The Sizewell delusion
Unarguably, we need a constant baseload of nuclear power to stop the lights going out in mid-century: commitment to Sizewell can't be all wrong, despite local objections. But what's intriguing about this week's news is that it coincides with the naming of Rolls-Royce as 'preferred bidder' to deliver the UK's first small modular reactors, in theory much easier to bring to fruition. If SMRs can really deliver nuclear power one town at a time by the mid-2030s, as planned, Hinkley Point and unfinished Sizewell will begin to look like dinosaurs.
The simple truth is that both should have been done and dusted a generation ago. But nuclear decision-ducking has been a shame on successive governments for as long as most of us can remember.
Defensive stocks
My recent suggestion of a 'Rearmament Isa' that would incentivise savers to buy shares in UK manufacturers of military kit brought a positive response from one former defence minister but not from the current Chancellor who, let's face it, may not be among my most devoted readers. Nevertheless, I'm hoping the idea might feature in an Isa overhaul this autumn, because last week's £68 billion defence review wish-list of everything from ammo factories to autonomous weaponry was a reminder of how vital it is to sustain an innovative, well-capitalised, British-owned defence industry, rather than one that is picked off piece by piece by US and other foreign predators. And it's fair to say that the review's call for 'warfighting readiness' makes the sector a strong bet for investors anyway, with or without Isa tax benefits.
Blue-chip defence stocks have already soared since the beginning of the year – BAE Systems up 68 per cent, Rolls-Royce 55 per cent – but may pause as the market discovers how much of the wish list the government actually commits to buying and to what extent UK firms are impeded (as President Emmanuel Macron of France has signalled) from supplying EU rearmament demand. In the meantime, smart stock-pickers will hunt for defence-related businesses that have yet to catch the upswing.
Naturally on this theme I consult this column's veteran investor Robin Andrews, who suggests taking a look at 'engineering and electronics companies that are vital in the supply chain and whose customers are major defence companies and in some cases governments directly'. Here's his promising half-dozen: Melrose Industries in aerospace; Hunting in precision engineering; Filtronic, already a hot stock in telecom systems; and in various aspects of IT, Concurrent Technologies, EnSilica and the curiously named Raspberry Pi. As ever, we urge you to do your own research.
City stampede
Here we go again: three more tech companies abandoning London. Spectris, a listed precision instrument maker that descends from the Fairey seaplane company and might have featured in our roll call of defence-adjacent stocks above, is selling itself to the US private equity giant Advent for £3.7 billion. Alphawave, an Anglo-Canadian designer of 'high-speed connectivity solutions' that listed in London in 2021, has fallen to US microchip maker Qualcomm for £1.8 billion. Both deals are at huge premiums over the companies' last quoted share prices, reflecting the pattern of chronic undervaluation that has driven the decline of the London Stock Exchange and provoked a stampede of takeovers.
Third to go this week is Wise, a money-transfer fintech founded in London by Estonian emigrés and now worth £11 billion, but moving its primary listing to New York. Time and again we're told City authorities, Treasury ministers and the Exchange itself are urgently pursuing reforms to make London's capital markets slicker and sexier; but so far, as the exodus accelerates, to no effect whatever.
Top shopkeeper
Last week, to some readers' irritation, I applauded a €100 million bonus for Michael O'Leary in his 31st year as the presiding genius of Ryanair. So if I'm in favour of high pay for high performance, logic might dictate that I should also favour the £7 million award to Stuart Machin for his third year's work as chief executive of Marks & Spencer. But I'm not so sure.
The high street chain has certainly revived under Machin's leadership: profits are up, stores look fresher, the food offer outpaces rivals and the shares have risen 150 per cent since he took the helm in May 2022. And he's clearly not to blame for the cyber-attack that crippled M&S's website and cost the business £300 million.
But nor is he a creator of the M&S brand: he's a hired hand (having previously worked for Sainsbury's, Tesco, Asda and in Australia) whose efforts have been closely mentored by his powerful chairman, Archie Norman. In that case, is it really fair to pay him 140 times the average store manager's salary?
Then again, I hear you mutter, what's fairness got to do with it if £7 million is the going rate for global boardroom talent? Maybe, but it's a big number for running a shop and it puts Machin in a merciless media spotlight. Having said which, I'll pop out to buy my M&S picnic lunch.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Germany stops military exports that could be used in Gaza
It was a quick response by one of Israel's strongest international backers to a decision by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet to take over Gaza City. The move by Germany, which had previously stopped short of tougher lines against Israel's government taken by some of its European Union allies, appears likely to further isolate Israel over the military takeover plan which has been condemned by the United Nations and supporters of Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. In a statement, Mr Merz emphasised that Israel 'has the right to defend itself against Hamas's terror' and said the release of Israeli hostages and 'purposeful' negotiations towards a ceasefire in the 22-month conflict 'are our top priority'. He added that Hamas must not have a role in the future of Gaza. 'The even harsher military action by the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip, approved by the Israeli cabinet last night, makes it increasingly difficult for the German government to see how these goals will be achieved,' he added. 'Under these circumstances, the German government will not authorise any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip until further notice.' The German government remains deeply concerned about the suffering of civilians in Gaza, he said, adding: 'With the planned offensive, the Israeli government bears even greater responsibility than before for providing for their needs.' He called on Israel to allow comprehensive access for aid deliveries — including for UN organisations and other non-governmental organisations — and said Israel 'must continue to comprehensively and sustainably address the humanitarian situation in Gaza'. Germany also called on Israel's government 'not to take any further steps toward annexing the West Bank'. It is not clear which military equipment from Germany will be affected. Germany, with its history with the Holocaust, has been among the strongest western backers of Israel, no matter which government is in power. Mr Merz's government did not join announcements by French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer that they plan to formally recognise a Palestinian state next month.
Spectator
16 minutes ago
- Spectator
To be a success, Starmer's migrant deal must pass tough tests
First came the Starmer-Macron handshake, sealing the UK-France migrant treaty. Following that was a series of Home Office stories about crackdowns on illegal working and smuggler gang adverts, filling the sleepy summer news pages. Then, the 21-page treaty itself was unveiled. And, finally, on Thursday morning Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, sombrely declared that the first migrants had been detained pending their return to France, with pixelated video footage of them supplied to broadcasters just in time for the evening TV bulletins. In terms of media handling, press coverage and communications, the one-in, one-out migrant deal with France has been impressively choreographed, with a drumbeat of related announcements, statements and policies building up to the launch of the plan. It has demonstrated that the government are taking action, rather than merely talking about taking action. It may also, at least for a few days, have slowed the bandwagon of Reform UK. But far tougher tests lie ahead. The main problem is that the scheme is unproven; indeed, it is a pilot, which means that things are likely to go wrong or not work as intended, as tends to happen when ideas are trialled. One obvious risk is that the French authorities refuse to accept a significant number of the migrants selected by the British for removal or delay making decisions about taking them. There are strict timescales laid out in the treaty, which says both countries have agreed to work towards an 'end-to-end process' of three months. It is also unclear how the one-in, one-out balance between returns to France of migrants on small boats and arrivals in the UK of asylum seekers will be achieved. There is a danger, for the government, that the process of requesting transfer to Britain from France is seen to be smooth and swift, acting as a magnet for refugees to apply, while the reciprocal returns arrangements become gummed up. Capacity in immigration detention centres, where there are currently only 400 spare beds, may limit the number of migrants who can be identified for return to France under the pact, particularly as the government continues to ramp up detentions and removals under other immigration powers. As constitutional experts have pointed out, the treaty was laid before parliament on Tuesday when neither the Commons nor the Lords was sitting and ratified by the government 24 hours later. That meant that the standard procedure for the scrutiny of international treaties by MPs and Peers, under which ratification can take place only after 21 days, was not followed. Ministers are permitted to bypass these rules in 'exceptional' cases, but whether it was lawful to do so for the one-in, one-out treaty is expected to form one of the main grounds of legal challenges against it that will inevitably be brought on behalf of at least some of the migrants chosen for removal to France. Their cases are also likely to revolve around the way officials selected them for deportation, ahead of others, and whether an individual's personal circumstances were sufficiently taken into account. The legal hazard for the Home Office is that some migrants will reveal background details about their treatment in their homeland, during their journey to British shores or at the hands of smuggler gangs that make the courts uncomfortable about their detention and imminent removal, potentially undermining the entire scheme. But there are a number of key factors that will work in the government's favour – and help them clear many of the hurdles. On the legal front, France is regarded as a 'safe' country, so human rights claims that migrants will not be treated properly or fairly are destined to fail. In contrast, the Rwanda scheme, introduced by the Conservatives, was blocked because the UK Supreme Court ruled that the east African state was not a safe place for migrants. Operationally, the Rwanda experiment provided Home Office civil servants with valuable experience in devising a large-scale removals programme. Dan Hobbs, director general of the migration and borders group, who led the planning, is now helping to steer through the accord with France. And the principle behind the new treaty – returning people who've arrived in the UK without permission to a safe country they've just travelled from – is likely to command broad public and political support which the government will try to capitalise on during its forthcoming court battles against migrants and campaigners. The biggest question, however, is whether the one-in, one-out deal will work in stopping, or at least substantially reducing, small boat crossings. It's been widely reported that only around 50 migrants will be returned to France each week, compared with an average of more than 800 who make the journey to Britain. At that tiny level of returns – one in 16, migrants who have risked their lives to get to camps in northern France will willingly take the chance that they might be sent back, while smugglers could even use the low return rate to promote their services. It could be that suggestions that returns will be in such low numbers are part of a subtle campaign of expectation management by the Home Office – a common practice among seasoned politicians and advisers. If returns were to exceed 50 per week, it would be viewed by some as a great success. A more likely scenario is that 50 is a figure which is considered to be achievable on practical grounds and acceptable to the French, who have their own major issues around immigration. The government deserves credit for putting the treaty in place 12 months after taking office. But unless the number of returns ramps up significantly, it is virtually impossible to see the one-in, one-out scheme acting as a deterrent, certainly on any meaningful scale. That means ministers must accelerate their work on other fronts to stem the crossings, bring order to the asylum system and move migrants out of hotels. A deal with countries in the Balkans for 'return hubs' to house asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected must be next on the agenda.
.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves gives green light for tax crackdown on savings accounts
Savers could see tax due on interest payments deducted directly from their salaries in future after Rachel Reeves approved rule changes on banks sharing customer details. The chancellor wants it to be easier for HMRC to charge people the tax due on their savings, with an estimated 300,000 more people than five years ago now passing the threshold for when that payment kicks in. Currently, basic rate taxpayers have a £1,000 personal allowance on earning interest tax-free. This drops to £500 for higher rate taxpayers and zero for additional rate. There's also a £5,000 'starting rate' allowance but this drops with increased earnings and is wiped out for people who earn above £17,570 a year. With wages rising, fiscal drag has meant many people have moved into the next tax band and therefore their tax-free allowance on savings interest is cut - which can lead to a hefty or unexpected tax bill. The best way for savers to avoid such a scenario is, first and foremost, to ensure they are using a Cash ISA as their primary savings account, in which all earnings are tax-free. A £20,000 per person annual allowance applies to products across all ISA types, including investing ISAs or lifetime ISAs, for pensions or first-time buyers. AJ Bell calculated British people would earn around £20bn from non-ISA cash accounts this year, with HMRC expecting to collect more than £6bn in tax from savers. Letters will be sent with tax-code changes to those who face automatic deductions - meaning an unwelcome surprise in lower-than-expected take-home pay is on the agenda. 'For years, most savers didn't give a second thought to paying tax on their interest – rates were low and the Personal Savings Allowance offered a generous cushion. But the landscape has changed rapidly. A combination of rising interest rates, frozen tax thresholds, more people being pushed into higher tax bands, and years of cash ISAs being overlooked means many are now being pulled into the tax net for the first time,' said AJ Bell's Laura Suter, director of personal finance. 'For those who have moved their money to better-paying accounts and find themselves breaching the tax-free limit, many won't realise until the taxman catches up. 'Self-assessment filers will need to declare any interest earned, but for those on PAYE, HMRC will collect the data directly from their payslip by adjusting their tax code. That can lead to a nasty surprise when people see their take-home pay suddenly fall.' Banks will need to ask regular savings accounts customers for their National Insurance numbers starting from 2027, reports the Telegraph, which will then be passed on to HMRC. Once the rule changes become passed into legislation, expected next year, customers should not need to do anything further unless more changes are announced. Interest earned is already shared with HMRC but up to 20 per cent of it is 'unreadable', a report said, so tax cannot automatically be collected. The government has previously said changes will cost £35m to implement, while banks likewise face huge costs to make systemic alterations. An HMRC spokesperson said: 'These reforms will make it easier for customers to get their tax right first time, including paying tax on savings income, by improving our ability to match third-party data to taxpayer records. Making better use of data will also help us prevent error and fraud on behalf of the honest majority.'
