Amendment to the Hunting Act 2004

An amendment should be made to the Hunting Act 2004, Schedule 1, Exempt hunting, (6) Falconry, to require dogs to wear muzzles when flushing to birds of prey.

The Act should be amended to include draghunting and again dogs should be required to wear muzzles.

Why is this idea important?

An amendment should be made to the Hunting Act 2004, Schedule 1, Exempt hunting, (6) Falconry, to require dogs to wear muzzles when flushing to birds of prey.

The Act should be amended to include draghunting and again dogs should be required to wear muzzles.

Corporation Tax “Allowance”

There should be a change in the corporation tax system to give a tax free "allowance", perhaps in a similar way as an individual has a personal allowance, or by a % of turnover calculation. The general idea could be implemented in a few ways and probably with a few provisos attached, but the "essence" of this should be workable.

At the moment a small company operating with a very small profit margin, only just above break even, has to pay tax on that profit no matter how small. This makes it difficult for small companies to make capital repayments against loans or mortgages, which are not tax deductable.

Why is this idea important?

There should be a change in the corporation tax system to give a tax free "allowance", perhaps in a similar way as an individual has a personal allowance, or by a % of turnover calculation. The general idea could be implemented in a few ways and probably with a few provisos attached, but the "essence" of this should be workable.

At the moment a small company operating with a very small profit margin, only just above break even, has to pay tax on that profit no matter how small. This makes it difficult for small companies to make capital repayments against loans or mortgages, which are not tax deductable.

Revert back to Fire risk assessments being carried out by the Fire Officer

Legislation was changed regarding Fire Risk Assessments, so that the assessment became the responsibility of the business and the Fire Officer's inspection became a thing of the past. Each business has to provide its own written fire risk assessment.

Surely in an area vital to public safety such as this, we need the best qualified person to carry out the risk assessment? I'm sure an experienced fire officer will see dangers that many people would not be aware of, or worse still would chose to ignore.

My company makes furniture, including for bars, hotels, night clubs etc. and I am aware of several who have decided NOT to use fabric treated to the higher specification of flame retardancy (Crib 5), which used to be compulsory under the Fire Officer's recommendations, purely to save money. I have spoken to them regarding risk assessment, but generally they have decided that as everywhere is no-smoking, they'll never have a fire. Their assessment (if they have genuinely carried one out) is far too simplistic and potentially endangers people's lives. We must remove the responsibility for making these judgements from the individual, stop them from self-policing, and reintroduce the Fire Officer to make decisions in matters of public safety.

Why is this idea important?

Legislation was changed regarding Fire Risk Assessments, so that the assessment became the responsibility of the business and the Fire Officer's inspection became a thing of the past. Each business has to provide its own written fire risk assessment.

Surely in an area vital to public safety such as this, we need the best qualified person to carry out the risk assessment? I'm sure an experienced fire officer will see dangers that many people would not be aware of, or worse still would chose to ignore.

My company makes furniture, including for bars, hotels, night clubs etc. and I am aware of several who have decided NOT to use fabric treated to the higher specification of flame retardancy (Crib 5), which used to be compulsory under the Fire Officer's recommendations, purely to save money. I have spoken to them regarding risk assessment, but generally they have decided that as everywhere is no-smoking, they'll never have a fire. Their assessment (if they have genuinely carried one out) is far too simplistic and potentially endangers people's lives. We must remove the responsibility for making these judgements from the individual, stop them from self-policing, and reintroduce the Fire Officer to make decisions in matters of public safety.

Change the PCI DSS Compliance regulations

For small businesses like mine the annual PCI DSS compliance review is just unnecessary red tape. Although I accept that there needs to be legislation in place to protect card details, this could be served by a simple set of standards, rules and guidelines that all businesses must follow.

We don't keep any card details, other than keeping the merchant copy of a transaction slip for six months before shredding them, so why should I have to complete a lengthy questionnaire every year? If our card handling system has been found compliant, why do I have to apply for verification of compliance every year? Why not just make it necessary for me to report any changes? Yet again this appears to be a regulation where we have to confirm how we are doing something so that someone else can decide we are doing nothing wrong. It just seems like another job creation scheme.

Why is this idea important?

For small businesses like mine the annual PCI DSS compliance review is just unnecessary red tape. Although I accept that there needs to be legislation in place to protect card details, this could be served by a simple set of standards, rules and guidelines that all businesses must follow.

We don't keep any card details, other than keeping the merchant copy of a transaction slip for six months before shredding them, so why should I have to complete a lengthy questionnaire every year? If our card handling system has been found compliant, why do I have to apply for verification of compliance every year? Why not just make it necessary for me to report any changes? Yet again this appears to be a regulation where we have to confirm how we are doing something so that someone else can decide we are doing nothing wrong. It just seems like another job creation scheme.

HMRC should not be a preferential creditor

When a company becomes insolvent HMRC still (although somewhat reduced since 2003) enjoys the status of preferential creditor. This is quite simply unfair. Many other small companies, who are ordinary, unsecured creditors, will be far less able to endure a bad debt and may well be forced into closure themselves as a result. I've seen this happen to other companies. HMRC should be at the back of the queue rather than at the front, ensuring that other companies are not undermined by the failure of the one. HMRC should ensure that other creditors have been paid before they look for their share of funds.

Why is this idea important?

When a company becomes insolvent HMRC still (although somewhat reduced since 2003) enjoys the status of preferential creditor. This is quite simply unfair. Many other small companies, who are ordinary, unsecured creditors, will be far less able to endure a bad debt and may well be forced into closure themselves as a result. I've seen this happen to other companies. HMRC should be at the back of the queue rather than at the front, ensuring that other companies are not undermined by the failure of the one. HMRC should ensure that other creditors have been paid before they look for their share of funds.

Scrap the “failure to produce” law

We all know that with a quick tap on their computers the police can tell in a matter of seconds who owns a vehicle, if it's insured and if it has a valid MOT. They can also tell if the driver has a current, valid licence, what endorsements they have and if there are any outstanding warrants. Why then, if all of this has been confirmed, does a motorist have to endure the inconvenience of digging out all of the original paperwork and turning up at a police station with them within a limited time span? I can see no justification for this outdated law. A person stopped by police, even though they have committed no offence, can be asked to produce documents and failure to do so makes an innocent person a criminal.

Why is this idea important?

We all know that with a quick tap on their computers the police can tell in a matter of seconds who owns a vehicle, if it's insured and if it has a valid MOT. They can also tell if the driver has a current, valid licence, what endorsements they have and if there are any outstanding warrants. Why then, if all of this has been confirmed, does a motorist have to endure the inconvenience of digging out all of the original paperwork and turning up at a police station with them within a limited time span? I can see no justification for this outdated law. A person stopped by police, even though they have committed no offence, can be asked to produce documents and failure to do so makes an innocent person a criminal.

TV Licence Should include internet/mobile viewing

At the moment, although I have a TV licence in my name, it only covers me viewing at home.

In the old days of valve radios humming away in the corner of the room, we had to have a radio licence, but when technology moved on and the amazing transistor radio, no bigger than a couple of house bricks, was invented, our licences allowed us to listen to those on the beach, in the park or anywhere we pleased.

I think it's time that TV licencing followed suit and was dragged (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 21st century. My licence should cover me catching up on the BBC News headlines on my office computer at lunch time, without putting my company at risk of prosecution. I should be able to watch a sports update on my mobile or laptop if I'm out and about, without fear of prosecution.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, although I have a TV licence in my name, it only covers me viewing at home.

In the old days of valve radios humming away in the corner of the room, we had to have a radio licence, but when technology moved on and the amazing transistor radio, no bigger than a couple of house bricks, was invented, our licences allowed us to listen to those on the beach, in the park or anywhere we pleased.

I think it's time that TV licencing followed suit and was dragged (kicking and screaming if necessary) into the 21st century. My licence should cover me catching up on the BBC News headlines on my office computer at lunch time, without putting my company at risk of prosecution. I should be able to watch a sports update on my mobile or laptop if I'm out and about, without fear of prosecution.