The airwaves are alight with the demands of anti Brexit MPs and commentators to let more economic migrants into the UK to take low paid jobs in hospitality, care, agriculture and other sectors that got used to a steady stream of eastern European migrants to carry out the less skilled work. We are told of shortages of people to pick crops, serve in cafes and clean care homes. At least it provides a welcome refutation of all those anti Brexit forecasts of mass unemployment we used to get.

One of my main motivations coming into politics was to promote prosperity and wider ownership for the many. I have always sought to propose and support policies which would help more people find better paid work and to acquire a home and savings of their own. I do not like the cheap labour model. I have also recognised that we cannot simply legislate for everyone to be better paid. Each person who wants higher pay has to go on a personal journey, acquiring skills, experience, qualifications that justify the higher income. Every company and government department has to go on a journey to help promote higher productivity to provide the higher pay people rightly aspire to. One of the crucial debates in the referendum was the debate about free movement and low pay, with Brexiteers saying they wished to cut the flow of people accepting low pay from abroad, to help raise pay here at home and promote more people already legally here into better paid jobs.

Just inviting in hundreds of thousands of people from lower income countries in the EU is not a good model for them or us. Many of them live in poor conditions and sacrifice to send cash back to their wider families. They may not be able to go on a journey themselves to something better. It may work for the farm or business by keeping labour costs down, but only at the expense of pushing the true cost more onto taxpayers. Low paid employees may well qualify for benefit top ups for housing, Council Tax and general living costs which the state pays for. Each new person arriving needs GP and hospital provision in case of illness or accident. They need school places if they bring a family with them. They need a range of other public services from transport and roads to policing and refuse collection. The country has had to play catch up in many of these areas given the large numbers of people who have joined us in recent years. The EU once suggested a figure of Euro 250,000 was needed for first year set up costs for a new arrival. The biggest cost is of course the provision of housing where the state plays a big role for those on low incomes. The need to build so many more homes creates unwelcome political tensions in communities facing concrete over the greenfields.

There is also in practice a cost to the businesses they work for and a loss to the wider development of the economy. If a business has easy access to low paid labour it will put off looking at ways at automating or providing more computer or machine support to employees to raise their productivity. If farms find cheap pickers they do not provide the same support and demand for smart picking aids or machines. We live in a period of digital turbulence, when artificial intelligence, robotics and digital processing of data and messages are transforming so much. Harnessing more of these ideas could both power greater technological development and associated businesses here in the UK and could boost productivity and therefore potential wages in the businesses they serve.

The UK and the EU has spent the last two decades leaving much of the digital and robotic revolution to the USA. It is time to catch up. Successful harnessing of it will spawn more new large companies and offer the chance of higher pay from higher productivity.

(First published on Conservative Home)

There is a big divide in our society about people who cross the Channel by small boat to gain entry to the U.K. Some presume these people are asylum seekers or economic migrants from poor countries that we should help. Others are angry that the U.K. spends its resources on picking them up from the Channel and the placing them in accommodation with free board allowing them plenty of time to try to establish eventual legal entry. They point out these people cannot be asylum seekers as they are coming from France, which is a safe country. The migrants themselves are often frustrated that they are detained and not allowed to work whilst legal processes grind on.

Opponents say why cannot we return them, having made clear they are breaking the law by seeking passage without permission. They have often given substantial sums to criminal gangs to help them reach our shores, and have risked themselves and their families in unsuitable and overloaded boats. They have sought to cross on of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in very vulnerable vessels. They must have calculated the U.K. will rush to their assistance because they and the people smugglers have chosen to put them at risk.

Supporters of the arrivals say we have a duty to rescue people from their own deliberate mistakes, and should show sympathy for people who are so keen to join us.

I would hope most could come to agree that people putting themselves at risk like this is undesirable, and devoting so much sea patrol and rescue resource to this dangerous criminal Business unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary has promised new clearer law in the U.K. and a more united effort to crack the smuggling gangs and put them out of business. It should be an aim which unites most of us. I believe the Home Secretary wishes to do this, but has found the current law unhelpful for the task and is looking to amend it. She has also initiated an enquiry into the recent actions of Border Force in going into French waters to pick people up, when the French should have taken them back to safety in France.

There is a part of the UK establishment that is always keen to belittle and run the UK down, claiming we are small and unimportant now we have left the EU. They ignore the facts that we are the second biggest contributor to NATO, a member of the UN security Council, the fifth largest world economy, a member of the G7 and the Commonwealth, and an important influence on world events. This autumn sees the UK chairing the COP 26 Climate conference, shortly after we chaired the G7.

There is however one important area where I agree with them that we are small and not very important, and that is in the list of countries and regions that put out the most carbon dioxide. Ironically here the establishment seem to think it is the UK that has to do so much more, when all the figures show attention needs to be focussed on the Big three carbon generators, China, the USA and the EU. Between them they account for 52% of the world output compared to our 1%. In other words if the UK eliminated all its carbon dioxide output it would have the same effect on world figures as the Big 3 cutting their output by just 2%.

China is still saying she intends to increase her massive carbon output further this decade before finding some ways to start to curb it. China needs to be challenged on her large and growing output. At 29% of world CO2 she is by far and away the biggest single source. If the UK eliminated all its CO2 that would not fully offset one recent year’s growth in output by China. The USA has just experienced four years under a President dedicated to increasing US output and use of cheap fossil fuel energy. He successfully boosted US output of oil and gas to help power an industrial renaissance by onshoring investments that had gone abroad and expanding US output. The new President thinks this was a wrong policy but has yet to announce the ways in which he intends to redirect US activities. We await a detailed plan with timetables on how to get US people out of their internal combustion engines cars, eating less meat and putting in electric heating. The EU too has a similar issue. Germany remains wedded to a major car industry which largely sells diesel and petrol vehicles. The country burns a lot of coal and says it intends to keep coal in its power mix at least until 2035. How is this compatible with the EU’s aims? The EU is around one tenth of world carbon dioxide production.

As Chairman of the Conference the UK needs to challenge the USA and EU to produce timely and convincing plans of how they will achieve demanding targets as early as 2030 as it is difficult to see them hitting them on current policy. All major participants need to see that if they do not get a much better offer from China and other leading emerging market countries world emissions will continue to grow. It is not fair to close down our industries and power stations whilst others carry on churning out the CO2.

The European Movement still will not accept the result of a big democratic vote. They have sent me and doubtless many others a glossy brochure designed to show what they see as the bad news of Brexit. They urge us “to build back our ties with the rest of Europe”, code no doubt for trying to rejoin. Had remain won I suspect they would have used such a win to justify every federal scheme and every further removal of power from the UK which the EU has in mind.

So what are their latest quibbles? Gone are the absurdly wrong forecasts of a house price collapse, a jobs collapse, a GDP collapse as the UK looks forward to its best year of growth for a long time now at last it is out. Instead of a jobs collapse the UK discovers it is short of people for all the jobs that are being created. They still want us to try to re enter the Erasmus scheme instead of backing the new UK scheme which will help many more UK students. They bemoan a loss of certain EU monies, when the UK has promised to spend more than we were getting under EU rules. They are worried about rights of refugees and of EU citizens settled here, yet this has all been taken care of.They are right to highlight problems with fishing and Northern Ireland, but these of course stem from having an Agreement with the EU instead of running our own affairs. They should blame their EU for those troubles.

When people ask me what have been the wins so far, I say the biggest win is the right of our country to decide for itself what to raise in tax, what to spend, what to pass into law, who to negotiate Treaties with and how to contribute to the great causes of prosperity and democracy worldwide. It is true that many of these freedoms have not yet been used. Much opportunity lies ahead, as a Brexit public seeks to educate an anti Brexit establishment into the joys and advantages of making our own decisions and making government accountable directly to us through elections in a way Commissioners never were. There are so many areas where we can do better now we are free to do it our way,which I have often set out here.

We have already seen the big advantage of attracting our own vaccine solutions and production capabilities, drawing on the excellence of UK science. We will create Free Trade Agreements with Australia, New Zealand and the TPP as well as keeping all the FTAs we and the EU held jointly. We have detached ourselves from the pressures to join the Euro or to send ever bigger transfer payments to relatively rich countries on the continent.

Dear Grant,

I am glad the railway has considered the issue of season tickets and discounts in a new era of flexible working where many full time employees will become part time in the office . I raised this early in the pandemic with Ministers and the industry.

The response of a 15% discount for eight tickets a month is disappointing and inflexible. It is in the railway’s interest to encourage more use of the excessive  capacity it currently provides. No one can be sure they want just eight returns a month.

The model to adopt should be a rising discount model. The more you travel your chosen route the cheaper the extra journey should become. The accumulating discount could be a quarterly system, or a longer or shorter period. The first time you went to the office it would be full fare. The second time there would be a small discount, with a progressively higher discount. Frequent  users would end up paying  perhaps just a 20% fare for an additional journey.

This would give most of the advantages of the season ticket which allows additional journeys over the basic five returns a week free, whilst always giving the railway marginal revenue from more travel. It also incentivises  travellers to go more often. If a traveller choose off peak the fare would be an off peak one. The railway will need to see if the peak changes and be ready to change peak  period pricing  to reflect travel reality.

I support the Government’s passion for home ownership. They are right that we need to do more to extend that opportunity to a new generation. It was, after all, an opportunity that previous generations took advantage of, enjoying the pleasures that can come from owning one’s own home and doing with it rather more of the things one wishes to do.

I support the Government’s wish to bring forward more brownfield development, because there are still many sites around the country that could be tidied up and better used. I trust that, within that, the Government wish to ease the planning system sufficiently so that where we need to convert tired or redundant commercial buildings into residential properties there will be no great planning impediment in doing so.

I strongly support the wish of the Government to do something extra to make sure that developers with planning permissions build out the permissions they have under a proper local plan. In the borough of Wokingham, of which I represent a part, we have been afflicted in recent years by some landowners and developers gaming the system. Thousands of planning permissions are outstanding, and yet the local plan, which tries to protect areas, has been overwhelmed at times by people lodging appeals on land not within the local plan for development and inspectors deciding that we did not have enough land because of the slow rate of build against all the permissions that are there.

Above all, we need a planning system that can reconcile our wish to protect the green gaps, the green fields, the farms and the woods—indeed, to expand the woods—and at the same time to make enough land available for housing. The Office for National Statistics has shown that, in the year to March 2020, we welcomed some 715,000 extra people into our country.

Although 403,000 people also left, that meant that there were still 312,000 extra people to house, and not all of those going freed up homes in the right place for the incomers. We need to have sustainable immigration. Of course we need to welcome people into our country, but they should expect decent standards of housing, and the gap is too large. We now have a backlog of demand and need, and if we keep inviting in hundreds of thousands of extra people, we are not going to catch up. I urge the Government to make things easier so that the trade-offs between environmental protection and more concrete for housing are not so difficult.

Finally, on levelling up, which I strongly support, over the years a large number of executive homes have been built in Wokingham and places like it, attracting people with great qualifications—people capable of commanding well above average earnings. We need to provide that kind of housing if we wish to attract companies and the investment to level up, and we should not put all that housing into the areas that have already been very successful.

Yesterday Parliament debated the proposed planning changes the  governments is consulting about.

I will post my speech later this morning.

I made two main points. In order to eliminate the shortage of homes the government needs to set sustainable levels of immigration.

As the government wishes to level up it needs to encourage the building of more Executive homes in places that want to attract more investment  and jobs. The construction of many larger homes in the South East has led to a lot of well qualified and experienced people buying homes in the area which in turn attracts more businesses and investors who wish to recruit the talent. Levelling up requires more balance of dearer homes and talent around the entire country.

I see in the press stories about alleged tensions between the Treasury and the PM’s Office about the magnitude of future bills and  the affordability of the government’s programme. I agree with the PM that the U.K. should be willing to pay to support the economy, individuals and business all  the time some jobs are banned and businesses shut to contain the pandemic. The Treasury largely did this but was unhelpful to some small businesses and the self employed for no good reason and is reluctant to continue the support for the delay in Freedom day. The budget deficit last year was very large but came out well below Treasury forecasts. It is highly likely it will contract quickly as soon as we have a full and vigorous recovery. Threatening tax rises or ill judged spending cuts now will delay recovery and might worsen the deficit.

It is however important the Treasury  provides a voice for value for money and for sensible priorities on spending. Let’s look at a couple of the alleged battles looming up.

 

The first is the issue of the next upgrading of the Retirement pension. The Conservative Manifesto promised to maintain the triple lock, which says the pension will go up by the largest of  2.5%, inflation or average wages. Most of us Conservative MPs want to keep the promise. This April wage growth hit 8.4%, showing how distorted the figures are by the affects on the base from lockdown and massive shedding of lower paid jobs during the emergency. Most people have had nothing like a 8.4% pay rise. Maybe as we see the next few months figures some of the distortion will unwind, removing the anomaly. Maybe the July  figures which will be used for the September pension updating will still flatter.

 

If the Treasury wants  to rid itself for one year of the wages part of the triple lock then it needs to tell us why and what it thinks would be a fairer figure. It should consult and trust the public. It should not simply insist  on tearing  up a Manifesto promise. It would need to set out what it thinks the underlying increase in wages and living standards is adjusted for the distortions on the CV 19 labour market and see if enough of the public agrees before venturing change. Clearly recent figures for wages are not a good representation of a general increase in income which the triple lock was designed to copy for pensions.

We also read that the Treasury is not in favour of a new U.K. ship to help represent us diplomatically and commercially around the world.The capital cost is modest relative to the HMG capital budget and the costs will be spread over several years. The vessel must be built in the U.K. which would generate some offsetting tax receipts. It is strange the Treasury did not sort this out before No  10 briefed all the main outlets and released an illustrative picture. Sometimes you should be bold and spend a bit to boost future business and influence. Such spending would be better than a bigger advertising budget for example. The Treasury could find more offsets.

 

The big changes that come from ending lockdown must result in early and big savings. Ending all the special support measures and cutting back all Covid related spending should make a big difference. Implementing the ideas I and others have put forward to get more discipline and control into quango budgets would also help. Controlling public spending is hard graft and lots of detail. The Treasury needs to work away at raising productivity and getting better value for money whilst not cutting priority spending on health or education or promoting a strong U.K. recovery.

The voters of Chesham and Amersham sent a message to the Conservative party. It is a message they have been trying sending in other ways for a long time, and one that is shared with many other constituencies in Conservative England. They want a green Conservative policy that is relevant to their lives, landscape and locality. As Conservatives we all wish to conserve and  look after the best of our local natural world. We  understand our relationship with fields, farms and forests and the need to treat them well. The voters  do not welcome  excessive new housing development taking away their  countryside. In Chesham and Amersham they have long fought against the way HS2 will cut swathes through their open spaces and woods and leave many of them living close to a very noisy fast train line.

 

            The battle of greenery will be the defining one of our age. The Conservatives will not be able to outbid the Greens and Liberal Democrats, parties in opposition, when it comes to tougher action to cut carbon and match ever more difficult targets. A carbon target is easy for those not in office, and very difficult for those in power who need to persuade or force  millions of people to change their behaviours to deliver. The way Conservatives can reassure most that we are the party of good green is to set out a new and positive green agenda.

 

            First the government must show how we will limit excessive migration and too many demands to build more homes. We believe in  treating people well that we welcome into our country, including helping them with good housing. There has to be a limit on how many we can accommodate, given the shortage of good housing and the need to  cater for the wishes of the many already legally settled here for  better provision for them and their families. The current pace of housebuilding in the most popular areas is unsustainable whilst the need is very great. If hundreds of thousands of  new people come every year to join us that is a lot of extra housing.

 

            We need to demonstrate an intuition about what people will do for the green cause. We can make common progress with the many by encouraging, incentivising and promoting better home insulation. Lower fuel bills is a winning proposition.  If the aim is to substitute dearer power for cheaper power, and more interruptible power for reliable power, it will be a difficult sell. The government still hasn’t even removed  the EU’s VAT levy on insulation materials, boiler controls, draught excluder and the rest. Surely that would help promote the virtues of keeping warm whilst burning less energy. The public reluctance to take up smart meters should worry the government, as these are offered free. People see little advantage for them for the work that has to  be done in their home. They already know how much power they are consuming, and what makes the most difference to their bills. Social media is full of chat that may be misinformed fearing that a smart meter will lead to differential pricing by time of day and even temporary removals of power as the authorities seek to balance a system with more interruptible wind and solar power, and with more heavy demands from car battery recharging and electric heating.

 

         The emerging government agenda to be kinder to animals is a positive. We are a nation of animal lovers. There needs to be some commonsense about how far to go on rewilding with the introduction of dangerous species to areas people may wish to use for recreation or food production. There is considerable support for the government passion to plant many more trees. Many a Conservative would rather have a wood nearby than another housing estate. As the trees grow we should also encourage sustainable forestry. It is  a disgrace that we import so much of our timber needs, often from colder countries where the growing times are longer. The government could be greener by offering to cut the wood miles. The economy would be stronger for producing more of our own material for  roof trusses and floors, fuel for biomass electricity plants and timber for furniture.

 

           At the heart of the new agriculture policies being set out following our exit from the Common Agricultural Policy the emphasis is all on nature. I am  in favour of encouraging areas of wildflowers, good hedgerows and attractive woods and coppices. I am also very keen on cutting the food miles. For too long we have been dragged into dependence on continental food at the expense of our domestic agriculture. Our dairy industry was kept small by shortage of quota, our fruit industry was offered grants to grub up our orchards to replace Cox with the  Golden delicious. Our market gardening industry for flowers and vegetables was undercut  by the Dutch and others, with arguments over subsidies and the price of gas to heat glasshouses. Defra should as a matter or urgency bring forward support systems to encourage a big expansion of our domestic capacity to grow fruit, flowers and vegetables, and to expand our meat and dairy activities to reduce imports. Our competitors use a range of trade barriers and subsidies to benefit them. Our market share has fallen a lot in the last fifty years. Today there is strong demand for more UK produced food which super markets are struggling to meet. Note how anything home produced sports the Union flag to reassure, and note how anything from the continent has its origin  in small letters with  no national or EU flag to entice  us, presumably for fear of deterring those who want domestic produce. More fields honestly tilled and more orchards full of fruit would add to the beauty of our landscape.

 

           I have no problem with an electric revolution, but it can only proceed with popular consent. That means working with the private sector on the better and cheaper ways of travelling and heating that electricity might afford us. It also means proceeding at a pace which ensures we have enough electric power to meet the needs of the buyers of the new electric products. The UK has been pushed into dependence on importing electricity from the continent. We should be self sufficient and building extra capacity to allow for growth. Staying short of power and dependent on unreliable imports points to higher prices and disruptions ahead. We need more hydro and pump storage to smooth out interruptible power and more biomass for  baseload based on UK wood pellets.

 

            In Australia and in Canada in their 2019 General elections the left of centre parties went too far with their decarbonisation proposals. People dependent on fossil fuels felt threatened, and voted instead for the Conservatives who took a more moderate line. We need to learn from that. Transitions have losers as well as winners and they have votes and rights. An opposition party can demand the closure of all traditional vehicle factories and the end of North Sea oil and gas. Government has to decide what happens to replace them and what happens to all the people who would lose their jobs by being on the wrong side of change.

 

         

 

The government has this week published the special review 3 MPs and officials carried out into  the opportunities to reduce the regulatory burden and to have smarter regulation.

I agree with their main recommendation that future regulation should be proportionate  and not based on the precautionary principle of EU regulations. I also agree Regulators should take into account competitiveness, competition and innovation. Regulations can benefit from partial exemption for innovative developments and trials.

I welcome the wish to abolish the 2019 Ports Directive which was agreed by the UK ports and government at the time be a needless extra burden on them. I also support amending the Weights and Measures  Act to decriminalise and authorise the use of imperial measures if people wish.

I would liked to have seen other proposals to make life simpler and cheaper for entrepreneurs and small businesses.

I would include for example

 

1. Raise the VAT registration threshold to lift more small businesses out of VAT. It is a major burden setting up a new VAT system for a small business, and a disincentive to growth.
2. Take VAT off domestic fuel to cut fuel poverty and boost spending power of those on low incomes
3. Remove VAT from insulation, boiler controls, new heating systems, draught excluders and other green products. Installing more of these is labour intensive and helpful.
4. Remove need for a person paying full NI on earned income to claim deferral of extra NI on other earnings every year. This is a waste of time and government effort when no tax is due.
5. Reverse M and S decision in ECJ allowing grouping of EU continental losses to cut U.K. Corporation Tax. HMT should  like this as it will collect more tax from U.K. successful businesses.
6. Remove Digital Tax imposed unilaterally and await G7 or OECD agreement on how to tax digital activity other than through normal business taxes. This tax is leading to tariff retaliation from the USA, raises little  money and causes trouble with on line/in shop retail hybrid businesses.
7. Raise the Business rate exemption for smaller commercial property
8. Exempt a self employed person from Employer NI for their first employee for the first two years.We need to grow more self employed businesses and create more jobs
9. Remove threat of IR35 changes

 

 

ENERGY

 10.Remove expensive requirement on energy companies to install Smart meters. Let them and their customers do so if they wish. This is a £20 bn public spending commitment which is causing energy businesses difficulties as well.

11,Revise UK energy policy to give greater priority to self sufficiency of electricity and to ensuring a safe margin of capacity as we used to enjoy.

12 Change generation mix by introducing more lower cost supply through a bidding process, as we need lower power prices for the onshoring of industry to the UK and more self reliance. The UK needs  more biomass or green gas as baseload and can do with more hydro and pumped storage for flexibility. Too much reliance on wind is both costly given the need for backup and leaves us vulnerable on capacity on low wind days.

 

 

BUSINESS

13 Speed up introduction of Freeports and make sure they have high levels of exemption from customs, taxes, and property restrictions.

14 Create new Enterprise Zones, including in conjunction with Free ports.

15 Change procurement rules allowing more UK only bidding for UK government contracts, as with MOD.UK government purchases should be much more UK rich in  choice of goods. Why does the UK public sector import  any cars?

16 Develop the vaccine model where UK government backed a research project, helped with installation of production capacity and then had preference for purchasing product.

 

FISHING

 

17 Ban EU vessels fishing for shellfish in Class B waters in response to their ban on our exports

18 Step up policing of UK fishing rules on foreign vessels

19 Ban supertrawlers over 100m in length

20 Get DEFRA to roll out faster, better and more generous plans to step up UK domestic fishing capacity in both sea going vessels and processing fish

 

FARMING

 

21 Inject more attention to promote more food production in the UK into new subsidy schemes

22. Speed up schemes to install more market gardening capacity into UK to produce our own temperate fruits and vegetables, and to extend the growing season under glass and polytunnels

23 Ensure tree planting schemes and subsidies are also linked to much more sustainable forestry to produce timber for home use. Why do we import timber to burn at Drax power station? Why don’t we produce more of our own wood for housebuilding and furniture fabrication?

TRANSPORT

24.Reimpose road charge on foreign lorries using U.K. roads to help domestic haulage

25.Repeal the limitations placed on the Merchant Shipping Act by the ECJ, and develop a better framework for UK owned and registered ships. We need to encourage more UK flagged vessels.

I attach the check list from the Report of their suggestions. I would  be interested in comments, as government will now consider all this. Many of their proposals takes the form of additional regulation for new areas which they wish to see done in a spirit of assisting the development of these areas. It would have been helpful to have some worked up proposals of how this might work.

 

THE Annex A: Full list of recommendations
A BOLD NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE UK
1. Promote productivity, competition and innovation through a new framework of
proportionate, agile and less bureaucratic regulation.
1.1. Reimpose the ‘one in, two out’ regulatory duty on all government
departments.
1.2. Make the UK a global pioneer and leader in agile, adaptive regulation to
increase productivity, competition and innovation.
1.3. Create a lead Cabinet Minister and ensure there is a Cabinet Committee
responsible for the implementation of regulatory reform.
1.4. Mandate a new “Proportionality Principle” at the heart of all UK regulation.
1.5. Use digital sandboxes to test innovations more quickly and ensure regulation
is based on evidence of impact.
1.6. Regulators should introduce ‘scaleboxes’ to provide agile regulatory support
to high growth innovative scale-up companies.
1.7. Give regulators statutory objectives to promote competition and innovation in
the markets they regulate.
1.8. Delegate greater flexibility to regulators to put the principles of agile regulation
into practice, allowing more to be done through decisions, guidance and rules
rather than legislation.
1.9. Give the Regulatory Reform Committee a remit to scrutinise all regulators and
regulatory reform proposals. Bolster its resources, including with seconded
experts, to carry out this expanded function.
1.10. Include consideration of the wider effects of proposed policies in Regulatory
Impact Assessments, including on innovation, competition, the environment,
and trade.
1.11. Establish a framework for regulators to report publicly on how they have
promoted competition and innovation in the markets they regulate.
1.12. Produce a simple annual innovation scorecard to assess departments and
regulators on the markets they are responsible for.
1.13. Embed our recommendations in the UK Innovation Strategy, use
non-legislative and existing regulatory powers where possible and make use
of targeted primary legislation.
1.14. Set a UK standards strategy to promote the use of British standards
internationally as a way to boost UK influence and promote trade and exports.
SECTOR PROPOSALS
UK PENSIONS AND INVESTMENTS
2. Reform regulations limiting UK pension and insurance funds to enable greater
investment in UK domestic growth.
118
2.1. Enable Defined Contribution (DC) pensions schemes to diversify their
investments into venture capital and businesses that drive Net Zero and
levelling up commitments.
2.2. Amend matching adjustment and risk margins in Solvency II to release
significant capital for investment in the UK.
2.3. Attract private investment to help regenerate local infrastructure and support
the UK’s levelling up agenda.
UK START-UP AND SCALE-UP FINANCE
3. Amend the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) and the Enterprise
Investment Scheme (EIS) to maximise Private Equity and Venture Capital
investment in growth industries.
3.1. Amend the age eligibility requirements for companies to access investment
through EIS and SEIS to ensure businesses outside London and the south
east benefit equally.
3.2. Increase the maximum level of SEIS investment.
3.3. Commit to the continuation of EIS beyond 2025.
FINANCIAL SERVICES
4. Restore a common law principles based approach to financial services
regulation.
4.1. Amend inherited MiFID II Position Limits to introduce greater flexibility while
preserving protections on critical contracts.
4.2. Introduce a more discretionary and judgment-based approach to calculating
Central Counterparty Clearing House (CCP) margins.
5. Deliver a regulatory framework that supports UK global leadership in FinTech
and digitalisation of financial services infrastructure.
5.1. Mandate the expansion of Open Banking to Open Finance quickly, and take a
more market-led, Australian-style approach.
5.2. Increase competition in the banking sector by adopting a graduated
regulatory approach for challenger banks.
5.3. Reducing Anti-Money Laundering (AML) burdens for new Open
Banking/Fintech services, which have been caught in the scope of the EU
AML Directive.
5.4. Accelerate UK plans to develop a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) and
launch a pilot within 12 – 18 months.
6. Amend disclosure and transparency requirements for financial services
products to make them more proportionate and less burdensome.
6.1. Remove the requirement to provide costs and charges reports to professional
investors and eligible counterparties from MiFID II.
119
6.2. Remove the “investment recommendation” disclosure requirements from
MAR for wholesale clients.
6.3. Confine the key information document disclosure requirement in PRIIPs to
genuinely complex packaged products.
DATA
7. Replace the UK General Data Protection Regulation 2018 with a new, more
proportionate, UK Framework of Citizen Data Rights to give people greater
control of their data while allowing it to flow more freely and drive growth
across healthcare, public services and the digital economy.
7.1. Reform GDPR to give people meaningful control of their data.
7.2. Reform GDPR for artificial intelligence, including by removing Article 22 of
GDPR and focussing instead on the legitimacy of automated
decision-making.
SMART GRID
8. Create the ‘smart’ energy grid of the future, through interoperable data
standards, reforms to the energy retail market, regulation, and licencing, and a
new regulatory framework for smart appliances.
8.1. Support the deployment of low-carbon technologies on to8.2. Create clear consistent technical and regulatory standards for ‘energy smart’
appliances to support their roll out – creating a more stable energy network in
response to growing demands for energy.
8.3. Modernise energy retail regulation to support novel and innovative
participation in the energy market and improve consumer protections by using
activity-based regulation rather than supply licenses.
8.4. Reform the regulation framework for the retail energy market to enable
innovative approaches to tariff pricing and new products.
8.5. Prioritise investment in infrastructure in pricing negotiations with energy
market operators.
NET ZERO
9. Reform the current UK regulatory framework governing energy generation and
distribution to match the Government’s ambitions for green growth and Net
Zero.
9.1. Fully implement the short-term findings of the Offshore Transmission Network
Review, reforming offshore transmission connections to support disruptive
‘pathfinder’ projects in the industry.
9.2. Reform the regulatory framework for offshore wind to simplify responsibilities
across government, and create a more coordinated offshore network that
uses standardised designs and can link with interconnectors at scale.
120
9.3. Reform OFTO regulations to unblock industry coordination of offshore wind
projects.
9.4. Review the Grid Code and other relevant technical codes and standards, to
ensure they adequately support innovative net-zero and decarbonisation
technologies.
9.5. Design and deliver an energy network ‘blueprint’ to support further delivery of
offshore wind power.
9.6. Create a new regulatory framework for hydrogen via a new Office for
Hydrogen in BEIS, encouraging investment and innovation in the sector.
9.7. Increase the legal limit on hydrogen blending by amending the Gas Safety1.5. Simplify and accelerate NIHR adoption and peer review process for trials that
are fully funded with standardisation of costing tools across academic and
commercial trials.
11.6. Streamline clinical trial set up by HRA adopting automated AI or digital
processing of ethical and trials approvals.
11.7. The MHRA and HRA should accelerate the adoption of novel clinical trial
processes through better digitising of trials applications and data and use of
novel models like UK Trials Acceleration Programme (TAP) and IMPACT with
the capacity to deliver registration level trials.
11.8. Replace the Caldicott data guardians with a HRA Single Data Controller
‘One-stop shop’ for Health Research Information Governance with
harmonised committees to reduce bureaucracy and standardise processes.
11.9. Establish a centralised health dataspine, where all data is stored for ease of
access by approved users across the health network, with standardised
format and approval routes for data collection and curation.
11.10. Reform the ICH GCP Guidelines 1995 to embrace the latest novel digital and
biomarker end points, and replace ‘standard of care’ control arms with
‘synthetic control arms’ derived from RWE (Real World Evidence) and RWD
(Real World Data).
11.11. Accelerate Access to innovation by establishing clear digital framework for
Conditional Approvals and Adaptive Licensing of new therapies like gene
therapies based on data including from the new Electronic Patient Recorded
Outcomes Measure (EPROMs) dataspine.
11.12. Expand the MHRA remit and Innovation Team to include promotion of UK
leadership in innovative trial design, new accelerated access regulatory
pathways, standardising format and approval routes for data collecting,
curating and collation, and use of novel clinical and digital biomarkers and AI.
11.13. Set global Standards in Clinical Research Skills through a UK professional
standard for clinical trials research nurses, clinical trial managers, data
managers & clinical trials pharmacists.
11.14. MHRA to work with stakeholders to establish a UK Regulatory Innovation Hub
on the same model as the US Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science14. MHRA to work with stakeholders to establish a UK Regulatory Innovation Hub
and Innovation (CERSIs).
11.15. Regulation of medical cannabinoids and medicinal CBD should move from
the Home Office to DHSC / MHRA to create a regulatory pathway for
assessment and approval based on patient benefit.
DIGITAL HEALTH
12. Establish a clear regulatory pathway for new digital health technology from
approved health apps to integrated healthcare ICS system management to
ensure the UK is at the forefront of the digitalisation of healthcare.
122
12.1. Remove the barriers to adoption of health apps by creating a new digital
health regulatory unit within the MHRA, responsible for establishing clear
digital interoperability standards and an integrated regulatory pathway for
development of Consumer Healthcare Apps.
12.2. Remove barriers to accelerate the integration of business-to-consumer digital
health, and create a simple regulatory framework to help new companies
develop tools that recruit, diagnose and treat otherwise hard-to-reach
patients.
12.3. Remove barriers to local health prevention through the new ICS by
establishing a digital framework for assessing Disease Cost and Population
Health by each local authority area.
12.4. Reform GDPR to improve use of healthcare data by establishing federated
models of data sharing and creating a joint sandbox between the ICO and the
HRA.
12.5. Update regulations on medical devices to represent the latest technological
advancements and to licence and adopt AI and AI software as a diagnostic
device.
12.6. Remove the barriers to mental health apps by accelerating the integration of
business to consumer patient wellness apps like IESO Healthcare with clinical
neuroscience research networks like the Case Register Information System
and NIHR research databases like Incliseran to create an integrated UK
digital health spine for mental health.
12.7. Extend the IAPT outcome measurement framework (or an IAPT like
framework) to Children and Young People and to other therapeutic
interventions (e.g. drug treatment) to be able to compare drug and non-drug
therapy and conduct multimodal trials.
AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
13. Replace EU rules with an integrated agri-environment framework which better
supports the development of more environmentally sustainable agriculture,
with more proportionate and evidence-based, outcomes-focussed regulation.
13.1. Promote a flexible, market based trading system for biodiversity offset credits.
13.2. Implement with urgency the data sharing provisions in the Agriculture Act
2020 to unlock data silos in agriculture and the environment.
13.3. Develop a comprehensive system of environmental metrics for sustainable
agriculture, incorporating the environmental impacts of a production system
from field to fork, to support clearer food labelling.
13.4. Develop a supportive regulatory environment to enable the development of
and increased use of agri-tech to promote sustainable agriculture.
13.5. Simplify compliance with environmental licensing and permitting
requirements, with the aim of moving from a mechanistic compliance-based
system toward outcome measurement.
13.6. Deliver a common-sense solution to transitioning chemical registrations from
EU to the UK REACH.
13.7. Introduce further exemptions to Annex XVII of UK REACH to allow the reuse
of products in support of the UK’s circular economy ambition.
123
13.8. Reform landfill surrender requirements to accelerate diversification away from
landfill.
13.9. Adopt a risk-based approach to waste regulation to drive greater re-use of
waste products.
13.10. Remove burdensome EU regulation on the animal feed industry, whilst
maintaining rigorous safety standards.
AGRICULTURAL GENOMICS
14. The UK Government should actively support research into and commercial
adoption by UK farmers and growers of gene edited crops, particularly those
which help the transition away from agrochemicals to naturally occurring
biological resilience.
14.1. Interpret current GM rules on a case-by-case basis, to permit specific crops
with proven benefits and which are consistent with the UK’s rigorous
standards on food safety and environmental protection.
SPACE AND SATELLITES
15. Through reform of the Space Industry Act, the Government should address the
indemnity and liability issues currently holding back investor confidence in the
UK as a satellite launch and operations hub.
15.1. Amend the Space Industry Act 2018 to cap liability and indemnity
requirements for licence applicants to launch and operate satellites from the
UK.
15.2. Ensure the Civil Aviation Authority has the expertise to fulfil its new and
additional responsibilities as a regulator for the space sector.
15.3. Develop an Earth Observation (EO) data regulatory policy framework.
NUTRACEUTICALS
16. Create a new regulatory framework for the fast-growing category of novel
health enhancing foods and supplements to promote investment in the UK as a
leader in the nutraceutical sector.
16.1. Establish clear regulatory standards and definitions for ‘nutraceutical products
and create a permissive environment for regulation of products with accepted
science outcomes, to form a new easier nutraceutical product regulation
pathway.
16.2. Encourage NIHR to gather data to support claims and enable research into
products medicinal and health properties, lead on international
standardisations and ensure a pathway to market, so that consumers are
aware of the health benefits and better able to make informed choices.
OTHER TARGETED REFORMS
17. Deliver other targeted regulatory reforms to reduce the regulatory burden on
124
businesses.
17.1. Amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to allow traders to use imperial
measurements without the equivalent metric measurement.
17.2. Develop an optional e-labelling system for devices with screens or that can be
connected to a screen, to display compliance information.
17.3. Repeal the Port Services Regulation 2019 (SI 2019 No. 575) to remove
unnecessary, EU-derived regulatory burdens on UK ports.
17.4. Liberalise parallel import laws to reduce prices and increase choice for
consumers.
17.5. Urgently review guidance on hand sanitisers so that tested, effective
non-alcohol based sanitisers can be used