This article by Neil O’Brien is a useful contribution to the debate.

We ALL have to be mindful that this COVID19 pandemic will most likely be with us for the rest of our lives - just the same as illness that has struck us in the past. Measles, small pox, polio, dypyheria, TB, influenza and many more where we have to be vaccinated. (Some of these strains of illness many younger people have not heard of)

Some observations.

- Whilst the CV19 transmission rate continues to be high (hospitalisation and deaths too) we should not be thinking of lifting restrictions until everybody has had at least the first dose of a vaccine.
- Remember those in the younger age groups are becoming ill, some are in hospital. It is affecting them
- If schools are to open every teacher and school staff should be vaccinated well before children go back to school. That means allowing for the 3 weeks period for immunity to take effect
- Schools created a transmission rate and the perception given that all was well. We need to be very cautious and specific rules introduced to insist on social distancing, washing hands and face covering otherwise we will be back to a stricter lockdown
- Face covering should be introduced both in and out of doors. (A reminder to everybody that we have not yet defeated, if ever, this virus and if transmission is not curtailed it will only get worse.
- Those not adhering to ALL the rules should fined and possibly tagged
- Close the borders.

We should write a Paper and submit to Downing Street direct. wilfredaspinall@me.com

An interesting proposal. My first inclination has been to abolish the HoL - all +/- 850 - and create a small legislative chamber of say 100. Look at the US where there are 435 members of Congress and 100 Senators whereas for much smaller population we have 650 MP’s and 850 Peers.

ReForm of the HoC with MP’s with a defined role, together with changes to the functioning of Local Government (devolution of powers to Unitary Councils run my Mayoral Teams), together with a slimmed down HoL (again with a defined role) would produce efficiency, cost effective governance and better ability to “get stuff done”.

Your proposal might be a half way house giving those entrusted with legislative functions as a defined role to the HoL and naming them Senator/Peers.

The other Peers would / might receive a title only in an honorary position and not participating Or attending HoL debates and voting rights.

Virginia Crosby MP is absolutely right to highlight nuclear power capacity to ease carbon emissions. We need a strategy where we have a mix of energy sources that will allow our energy capacity to not rely on imported energy.

Renewables are to be encouraged but their performance is intermittent ( no wind, sun, and water for hydro) whereas nuclear can be constant.

There is a debate to be held on financing the building of nuclear power stations especially with the current Chinese situation (we must not be reliant on one source of financial investment).

The question of nuclear waste also needs to be understood by the population. Short term it is stored on the site of the power station, long term various proposals have been made which need further examination and acceptance by the UK population

But as a supporter of nuclear energy I am pleased to read her comments. This is the second MP this last few weeks that has come out in favour of nuclear.

As a supporter of nuclear for the last 35 years having visited, with colleagues, whilst a member of the European Economic and Social Committee Energy Section at Sellafield and Sizewell it is essential that the UK undertakes stock of energy sources that will encourage investment in specific regions of the UK.

A secure energy supply will attract investment and industry to a region.

Building of nuclear power stations itself brings employment to an area and the spin off creates a prosperous environment.

We cannot afford to just abandon 40% of our electricity supply and rely on renewables, especially if we are to abandon coal (already done) and gas (where we rely on imported supply). We need a sensible mix of energy source that is financially sound and where supply is secure.

Don’t forget some of our gas supply depends on Russia. Could this become a problem.

I get the impression that there are a number of new intake MP’s who are favourable to nuclear.

Virginia Crosby MP is absolutely right to highlight nuclear power capacity to ease carbon emissions. We need a strategy where we have a mix of energy sources that will allow our energy capacity to not rely on imported energy.

Renewables are to be encouraged but their performance is intermittent ( no wind, sun, and water for hydro) whereas nuclear can be constant.

There is a debate to be held on financing the building of nuclear power stations especially under the current Chinese situation (we must not be reliant on one source of financial investment).

The question of nuclear waste also needs to be understood by the population. Short term it is stored on the site of the power station, long term various proposals have been made which need further examination and acceptance of the UK population

But as a supporter of nuclear energy I am please to read her comments. This is the second MP this last few weeks who has come out in favour of nuclear.

COVID19 time and we need to discourage vaping inside and outside. It presents us with a vapour that is drawn into the mouth (and for some the lungs) of those using this product. Exhaled and spread about in the air and on hard and soft surfaces.

For years I have argued against smoking in public spaces and if there is to be eating in restaurants outside I guess the smoker will say they can light up a cigarette - and also vape. We need to ban all forms of smoking, cigarettes and vaping.

Remember not just the person using the stuff is affected but those having to sit or stand near them.

It is bad enough sitting next to a smoker when you can smell the stale tobacco on their clothes and hair.

Ray O’Rourke: A technological revolution is underway in construction. Here’s how the Government can speed it up.

This article is a welcome addition for the reform of the construction industry. It’s content applies not just to large infrastructure projects but also to house building too.

There is a saying - “would you build a jumbo jet in a field” of course not, components are created perhaps in different locations but the actual build takes place in a hanger.

The same can apply in a modern technological society where the weather element is mitigated. The materials readily available and the construction time, as mentioned in Ray O’Rourke’s article reduced saving money and getting the structure ready for use by bringing the structure to the site already to be put together

There is however a further step that Ray does not mention - the planning system. It can take as long to put a project together with a planning application as it may take to build.

We need a radical reform of the planning system whether for big infrastructure projects, building large developments or the development by a small local builder and the self build.

The cost of the planning in time and funds, not to mention delivery of the final product.

This all needs to be really examined.

Wilfred ASPINALL
Former Hon Chairman
Forum in the European Parliament for Construction

Regarding my post

Happy for individuals to comment direct if they feel they cannot add their comments in a public forum
wilfredaspinall@me.com

The Comments by Commenius earlier today are interesting in respect of ConHome leanings towards BREXIT. The Conservative Party membership, in my opinion, are wholeheartedly in favour of the governments strategy towards Brexit - as indeed are the electorate judged by the result of the 2019 General Election. (Not to mention the 2016 Referendum)

Yet when do we see a complete commitment from Con Home setting out the governments strategic papers and commenting on them in support of making the UK an independent sovereign state. We have left the EU now we want to see the relationship with the EU concluded by a non tariff, mutual recognition Free Trade Agreement - not under the control of EU legislation or EU Institutions nor the European Court of Justice.

We don’t need an extension beyond 31 DECEMBER 2020

As an aside can your readers imagine the EU member states that pump commodities and services into the UK finding these increase in price and that trade falling away putting their business and economy at risk

Con Home readers should read the government statements on their negotiating stance. Well for the record here they are.

The UK’s approach to negotiations with the European Union.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/our-ap...

A service to Con Home readers would be to have more constructive articles by people who have the experience of involvement with the EU Institutions for which the “Bring Back Control” slogan promoted by Dominic Cummings demonstrated the will of the majority of the people in the UK

HAPPY READING

The article seems to have forgotten that we left the EU on 31/12/19. The Barnier statement is nothing new in their attempts to divert the UK away from its negotiating strategy. The UK wants a FTA and the EU member states need one because they need to trade with the 5th largest world economy. For the EU to not only loose a large net contributor to the EU budget but then the EU member states cut their noses off to a large chunk of their trade would be a real indication of their protectionist policy.

The UK must ignore the Barnier comments, stick to their policy of ending the transition period on 31/12/20, secure a realistic non tariff FTA together with mutual agreement about the future relationship between the UK and the EU and it’s member states

the Internal market had two sides to it. Free trade within the EU and harmonisation of standards governing that trade. This is what the EU want to preserve as the “level playing field”. By leaving the EU we clearly cannot participate in the Internal Market but we can enter into a FTA where there is recognition of equivalence in standards. UK standards are not going to be diminished.

Importantly we also want FTA’s with other Third Countries and to do that we cannot be under the control of the EU and certainly not under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The UK must be clear. NO EXTENSION of the Implementation period. This is not a negotiating position and the quicker Mr Barnier acknowledges that the better the final deal.