currently undertaken by District and County Councils plus the Police, Fire Services and certain parts of Integrated Care Groups there will be pressure to combine the leadership under a Mayoral practice.

The Party should urgently open up the debate on this issue

Land availability

Houses of ALL Types

There is no shortage of land in the U.K. and the ideology surrounding “green belt” and areas defined as “beyond the green belt” should be open to common sense discussion. If a site is available, viable, in the right place it should be considered a sustainable venture. Investigation should include what agricultural status the land in question has and whether a proportion of that land used for building new houses will reduce the potential for viable agricultural density

We should promote building houses on land adjacent to Towns and Category A villages which would add to those  communities economic and social well being. In addition a chance to add locally needed amenities financed by the building levy.

Houses of all types – size and design including bungalows and flats and self builds which will  increase council tax income, and the increased  number of residents add prosperity to the town or village. 

The objective should be “live for the future not the past”

Skilled Labour

Shortage of skilled trade workers is an issue but that will be solved if there is a positive secure building and funding policy. That includes fast delivery of modular struc

CPF 

EASTERN REGION

Workshop on Fixing the NHS

10 July 2025

Informal Notes Without Prejudice

Introduction

Those present felt that the NHS required considerable reform based on a modern model that satisfied patient demands, best clinical practice, (potential robotic, new R&D medical science) localism, use of AI and overall costs. All the options should be considered with wide consultation.

Although the Labour 10 year Plan may provide “food for thought” it was in many ways not addressing the core issues. It was another document issued without serious consultation with all interested parties and debate. The NHS needed a strategy for the future.

Until social care is strategically reformed (even integrated into the NHS as a whole) the reform of the whole NHS will not be complete. Not until this is done the overall picture both clinically and management activity will not be resolved. A thoughtful debate is required involving a wide participation 

In a modern digital society there could be a tendency to lose direct contact between patients, clinicians, management and staff. The size of the NHS is awesome. Has the time come for the NHS to be broken up on the basis that the current model is to big to reform

The question of funding direct from taxation income based on potential changes in demographics, robotic activity and taxation limits has also to be considered with all the potential options set out and costed. The public have a right to decide which option (s) should be further examined. A major part of that debate centres round the size of state intervention using taxation or other models

Comments

=========

• The NHS is to large to provide an efficient community service and it should be broken up into manageable units with the emphasis on localism. The abolition of NHS England provides an example how bureaucracy can be reduced by negating a tier in the system 
• The new boundaries for the Integrated Care Boards should also be reviewed. It is understood that little consultation took place
• Reducing a further management and policy strategy tier could reduce bureaucracy. Saying this in context to abolishing NHS England the duties of ICB’ could also be absorbed by the Department of Health

GP Appointments 

• GP appointments are in a shambles and doctors contracts should be reviewed. Telephone software should be introduced in all GP surgeries for patients to make appointments with the right to be seen by a preferred doctor for continuity of care. This last point would save both time for GP’s and patient satisfaction. Any initial consultation perhaps by telephone but future contact with a doctor on the same issue to be conducted in person (or at least online by digital video initiated by the surgery).  Doctors have a responsibility to care for all their patients. 
• All patients should be offered an appointment within 3-4 days. Urgent diagnosis on a same day basis
• GP surgeries should be open longer each day and cover 6 days availability.
• In some areas community centres have been Introduced merging individual GP surgeries which can then justify installing medical devices such as radiology and screening of patients in house. Minor surgery could be undertaken. This could reduce A&E visits

Social Care 

• Social Care continues to be put off for future action but this has to be urgently addressed. We have an ever increasing aged society who need care. The ideal method is providing a system of independence “at home”. Nevertheless with adequate assurances that care can be called on quickly.
• There are various levels of social care for the elderly, each with their own problems. 
• At home care for the aged with prompt access to medical attention. (Often this is subsidised by in house family carers mostly unpaid). Those needing this sort of care should be encouraged to stay at home. Independent and yet assistance provided by the Welfare State moving to:-
• At home with constant assistance ongoing with a care package
• At some point entering a retirement home. 
• At another stage entering a nursing home. 
• All these have implications for the management of medical care and this has to be addressed. 
• In addition the care packages being offered by local social services are patchy in quality. Attendance at odd times and not by a regular carer – not suiting the habits of the patient. 
• Other patients are often blocking hospital beds as there is no facility in the community to provide sympathetic caring
• The cost of nursing and care home care is extremely high
• More training of staff and adequate remuneration to be planned for this future need. 
• The possibility for integration of clinical assistance for the aged into the NHS
• Other aspects of social care under Local Authority control need to be given serious attention especially with so many patients claiming mental health issues

Preventative Care

• Preventing illness must be a priority and emphasis given to annual checks taking place at GP surgeries conducted by trained practitioners. In some cases a simple blood test is required and not to be refused. This surely can be managed on an annual basis 

Dentist Appointments

• The issue with Dentist appointments has been overlooked and yet we are all encouraged to seek preventative care.
• The chance of going onto an NHS dentist list is nearly unheard of
• Recommended that all dental patients, even those being treated by a private practice, should have an annual check up where payment is covered by the NHS

Hospitals

• There was uncertainty in the way management in hospital and Trusts operates. With such a large workforce there is a question whether managers have the capability of knowing exactly who is employed and in what position
• An AI software should be established to oversee all personnel in the individual NHS facilities.
• Better procurement arrangements have been implemented but there is still room for improvement 
• Patient care must be the upmost priority and organisation of staff given more attention. Constant review of data covering such subjects as mortality and patient clinical data

Clinical Hospitalisation

• Attention to use all medical facilities on a full time basis.
• We are told that Consultants are often hampered by staff shortages to clear theatre usage and bring in new patients. Medical staff should not be involved in transferring patients back to a ward. This should be a management priority
• If this is not resolved we will continue to have well qualified doctors sitting around and the use of hospital theatres not fully utilised for patient care. Theatre use should be reviewed.
• Rural areas have specific issues and these should be addressed. (Transport, video diagnosis, visits by district nurses (if they can be identified)
• Those undertaking a medical training by the NHS should be required to sign a 10 year contract. 

Management of the NHS.

• Management of the NHS was discussed emphasising that patient care must take  priority.
• Agreed that the abolition of NHS England would cut out a tier of management bureaucracy in the NHS 
• The new regionalised Integrated Care Boards being proposed seem to spread over a wide area and could negate the immediate best practice for patients. Become out of touch. Boundary review should be reviewed and given more chance for consultation 
• The activity of ICB’s should be  scrutinised and potentially,  like NHS England, their duties be absorbed into the Department of Health
• If ICB’s were abolished this would give each Trust more autonomy in managing funds which could be allocated direct by the Department  of  Health (under Minister scrutiny)
• Do we need an additional tier between Trusts and the government Department. The Management functions of the NHS have become even more bureaucratic with so many tiers established which can hide the necessity of up to date best practices in care. The “leave everything alone diagnosis” not the right way forward
• Costs related to funding should be better analysed
• Best practice to be under the control of clinicians

Conflict of Interests

• This point is rarely discussed in relation to the NHS but we have seen this recently come out into the open. Bullying. coercing and covering up issues have been reported
• Perhaps this issue should be analysed especially in the appointment of senior policy managers and Board members where internal failings have been seen
• Board members of Trusts and elsewhere used to be unpaid. This should be reviewed with a view concentrating the right individuals approach to “public service” with those appointed not getting any payment 

CPF 

Policy Renewal Programme

EASTERN REGION WORKSHOP

Thursday 3  July 2025 (on Zoom)

Immigration 

(Informal Notes Without Prejudice)

Immigration

Introduction

Immigration is a big issue for many people in the U.K.  It is however a difficult subject and a minefield to tread. Clearly we are hampered by our involvement in the ECHR.

A number of past Conservative Home Office Ministers have indicated we should withdraw from the ECHR and there is an increasing number of Conservative members implying we should do that. There is opposition for a number of reasons but neither side of that argument come out into the open.

The whole strategy has been a mess for a long time. If only we could start afresh, an open debate, ignoring what is the past and present. Creating a policy that suits the U.K. 

It is difficult to make suggestions that others may feel are out of sympathy with the problems of people leaving their natural state due to war, famine, ethnic persecution, and just racial prejudice. 

Sending illegal migrants back to their country of origin may be outside our overall sympathetic generosity. On the other hand the U.K. is not in a position for everybody with some injustice to come here. We do not have the funds available to increase our population by +/- 1 million each year.

We also have to examine the way in which migrants do not integrate into our society and where large numbers of migrants live practicing their own living standards and culture as if they were living in their own original state

This Paper reflects the views of our Eastern Region Workshop held on Thursday 3 July 2025. It does not infer all the answers

Two elements – illegal and legal. Both are of concern. The whole subject is complicated.

The calls to “stop the boats” and “smash the gangs” have made no tangible difference to the numbers that are illegally entering the U.K. In fact the number of boats crossing the English Channel year on year have increased and their occupant numbers have steadily gone up beyond acceptance.

This year we have seen between January and June a 42% increase in boats and 21,000 immigrants arriving in the U.K. 

For information – illegal migrants

June 2022 – June 2023 — 44,460 arrived in the U.K. 

June 2023 – June 2024 — 31,493 arrived in the U.K. 

June 2024 – March 2025 – 38,023 arrived in the U.K. 

Recently the average immigrants in each boat has increased to 50. (The gangs are using larger boats to maximise their body turnover and cash). 

These figures only relate to detected boats crossing the channel. Other boats (or other means) may go undetected and their illegal occupants slip into our society.

In this Paper we are not going to dwell on the French position as whatever we say is most likely a waste of time (and money)

Those detected are logged in and transported to an official detention centre.. It is interesting what happens next.

Every immigrant landing in a boat once on U.K. soil can then seek asylum. After some initial checks ( including their health) they are allocated to a safe place (usually  a hotel / hostel or similar). Many have no identity papers. They are given accommodation, meals or meal vouchers, (in some cases a weekly allowance). They have access to healthcare (GP’s, Dental Care, Optician), legal aid, mental health issues and education for children. It is not certain whether their personal background information is obtained at that stage.

We question whether prior to a decision being  made regarding their status whether they should be released into the community. Cultural issues arise. Many are single young males with all the problems that entails.

Those deemed as illegal immigrants on arrival are refused access to the UK and are deported. But it appears this number is minimal 

No wonder that claiming asylum is the immigrants first choice as due to the backlog in processing applications it could be many months before their application is considered.

Even President Macron stated whilst on the State visit that the U.K. is a soft touch. We need to undertake a different approach. The one in one out as recently agreed with France will not solve this problem.

The following are unverified figures but the cost of providing migrant accommodation 2024-2025 is estimated between £1.3bn and £2.2bn. (Another unverified figure shows that each asylum seeker costs £41,000)

Our workshop made some suggestions

Suggestions

• Immigrants who come illegally (mostly by small boats)  should not be allowed –  once they reach the U.K. –  to claim asylum. Their status is an illegal migrant. They should be housed briefly in a detention centre. Minimal care provided. Then deported to a place of safety.. This would stifle the activities of the trafficking gangs. We would have to be quite strict in applying this rule 
• The place of safety for both the migrant and our society to be carefully designated – but under strict detention procedures
• Most migrants come in small boats from France and this is where the U.K. has a problem. If France will not accept them what can be done. Their living conditions in France are far from satisfactory – living in tents on the coast in so called camps. 

(State assistance to migrants living in tents in France is minimal. Court rulings sometimes force municipalities to install basic infrastructure, and (AME) offers modest medical coverage for those eligible. But food, shelter, hygiene, and financial aid are almost entirely dependent on volunteers and NGO networks. Repeated evictions and administrative hurdles further reduce access to services). 

There are however those who arrive at the channel who have a supply of cash, up to date mobiles and ability to buy new clothes. We wonder how this can be. 

We might ask why is the U.K. so generous.

• The dilemma arises when the immigrants arrive in the U.K. and cannot be deported back to France. It is suggested that this position becomes untenable especially if UK authorities take the same position as the French authorities. The easy way out has been to move these illegal migrants about the country based on their request to be treated as an asylum seeker 
• In some circumstances this has created upheaval for local residents but also for those migrants who have entered the U.K. legally.
• In order to discourage immigrants travelling in boats the U.K. should establish clearly defined “safe routes” where the immigrant can be processed. This should be made simpler and all potential opportunities made to broadcast this strategy. A charge could be levied on each applicant 
• We restate that all  immigrants arriving illegally will be deported 
• Illegal immigrants should be held in a secure detention centre (where they are not allowed to leave). They should  not be housed in a hotel. They must not have access to UK facilities such as health care (only in house in case of need facilities in the detention centre), nor education for any children. Should they be fed. 
• The only route to claim asylum in the UK MUST be through “safe asylum routes”  with conditions to be rigorously followed.
• As a deterrent illegal immigrants could be housed in structures similar to the “nightingale dormitory’s built at the time of the Covid pandemic. Or in converted MoD facilities. No assistance should be provided. The illegal migrant treated on that basis as a deterrent. There might be opposition and the U.K. Courts intervene. Many are single males but with some serious amounts of cash.
• The facilities for deportation would have to be agreed, but this where we hit on the problem. No other State wants them.
• The U.K. should initiate a system where Immigrants should only be able to claim asylum if they come through the  “safe channels”. That means an official process where they can observe the rules. The U.K. should require a fee from the asylum seekers.
• Access to Safe Routes could also include the immigrants paying to travel to a neutral country where they can be processed. This would destroy the gangs trafficking immigrants for profit. 
• Legislation could be drawn up setting out new procedures to deal with legal immigration setting out the requirements to claim asylum – (the illegal immigrant would have no rights to apply) This would be specifically under U.K. common law and allow for the exit from the ECHR
• It was noted there is a backlog in dealing with asylum applications. This is unsustainable
• We should consider putting a cap on the number of legal immigrants that can be given a visa including those agreed under individual trade agreements. That figure could be made on a unilateral basis. 
• The number of legal immigrants has reached a very high figure and it appears it has not peaked.
• A formal temporary ID should be issued which demonstrates the migrants status in the U.K. as a legal asylum seeker who arrived via a safe asylum route. By doing this we may be able to identify the undetected illegal migrant that has slipped into the U.K. 
• SHOULD we visit the discussion that all citizens of the U.K. be issued with an official ID card to identify their status and residency. (Personal details to be excluded). 
• Both the above suggestions are controversial but handled with care could avoid any challenge of potential racial action. The fear of fraud would need to be mitigated
• The ID status could include temporary residence in the U.K. for agricultural, care workers and others for a 3 – 6 – 12 month residence following due diligence by the authorities. (There would have to be a registration requirement to monitor when the visa expired. Issue here is the migrant could just slide into the over crowded environment 
• Due diligence should be processed on all immigrants issued with an ID card. Checking their background and whether  they have a criminal record.
• The system needs to be simple so that U.K. Employers know exactly the requirements for employing migrants under a strict status process. That also applies for Landlords due diligence when a legal asylum seeker wishes to rent. Since they will be on a register both employer and landlord would be able to check whether the immigrants ID was valid 
• Any person breaking immigration rules should be deported
• Any person undertaking an illegal act should be deported regardless of their position in their native country.
• Any person not given final settlement status if charged (should be confined from society and then if convicted of a crime should be deported)
• Immigrants seeking to bring in to the U.K. their family must have been given legal settlement status complying with the 10 year rule. The U.K. to set rules on what numbers and status of the dependents.

<><><><>

In most cases, an immigrant seeking a UK residency can obtain a visa (also called a long-term visa or route to settlement). They must meet a minimum income requirement — though the exact amount depends on the visa type. They should only be able to seek a dependant application until after they have completed 10 years living in the U.K. contributing tax and NIC. They must qualify under a minimum salary rule, not have any convictions. Their dependants should undergo a strict due diligence process including health and criminal activity

As an example this also applies when seeking a  Family Visas (Spouse, Partner, Child of a British citizen or Settled Person)

Minimum Income Requirement 

• Now £38,700 per year – changed in early 2025.
• Some feel this figure is well below what can be justified to finance life in the U.K. with a dependant. Where multiple dependents are involved the income should relate to the needs required to finance those dependents without U.K. state benefits. State benefits should not be paid
• They must prove they can meet this income if they are  sponsoring someone.
  • They can use salary, self-employment, savings (over £16,000), or pensions. All this must be verified by access to bank accounts and HMRC due diligence

(Informal notes – without prejudice- CPF Eastern Region Workshop 26 June 2025

CPF

RENEWAL PROGRAMME 

EASTERN REGION WORKSHOPS

Thursday 26 June 2025

Making Work Pay

Without Prejudice

Introduction 

The Workshop felt that we must have a plan that is imaginative, radical and courageous to see an end to the flat lining of the U.K. economy. 

New ideas required to change the orthodoxy to an economy that gives incentive to make work pay and bring about prosperity to all our citizens

We are the 6th largest world economy and as such we should be adopting policies to get us out of a culture that allows a large proportion of our potential workforce to be on benefits. If we don’t we will possibly loose that status and with that our credibility to maintain our borrowing.

The need for a smaller state, less regulation and bureaucracy, less public spending.

We are in an ideology of high taxes and public spending. These are principles that have to be reversed under a new Conservative Administration.

We need to create educational needs that will cover all eventualities. University for some but for others training to a level where they can display both practical and educational experience

Summary

The following are issues raised at the workshop including – tax rates and the thresholds, childcare costs, cost of living in general, VAT, the impact of the state welfare costs, pay to reflect the value of skills, dissatisfaction with public sector pay strikes, small firms no incentive to grow, no incentive for buying a house. Greater emphasis needed on apprenticeships and especially training for high technology activity in our modern society 

We need to be saying this NOW before others claim to bring about a radical transformation 

Tax Rates and Thresholds

The current policy is for the tax thresholds to be frozen until 2028 – a policy introduced by a Conservative strategy and extended by Labour. It is in some ways a stealth tax as when salaries and income annually increase some earners drop into a higher tax band. ( unverified figures of an increase of £50bn  have been gained by the Exchequer under this tax policy) Although the thresholds reflect the current dire problems faced under the present U.K. economic plan it was felt that the Party should be courageous for the future.

Current Income Tax in England and Northern Ireland 

The Thresholds have been frozen and it appears that will continue. It is not aspirational for those who earn more and move into the next tax band.

* Basic Rate 

• £12,571 – £50,270 at 20%

* Higher Rate

• £50,271 -£125,140 at 40%

Additional Rate 

• Over £125,140 at 45%

Increase the Basic Rate

It was felt that the Basic Rate should be changed so that the lower threshold should be increased to £20,000. (This would assist groups to have more take home pay in their pockets – the low paid where those on minimum wage working a 37.5 hour working week would see their tax deductions reduced as would pensioners). It would also affect all higher tax payers. In many ways this is a psychological situation

Low Paid on minimum wage 

• under 18 / Apprenticed – £7.55ph x 37.5 x 52 = £14,715 per year
• 18-20 years – £10.00ph x 37.5 x 52 = £19,500
• 21 + years – £12.21ph x 37.5 x 52 =£23,809

By increasing the basic tax threshold some low paid on minimum wages and pensioners could be taken out of paying tax. This needs to happen otherwise the culture of “why go to work” will continue to increase.

• childcare often cancels out wages
• Cost of commuting to work must be calculated
• Low wages in rural and coastal areas a serious issue
• Second earners (often mothers) lose benefits with increased pay. No incentive to do any work taking into account child care costs
• Part time jobs providing flexibility affecting carers and single parent families are needed on all the above issues.

Cost of Living

Cost of Living issues such as food, fuel (vehicle and residential), increased mortgage rates. Child care (where tax incentives could be offered) and other cost of living increases. All these affect every person earning a wage in the U.K. and should be highlighted for attention by an incoming Conservative Administration. The use of fiscal measures to be thought through 

Time to Inspire the Middle Income Earners

Our objective is to inspire all employees including the middle and higher income earners to feel that the Conservative Party is looking after them demonstrated by a radical change in all the tax thresholds.. We have to be aware that those income earners require incentive to take more responsibility and their remuneration to level upwards. That requires an increase in the Thresholds to put more cash in their accounts.

Millionaires Leaving the U.K. 

We have seen that millionaires are leaving the U.K. (it is reported some 15,000 + since the non dom policy has been implemented) we should commit to reverse that policy

Higher Earners and Professionals

In addition we have to consider the situation of the higher middle and professional income earners – many are having to cope with the cost of living crisis.

These employees will be high paid professionals with expert knowledge in management, professionals in their specific profession, in technology, industry etc.  and those employed in Research and Development. Some will be in the public sector.

Competing with employees from other countries

We currently see highly trained U.K. citizens competing for placements with those coming from other countries. This may result in temporary placements with visa applications and fiscal exemptions (NIC) which disproportionately penalises U.K. employees.

If they have no incentives this group of U.K. employees will leave the U.K. (This issue affects all ages)

The Upper Tax Threshold to Increase 

(The upper tax threshold rate should be increased from £125,140 to £140,000 putting them in the 40% tax band). 

Future Tax Thresholds

Overall there should be a long term strategy to fulfil our objective to reduce taxation which could commence by reverting to more than the current bands mentioned above (20%-40%-45%) but adding the rates as follows 15%-20%-30%-40%-45%

It is on record that when personal income taxes are low the productivity of the nation improves. Tax revenue increases as more people are working

A Conservative government should set out a plan to achieve that objective by amending the tax thresholds.

Other proposals are discussed here

National Insurance Contributions

The Party should commit to reversing the increase in the employers contribution as this has proved to  discourage new employment and shown employers divesting of their current workforce. 

Investigation should take place to scrap the NIC payments (as was whispered during the dying days of the previous administration but with no detailed analysis) and replace with an actuarial pension scheme by reviewing the voluntary auto enrolment pension scheme which could in time include both private and public sector employees. This would wean  the bill for pensions off the Welfare State budget and cease the cost of pensions being paid from exchequer funds. In other words a radical change in which pensions are controlled using actuarial and investment systems.

The pension issue to be fully analysed to provide all participants with an adequate pension according to the payments put into the scheme. Actuarial predictions demonstrate that to avoid pressure on the welfare state  contributions by both employee and employer will have to increase. This should be addressed now

Public sector pension schemes could be merged into this operation

Spending on the NHS and Welfare State

Clearly funding of the NHS is a major spending commitment. A separate Paper will address this point however one of the issues covered in this Paper is whether tax devolution might be considered in each nominated area of the U.K. (regional, area, unitary council, mayoral responsibility). Social care could also be addressed under that strategy

This would not prevent the case for the “safety net” provision in welfare benefits

Flat Rate Tax

The Party should examine whether a flat rate tax would bring in sufficient funds to cover overall expenditure in a slimmed down Public Expenditure Plan (This might be a long term analysis once public spending has been brought under control).

Would it be a fairer system where everyone pays some tax (demonstrating that nothing is for free). That it is better to be working as against living on benefits

Local Government Devolution 

If more government devolution takes place with the creation of County Unitary Councils (some under a Mayoral tenure) we should consider whether to create a devolved tax system CALT (County Alternative Local Tax). This could be established as part of the levelling up process whereby residents would have more democratic say in spending on health care ( integrated care groups), education, social care, roads and infrastructure. This would create a more democratic and transparent process

Investment Zones

The Party should reset the creation of Investment Zones. As soon as possible we should commence to better inform Conservative Councillors and Members of Parliament (many of whom have never worked in a business never mind actually managed one) so that they are aware what the objective is in creating such Zones. This policy was tried under the previous Conservative government but both Councillors and local officials in many Councils did not seem to understand the process.

Reducing the State Spend

The Welfare State has grown out of all proportion from its original intention to act as a safety net for those in great need. The number of people receiving sickness and disability benefit has to be reduced. We are looking at 2.8m (and increasing) on these benefits and a further 9m + who are inactive – some of them not seeking work or education.  

It has become an out of work employment tool.

Using Artificial Intelligence 

Most benefits are online applications and some are independently sanctioned. Does the DWP know exactly who is receiving all these individual benefits and therefore an AI software scheme should be created to find out. This could be piloted in separate regions and run on an outsourced basis from DWP. Specific trained staff to undertake the Research and Analysis.

A similar system should be organised to identify all employees on the NHS payroll

Public Sector Pensions

The pension bill for public sector employees is very expensive and with an ever increasing number of employees in the public sector their pension position has become unsustainable

All the more reason to have a radical examination of how pensions are calculated, contributions made and paid out

We need to identify the contracts of all staff on the payroll who qualify for a pension.

We need to examine the difference in the cost of state public employee / employer pension contributions being set aside compared with those for the private sector. We cannot continue to increase the public sector workforce pension payments. We should examine how to equalise that position. The cost of pension provision together with public sector pay demands is not transparent.

The figures that follow demonstrate this future dilemma showing the difference in contributions

                            Employee.         Employer

NHS (Doctors)	5.1% – 13.5% (tiered)	20.7%	Defined Benefit (CARE)
Civil Servants	4.6% – 8.05% (tiered)	26.6% – 30.3%	Defined Benefit (CARE)
Teachers	7.4% – 11.7%	23.68%	Defined Benefit (CARE)
Police	~13.78%	31%

The auto enrolment pension scheme requires the employee to contribute 5% – the employer 3% and the government 1%. It is thought that these figures will have to increase to cater for a longer period of each person to receive an adequate liveable pension.The whole subject of financing pension needs to be addressed otherwise we will face a  pension crisis.

Small Businesses 

Under current taxation rules ( – NIC – VAT – apprenticeship training ) the Workshop felt that the following could be considered

National Insurance Contribution – NIC – 

There is no incentive for small businesses to grow their business  and take on extra staff. The qualifying staff number relating to exemption from NIC could be doubled 

Alternatively introduction of tax rebates to micro employers who hire new staff should be examined 

VAT registration

Small business are the cornerstone of a prosperous society. Many currently operate on a small profit margin many close to folding up and where increased costs are driving them to close. We only need to look on the high street in towns and villages.

The VAT registration stands at £85,000 this provides no incentive to grow a business. If VAT is charged once the registration figure is reached and they cannot afford to increase employee numbers and are required to increase the cost of their products the whole business becomes economically counter productive.

The Registration figure for VAT should be increased to £150,000

This would act as an incentive to extend business opportunities creating employment and a service to society. (See also the comments above on NIC)

Business Rates

This was not discussed during the Workshop but business rates are the blight of many businesses and should be examined 

Housing – Building Houses

More incentives should be brought forward to encourage younger residents to purchase a property as against renting. This would see the development of a society of home owners saving for their future retirement. Finance will come from the private sector. 

Council and private renting is a problem for the future where they have to continue to pay rent after retirement. [ See the results of our Housing workshop ]

In order to incentivise the work force to aim for a better life – something that many wish to achieve – there has to be a different thinking towards building houses. This means that throughout society we have to adopt a different ideology.

Building houses has to cater for those with lower disposable income and provide them with incentives to purchase a property as against falling into the Council House renting trap .

This could include tax incentives such as reintroducing the MIRAS scheme (Mortgage interest relief at source). The qualifying figure could be capped but it would act as an inspiration to buy, take on a mortgage and see some form of tax break,

Mortgages could be designed for new buyers to have interest only schemes for an initial 5 years. This would have no affect on the Exchequer nor the profits of mortgage lenders (other than an increase in buyers paying interest.

Skills for the Future

Vocational Training

Vocational skills have not been prioritised and many students have been encouraged into taking a University Degree. Many leaving university with a large debt yet are not able to get immediate jobs that they expected. This will become even worse as positions become robotic.

University is not for everyone and entering into a job under an apprenticeship or in work training provides incentive to undertake work for pay. In today’s culture wages can be extremely good for a well trained tradesman or woman and technical education should be offered. 

Employers should be encouraged to offer incentives to young employees to harness competent and aspirational objectives.  Good terms and conditions of employment, fairness in the workplace and schemes for employees, such as holidays, sickness benefit, Parental leave, maternity leave and crucially ability to join a well funded and actuarial managed pension fund

Technical Subjects

The Conservative Party should champion more designated courses with subjects to cater for skills for the future. These should be tailored and designed to explore consultation with all levels of business and the public sector finding out what skills will be in demand.

To mention some:-

• Digital literacy, coding, and cyber security
• Health and social care qualifications 
• Skilled trades (plumbing, electrical, construction etc.)
• Working in the health service

The high technology sector that confronts us has become a priority and employees will be required to take on these employment roles in order for the U.K. to remain a leader in this technological experience. In a fast moving environment we must educate and train for future technology changes

AI will transform many industries and robotic systems will be to the fore. In addition sectors such as the NHS, local and national government will move towards more technologically based information.

Another important area where technology will become essential is in the Armed Forces where we must equip young men and women to undertake a different style of employment and potential active service.

These young people need to be well trained either through technology systems or educational facilities. In addition being offered a contract in our Armed Services (not conscription) but a well founded career in an important sector of our society. With a policy for 5% of GDP to be allocated employment prospects increase. 

In other walks of business those undertaking an apprenticeship should be given extensive training not just on skills to do the job but on a specific level of technology and management. 

• Employers should have better access to local schools and colleges. Non university courses require better funding
• To much focus that university is the only way forward to getting a well paid and satisfying job demonstrating that a person with experience and practical knowledge can be productive and a high earner.
• Create job experience schemes for young people to identify their chosen career

Our future depends on well trained skills being indigenously catered for as against having to seek external expertise. This becomes an issue when immigration Visa applicants are awarded on a temporary basis under trade agreements (No NIC for 3 years). This can affect middle income earners who want to seek advancement but the vacancies have become crowded.

We should plan for the future

<><><><><>

Interesting article for information 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/income/income-tax-avoid-higher-rate-earn-over-110000-pounds/

Davida Ademuyiwa

Wilfred Aspinall

After years of political rhetoric about stopping the boats and crushing the gangs public opinion has rightly encouraged local elected representatives to take action. 

The issue that took place in Epping rightly promoted “people” to shout with a loud voice. The migrant involved was found guilty. This was just waiting to happen. It should never have taken place – we have a moral responsibility to make sure this behaviour doesn’t happen again. Women and children must be safe.There is concern.

The Court decision to close a hotel in Epping following the brave urgent action by the local Council demonstrates  U.K. citizens frustration –  how fed up many are with the illegal immigration situation. The Council made a big noise.

We have been going round in circles often to appease liberal thinking and not listening to the demand for serious action to be taken. 

The CPF Workshop that we held in Eastern Region in July set out what needed to be done.

Other Councils in the U.K. may be thinking about taking legal action 

But 

note they are addressing local planning rules 

not the immigration issue. 

Why has it come to this.

The government and owners of the Bell Hotel in Epping  Appealed and the injunction removed by the Appeal Court which has further annoyed people – it was based on “planning rules” for the 138 residents to live in that hotel. Not whether illegal migrants entering the country should be housed in a hotel and / or in Housing of Multiple Occupation (HMO’s).

The issue presented by the protesters in Epping and elsewhere goes much wider. That issue may be discussed at the High Court Hearing in October.

At last the government are taking action to close asylum hotels and detain illegal migrants in secure ministry of defence sites. Let’s see whether their new approach will work.

If a person(s) enters the U.K. on a ferry or flight (and during the journey destroys their identity papers) they would be prevented by the UK Border Control from entering the country. They would be immediately detained and sent back to the place they departed from. They would be defined as illegal migrants. With no papers a non person. 

The same should apply to migrants on boats

The Court of Appeal appeared to rule the government had a responsibility (under the ECHR) to accept any illegal migrant. This needs to change.

• In effect we have an open border –
• Surely we cannot accept that

Magic for the boat trafficking gangs – don’t be surprised if we get another 50,000 illegals during the coming months.

We are discussing illegal migrants entering the country and then seeking asylum and with that latter status they are housed in hotels and / or HMO’s. A cost that we should refuse.

Note these hotel residents must not be moved into HMO’s which will be even worse. They should be deported.

50,000 illegal migrants have crossed the English Channel since July 2024 –  many are young males with no identity papers. The cost to the U.K. has become unsustainable, more to the point a nuisance factor for those living in the vicinity where the illegal migrants are being housed, not just in hotels but in HMO’s. The situation is out of control.

Being liberal and tolerant has encouraged illegal migrants to come to the U.K. hoping for a fast track asylum decision. The political system has been weak, complacent, avoided rocking the boat. Scared of racist taunts and political correctness.

What Needs to Happen 

If a migrant enters the U.K. on a boat, they are illegal immigrants, but they can claim asylum and are then housed in a hotel or local houses (HMO’s) and their status legalised – they are fed or given vouchers or cash. They can wander around and some work illegally on the black. They may have no identity papers, we do not know who they are and likely to remain for +/-  months whilst their asylum application is processed. The backlog is about 12 months. They often practice their own culture and ethical standards. 

This should cease

If migrants enter the country illegally they relinquish their right to be given the title of “legal migrant”. They should be deported.

Nobody is saying that a person running away from war, famine, abuse, ethnic cleansing and any other form of oppression doesn’t have a right to try and find safe haven and seek asylum but we must insist they can only be considered under strict legal UK common law rules as against unfettered illegal immigration.

The illegal migrants should be held in controlled detention centres where they can be registered then immediately deported. No exceptions. They should not be allowed to leave these centres until deported as they have lost their right to asylum. Whilst awaiting deportation no internet available and mobiles confiscated. In other words a full active 24/7 detention.

The message would spread – future migrants would realise that paying the gangs to bring them to the U.K. in boats gave them no asylum rights.

The deterrent mode – a lack of freedom and deportation to either their place of origin or a nominated safe place.

We have to stop the boats and smash the trafficking gangs. The French and German deals will assist but that is not going to stop illegal immigration but it is a start. The evil gangs will just adapt, increase the size of the boats – already they are able to accommodate about 50 migrants in each boat.

The EU should pause Schengen and free movement in all member states

Those who have committed any crime in the U.K. should always be placed in a highly secure place before deportation back to their country of origin. 

Legal routes need to be fully operational as the only way to enter the U.K. seeking asylum. This would involve establishing recognised Centres in safe places where applications can be made. Asylum applications could be opened online.

All (legal) migrants registered, (personal details, where they come from and intend to reside –  a strict due diligence process). Required to sign and state an oath agreeing to abide only by U.K. rules, law and culture. Only then issued with a limited period e-Visa and an ID card for employment and residence.

No dependants to accompany the legal immigrant – which appears on the governments agenda – until they have paid UK taxes and proof of residence for a fixed period (perhaps 10 years) before a dependant can join them. The earning cap rule should be increased to well over £40k

Maritime law should be changed to allow boats to be turned round and pushed back.

No further debate 

but solid 

practical common sense action. 

If necessary 

Exit the ECHR

Wilfred Aspinall – Without Prejudice)- Member of Hitchin Conservative Association – Eastern Region CPF Ambassador – Former Chair – Forum in the European Parliament for Construction and Energy Users

Wilfred Aspinall – Member of Hitchin Conservative Association- CPF Eastern Regional Ambassador- Former Chair – Forum in the European Parliament for Construction- Former Member European Economic and Social Committee

During the next few months we have to consider how we are to promote defence spending as part of an urgent national project. Our defence spending will need to increase in order that we are able to defend ourselves – also acting as a deterrent. 

The U.K. has committed to spend equivalent of 5% of GDP on defence spending. The decision on this spending cannot be kicked down the road for all the reasons that the reader knows. We have to provide the funds. We have to have a well thought out plan. We have to act now in order to meet a deadline.

That involves not just the size of our armed forces but also the development of our indigenous defence industry.

The armed forces are a priority to be enlarged in all aspects and prepared for all eventualities including actual combat but also acting as a peace keeping force and for humanitarian assistance. This includes –  (Army, Navy and Airforce and all the back up personnel required in this high tech environment). We can find careers for young men and women in this new technological environment 

We also have to play an important role in developing the defence industry operating in the U.K. to manufacture all types of arms. The building of naval vessels (ships and submarines etc). The development of high tech aircraft (fighters, helicopters, bombers and cargo etc) and the craft of developing high technology weapons (missiles, drones etc.). Whenever we are able these should be manufactured in the U.K. but in addition built here too. That includes the product materials and technology.

All part of the levelling up process

We should bear in mind that arms produced have to come from somewhere and as the U.K. is the second largest exporter of defence products in the world our indigenous industry should be bolstered, UK jobs maintained and created – all part of our growth and prosperity programme.

Spending on arms and modern equipment to service all our armed forces creates growth in the economy and jobs. The development of high tech defence activity must be maintained and constantly improved. As a major contributor to the production of arms we have to ensure the U.K. position in that market is maintained. Exports increased for societal reasons throughout the world

The recent announcement of the Order placed for ships to be built for the Norwegian government and active cooperation to safeguard our interests in the North Sea are an example of the UK’s expertise.
This will secure many jobs (building and in the supply chain) and add to both levelling up and growth.

The UK defence industry is a major contributor to the national economy,  and contributes in recent years approximately £10–12 billion in domestic manufacturing output annually.

The overall turnover of the UK defence industry (including exports and services) is around £25–30 billion per year and is the 2nd largest defence exporter in the world (after the US), especially in aerospace and naval technology. 

Defence exports averaged around £10–11 billion each year in the last few years. That position could increase.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) remains the largest customer, with annual procurement spending over £20 billion, much of which is directed to UK-based firms. We have to maintain that position and under a plan to spend more on defence ensure that an indigenous industry is the main beneficiary.

140,000 (working people at all levels of earning from those on low income but mainly middle and high earners employed in the industry plus many more in the supply chain. Another important fact to put into the debate.

The debate on how new technologies will affect  our defence procurement has to be taken into account as does the overall industry R&D and scientific activities. These new technologies often have wider implications for society and spin off into other important sectors.

Our armed forces have to be prepared for new technology and  that means the U.K. has to be at the forefront in its training development. There will be innovative and entrepreneurial actions taking place and in our armed forces – we will require  trained personnel some of whom will be delving into high technology research and development. 

The partnership between armed forces personnel and industry must continue 

The armed forces could play an important role for young men and women in future management, science and R&D training. A training that would decide whether their future is within the armed forces or industry.

A highly trained forces personnel together with the professional scientists and technicians in our defence industry must be well financed to maintain the position of the industry on the world scene

We have to make arrangements to pay for this activity.

Funding for the defence industry will be an added value in promoting growth in the economy and maintaining our prominent world position.

The Bank of England’s QE program during COVID-19 effectively enabled the UK government to spend heavily during a national crisis whilst retaining its budgeted funding plan by ensuring low borrowing costs and purchasing large volumes of government debt. While not officially “monetary financing,” in practice the lines between fiscal and monetary policy were certainly put into question

(The BoE took on board a sum of £450bn in Quantitative Easing to provide indirect funds for schemes like “furlough payments” during the  Covid pandemic). 

Some would argue that this was not part of the governments normal budgetary spending but at that time it was a national urgency and therefore the Bank was able to assist.

Developing the amount we spend on defence is an investment in a crucial asset for the future  and must be justified as an urgent requirement 

We are living in a volatile world.

 The overall main objective is to have a low tax economy and a smaller state. That requires action to be taken to reduce taxes and ensure that the welfare state acts as a safety net for disadvantaged citizens as against benefits acting as an unemployment tool. 

As an example the middle and higher paid (working people who appear to be ignored) in both the armed forces and in the defence industry (and in all other sectors of our society) must be given incentive to work here in the U.K. If through promotion they receive a higher salary that takes them into a higher tax band we might find that these mobile motivated professionals will exit the U.K. finding a lower taxed country to reside in. Assets lost for the future.

The welfare state has become unsustainable and must be reformed. For instance nobody should be receiving state benefits for ever without giving something back.  Some have said that in order to receive benefits they must undertake some public service.

The strategy to urgently find funds for the defence spending project could be achieved by a form of creative financing…

Defence spending increased and the continued operation of the defence industry as an urgent national security issue but that process has a spin off to not only make our country safe but an added value in possible increase in jobs for young citizens and  careers in the defence industry.

To promote the above 

we should examine and not discount  the role that  our  

Bank of England can play to protect our national security. 

 A new orthodoxy out of an old plan

W

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.

Instead of all the talk about housebuilding, we need positive action. We have had enough of empty promises to build more houses; we have to put forward positive policies to actually deal with building these needed houses.

Data on house completions indicate that more concerted efforts are needed to accelerate housebuilding to meet demands and national targets. One of my pieces for ConHome last year was an attempt to instil in the Conservative government strategy that we needed planning reform, but also a forward economic and social approach so young people can aspire into a prosperity society.

To do that we must adopt a different approach to house (and infrastructure) construction. Homeownership is at the core of our British culture. The right to own your own home in which to be happy and prosper.

The Conservative Party should declare it is in favour of home ownership and champion policies to promote that aspiration for all. To annually build at least 300k (actually more) houses with modern infrastructure alongside – promoting growth and economic prosperity.

Looking to the future we have to accept that there has been an increase in the number of young people who for various reasons live alone. This is a further reason to build more homes. House prices have rocketed and more could be done to incentivise the orthodoxy.

We should offer a direct contract with the British people.

The Labour Party policy to build houses really means more council houses. This is an ideology to deter homeownership and creates an economic problem for the future. If the majority of new houses are council or social houses, the build will have to be funded by local authority or state funding. That means increasing taxes. (Remember also the socialist ideology is actually to control the population by economic dominance.)

Those renting may not get the opportunity to acquire an asset which they can use for their future. Rent for a council house (or a private rent) continues after a person has retired, which provides them with no financial equity backup.

Our objective is to lower taxes and reduce dependence on the state; foster individual prosperity and responsibility; make life better for ourselves. So the rhetoric has to stop, and positive recommendations should be made (and delivered) by the Conservative Party.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) still retains a strategy of restraint. The NPPF should encourage Local Planning Authorities, builders, self builders, mortgage lenders and the public with clear positive house building guidelines.

Planning Officers should stop using bureaucratic measures insisting on “conditions” that have to be undertaken before any actual building takes place. These conditions can hold up a development for many months even years. Large developers can weather the inconvenience, but a small local builder and self-builders have financial restraints if they are not able to get on with the build. This adds to the final cost of the house.

In order to annually build 300k + houses we should certainly scrap “preconditions” – and all unnecessary other conditions to approve planning applications. These have been used by planners to pacify the NIMBY culture. Well that has now changed and lengthy duplication of reports on the environment, habitat, archaeology, flooding etc. should be negated. We need to just build; same applies to important infrastructure.

The “official consultees” regime is not transparent in the way they operate, nor in this new age of digital activity do we examine what terms they operate under. Do these consultees have a mandate, maintain transparency, a consistent official guideline, even a veto, or just individuals expressing a personal view? Some are part of and funded by public service finance, others NGOs, and some external bodies used to create restraint in building and infrastructure. (Just look at the history of HS2 and the bat tunnel, but there are many other examples that do not become public knowledge.)

The waste of time and the cost becomes unsustainable. The fact is that the “consultees” have no actual powers but LPA’s have allowed planning officers to defer to them. They can veto planning applications and insist actions be taken on their insistence. All this is time consuming and costly and not necessary.

We should review all quango bodies involved in house building and construction projects. These external opinions are not necessary if we have well qualified LPA Planners. We should not allow councillors and planning officers to hide behind the comments of such bodies.

We must have professional experienced planning officers and Councillors taking the view that if a consultee opposes a planning application – that is but a comment. It is the responsibility of the LPA; their decision. These consultees are only there to express a view, not act in the decision process. It is the planning officer, under delegated authority together with Councillors, that actually make the decision. It appears that the consultee expressing a negative opinion provokes the planning application to be refused or conditions set out that are time consuming, very costly and duplication.

The Conservative Party should review the function of all publicly funded NGOs to decide whether their existence can be justified. These consultees seem to take on a role to monitor the build as if they own the project.

As an example, look for yourself at any local planning application. The application itself (perhaps for a small extension) may take up just four pages but all the reports demanded by the Consultee regime takes up another 24 pages. The small local builder (and self builders) becomes overwhelmed.

We need to promote a housing strategy providing speedy planning permission to provide private capital and fiscal incentives, otherwise we will not achieve annual targets. This strategy can also include council/social houses since private funds can be made available as required.

The eight weeks for a planning application to be finally decided should be rigorous. If no decision is forthcoming, the application treated as approved. No excuses, no extension.

Young people want to own their own home and in a changing economic environment to take advantage of the prosperity that follows. We must hear them. The Conservative Party should make a commitment: a contract with the young electorate to deliver at least 300,000 + houses every year.

There is no shortage of land in the UK and the ideology surrounding “green belt” and areas defined as “beyond the green belt” should be open to common sense discussion. If a site is available, viable, in the right place, it should be considered a sustainable venture.

We should promote building houses on land adjacent to Towns and Category A villages, which would add to those communities economic and social well being. In addition, providing a chance to add locally needed amenities financed by the building levy.

Houses of all types will increase council tax income, and the increased number of residents add prosperity to the town or village. The objective should be “live for the future not the past”.

Shortages of skilled trade workers is an issue, but that will be solved if there is a positive secure building and funding policy. That includes fast delivery of modular structures prepared in a factory and erected on site in record time.

Proposals for a contract to build more houses

The Conservative Party should support and champion home ownership for young people and set out a new housebuilding strategy and contract-based on the following practical policies:

• Promote homeownership for young people and instilling the opportunity for economic prosperity by delivering the necessary incentives (financial and fiscal). This will fulfil the aspirations of many young people.
• All properties (houses and flats) should be freehold.
• The purchase of a property is a fantastic opportunity to save for the future as an investment and asset. This should be recognised.
• Houses/flats built with modern eco-friendly design and materials, according to demand and cost – including traditional builds and modular construction with individual specifications – design codes adopted
• The modular construction can be of various sizes and affordable; can be manufactured in a factory (including all utility fittings), erected on site in a day for the smallest and a little more for others. The cost managed, the size open to affordability. The objective to speedily get as many houses built, covering all types and sizes. This action will go some way to fulfilling the aspirations of many young people.
• The same criteria being applicable to a traditionally built property.
• Clear positive guidelines for LPA’s to maximise the potential to build houses in their Authority to satisfy demand. New rules to ensure there are no preconditions or specific conditions set out to restrain house building. These have traditionally been used and introduced to pacify the NIMBY culture but also to restrain the building of houses.
• Planning application determined within the eight weeks timespan – no extensions, no additional demands, no excuses. Failure to comply resulting in permitted development to proceed to build.
• Encourage a secure funding strategy (often from private borrowing) for the builder, especially the local small builder and self-builders. This will evolve if building permissions are speedily granted and houses erected and sold quickly. Turnover is essential for lender, builder and buyer. The mortgage lenders will respond
• Adopt a mortgage incentive plan with mortgage lenders to build houses bringing about prosperity for those living in that location.

Building houses and infrastructure creates growth in the economy. Employment for builders and other trades, plus the services that follow on. In addition individual personal savings for the future.

The funding of building houses mainly coming from the private sector, based on the logic that houses are an asset for the future.

Banks and mortgage lenders given confidence that their lending strategy is secure and that interest payments continue to bring in interest returns.

The Conservative Party should adopt policies to encourage building contractors (SMEs and self builders) and buyers, to create certainty to borrow funds. Incentives for first time house purchase (and for down-sizers to vacate their family homes). This would include a contract between the below with banks and mortgage lenders:

• Better access to land, with certainty to build without preconditions and conditions demanded as part of the permission to build. A register of available land drawn up in each LPA. Cut out bureaucracy in planning rules to create a positive message to build. Adopt an attitude to solve the housing crisis. Let common sense rule.
• Planning rules supporting viable property building both within and especially on land adjacent to Towns and Category A villages.
• Brown field sites to be explored and economic viability tested.
• Parts of the Green Belt and Areas beyond the Green Belt to be positively considered as development land following consultation.
• Well designed individual homes to satisfy the aspirations of buyers. All houses to be provided with an adequate garden for the resident’s private use.
• Green spaces surrounding the properties to accommodate leisure and play. The planting of trees and bushes.
• Incentives to establish local amenities such as community centres, a well stocked shop with services to provide affordable prices, facilities for youth gathering and for an ageing society. Access to public transport. Future local medical support.
• Building Developers continue to introduce incentives such as help with deposits, payment of stamp duty, conveyance costs. (These incentives however are not affordable to the small local builder and do nothing for the self builder.)
• Discussions to take place with mortgage lenders on extending the Right to Buy Scheme, with reduced deposit and equity loans and repayment terms spread over longer terms. Mortgages to be made available based on market accessibility through the private lending sector, taken out over an extended period covering the home owners working years.
• Stamp Duty waived on purchases of houses up to £500k for first time, young buyers and for those downsizing.
• Mortgage interest relief at source to be reintroduced for five years for an unlimited sum. This would provide additional monthly income to encourage homeownership, also a fiscal incentive. This should be part of our policy to reduce state control.

We as a Party must fulfil the aspirations of the many. Look to a modern future. Champion house and infrastructure developments.

In April 2024 I had the following piece published in ConHome. Nothing happened then before the General Election, and it appears not to have changed as we are still pandering to the orthodox culture of restraint. That must change.