Remove requirement for top level football grounds to be all-seated

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Why is this idea important?

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

DAB/ DTV coverage and license fee

I live in an area of Mid Wales where digital TV availability is limited to about a third of the channels available in other areas.  Also, there is no DAB coverage at all and I am unlikely to be able to receive DAB in the near future.

Why, then, should I pay the same license fee as someone in, for example, London, who can enjoy a much better service?  Why should I be expected effectively to subsidise others?

I suggest that there should be a graduated scale of license fee, with those unable to receive the full service paying proportionately less.

Why is this idea important?

I live in an area of Mid Wales where digital TV availability is limited to about a third of the channels available in other areas.  Also, there is no DAB coverage at all and I am unlikely to be able to receive DAB in the near future.

Why, then, should I pay the same license fee as someone in, for example, London, who can enjoy a much better service?  Why should I be expected effectively to subsidise others?

I suggest that there should be a graduated scale of license fee, with those unable to receive the full service paying proportionately less.

UK Jobs

After spending a weekend in the Capital London, I was dissmayed to find no UK citizens working at any  of the hotel, theatre, resturant, train and taxis we used. As so many of our own children are now leaving school, college and university and cannot get work at all. I would like to suggest that all uk companies be required to employ at least 70% British and 30% others. All companies with jobs in the UK should be supporting our economy this would get our young people into employment and reduce the numbers on benifits from families that have worked and paid into the system,  Foreign students/ exchange yrs students should not be taking all the UK  service industry jobs.

Why is this idea important?

After spending a weekend in the Capital London, I was dissmayed to find no UK citizens working at any  of the hotel, theatre, resturant, train and taxis we used. As so many of our own children are now leaving school, college and university and cannot get work at all. I would like to suggest that all uk companies be required to employ at least 70% British and 30% others. All companies with jobs in the UK should be supporting our economy this would get our young people into employment and reduce the numbers on benifits from families that have worked and paid into the system,  Foreign students/ exchange yrs students should not be taking all the UK  service industry jobs.

Revise the rules for term time holidays

Currently a school which has attendance below a set percentage will automatically fail OFSTED. This is fine except that it disadvantages very small schools where one irresponsible parent can have a much greater effect than they would in a larger school. One student away for 10 days in a school of 300 has a much smaller perecntage effect than in a school of 55

OFSTED should thus revise their  regulation onto a sliding scale related to the roll of the school

Why is this idea important?

Currently a school which has attendance below a set percentage will automatically fail OFSTED. This is fine except that it disadvantages very small schools where one irresponsible parent can have a much greater effect than they would in a larger school. One student away for 10 days in a school of 300 has a much smaller perecntage effect than in a school of 55

OFSTED should thus revise their  regulation onto a sliding scale related to the roll of the school

Remove restrictive rules for Vehicle Recovery

Recently the rules were changed so a vehicle recovery driver without a tachograph can't recover a vehicle to a location outside a 50 mile radius of his base. This results in wasted time and expense for customers, the RAC etc. Furthermore the rules don't apply to recoveries on Police business!

All this is petty bureacracy gone mad with VOSA people checking up on an industry which has run entirely satisfactorily for years

Why is this idea important?

Recently the rules were changed so a vehicle recovery driver without a tachograph can't recover a vehicle to a location outside a 50 mile radius of his base. This results in wasted time and expense for customers, the RAC etc. Furthermore the rules don't apply to recoveries on Police business!

All this is petty bureacracy gone mad with VOSA people checking up on an industry which has run entirely satisfactorily for years

Useless CRB Checks Did Not Stop The Two Teachers Arrested On Porn Charges Yesterday.

To quickly repeal and abolish the legislation that gave every body in the UK the right to demand these useless and pointless requirements. They are bureaucratic, costly, of no effect whatever for their stated purpose and highly dangerous.

Why is this idea important?

To quickly repeal and abolish the legislation that gave every body in the UK the right to demand these useless and pointless requirements. They are bureaucratic, costly, of no effect whatever for their stated purpose and highly dangerous.

Ban chuggers

Not sure if this isn't a legal issue, but after seeing last night's BBC exposé of this disgraceful practice, the attempts of one charity to defend it, and of one parasite who has grown fat off it to justify it, common sense and decency demand that the government outlaw this obscene practice.

If people want to shake a poppy tin, or as I saw earlier this week, a bucket appealing for aid to flood victims in Pakistan, that's fine, but stopping people in the street, and in effect stealing money from them due to their good nature is not just obscene but wicked.

The government should totally overhall charity legislation, and if civil servants and others are to have their salaries, expenses and practices subjected to greater public scrutiny, so too should people who earn their livelihoods from the generosity of others.

Why is this idea important?

Not sure if this isn't a legal issue, but after seeing last night's BBC exposé of this disgraceful practice, the attempts of one charity to defend it, and of one parasite who has grown fat off it to justify it, common sense and decency demand that the government outlaw this obscene practice.

If people want to shake a poppy tin, or as I saw earlier this week, a bucket appealing for aid to flood victims in Pakistan, that's fine, but stopping people in the street, and in effect stealing money from them due to their good nature is not just obscene but wicked.

The government should totally overhall charity legislation, and if civil servants and others are to have their salaries, expenses and practices subjected to greater public scrutiny, so too should people who earn their livelihoods from the generosity of others.

Charities that organise ‘large society lotteries’ should also be able to organise ‘small society lotteries’

Under the Gambling Act 2005, if a charity obtains a licence to organise large society lotteries all the non-exempt lotteries they organise in the following three years (however small) are considered to be large society lotteries. 

This provision should be changed so that no lottery below a certain threshold is considered to be a large society lottery, even if the charity organising it also organises large society lotteries.

Why is this idea important?

Under the Gambling Act 2005, if a charity obtains a licence to organise large society lotteries all the non-exempt lotteries they organise in the following three years (however small) are considered to be large society lotteries. 

This provision should be changed so that no lottery below a certain threshold is considered to be a large society lottery, even if the charity organising it also organises large society lotteries.

There should be a threshold below which people may hold charity lotteries without registration or a licence

Under the Gambling Act 2005 a lottery is ilegal unless it fits in one of the following categories:

a large society lottery under a Gambling Commission Licence

a small society lottery under a local authority registration

a lottery at a non-commercial event

a workplace, residence or customer lottery where all the proceeds are spent on costs or prizes i.e. non can go to charity so this cannot be used for fundraising.

I think a threshold (perhaps £1000 in one lottery or £2,000 in a calendar year) should be introduced so that people can organise small fundraising lotteries other than at events.

The requirement that all proceeds from workplace, residence or customer lotteries go to a prize winner should be changed to allow proceeds to go to charities and other non-commercial societies.

Why is this idea important?

Under the Gambling Act 2005 a lottery is ilegal unless it fits in one of the following categories:

a large society lottery under a Gambling Commission Licence

a small society lottery under a local authority registration

a lottery at a non-commercial event

a workplace, residence or customer lottery where all the proceeds are spent on costs or prizes i.e. non can go to charity so this cannot be used for fundraising.

I think a threshold (perhaps £1000 in one lottery or £2,000 in a calendar year) should be introduced so that people can organise small fundraising lotteries other than at events.

The requirement that all proceeds from workplace, residence or customer lotteries go to a prize winner should be changed to allow proceeds to go to charities and other non-commercial societies.

Introduce a de minimis level for Commercial Participators

s59 of the Charities Act 1992 requires all people who want to raise money for charity through donating some of their profits from the sale of goods in the course of business and tell people that they are doing so (commercial participators) to enter into a written, signed agreement with the charity for which they are raising funds.  There are obviously very good reasons for this.

I think commercial participators who expect to raise £1,000 or less in a year should be permitted to do so without a written, signed agreement.  Alternatively, they should be required to comply with whatever terms the charity requires (these could be posted on charity websites).  If a charity wanted to require a written agreement this could be listed as one of their requirements, thereby allowing charities to 'opt out' of this change.  Small CPs should still be required to make the same statement to customers about the amount that they are giving to charity as CPs do under the current legislation.

There would be a risk of fraud, however, this would not be that different from the risk of a person organising another sort of fundraising event and not sending all the money to the charity.  If the charity became aware of such cases they could report them to the police.

The current legislation does not prevent fraud, a number of charities have been hit by clothing collection scams. Adding a de minimis would not substantially increase the risk of fraud.

The change could lead to businesses that a charity does not approve of raising money for the charity. However, this is not that different from the current system as such business can currently carry out non-CP fundraising events without informing the charity. The legislation could require such a small CP to stop their activitites if requested to do so by the charity.

 

Why is this idea important?

s59 of the Charities Act 1992 requires all people who want to raise money for charity through donating some of their profits from the sale of goods in the course of business and tell people that they are doing so (commercial participators) to enter into a written, signed agreement with the charity for which they are raising funds.  There are obviously very good reasons for this.

I think commercial participators who expect to raise £1,000 or less in a year should be permitted to do so without a written, signed agreement.  Alternatively, they should be required to comply with whatever terms the charity requires (these could be posted on charity websites).  If a charity wanted to require a written agreement this could be listed as one of their requirements, thereby allowing charities to 'opt out' of this change.  Small CPs should still be required to make the same statement to customers about the amount that they are giving to charity as CPs do under the current legislation.

There would be a risk of fraud, however, this would not be that different from the risk of a person organising another sort of fundraising event and not sending all the money to the charity.  If the charity became aware of such cases they could report them to the police.

The current legislation does not prevent fraud, a number of charities have been hit by clothing collection scams. Adding a de minimis would not substantially increase the risk of fraud.

The change could lead to businesses that a charity does not approve of raising money for the charity. However, this is not that different from the current system as such business can currently carry out non-CP fundraising events without informing the charity. The legislation could require such a small CP to stop their activitites if requested to do so by the charity.

 

Limit the profit making of uncontested fuel companies not based on consumption

Thames Water, for example, have no competition. Where I live they are the only supplier of water. They can charge more or less what they like. When I first moved into my flatafter the previous resident died they insisted I pay a huge amount of money to them before they set me up as their customer. At my previous address my water rate was included in my rent so it was a fair system with less leeway given to the company's profit making impulse. I went to my local CAB who told me to pay the sums and so I did. I then had to pay a fairly high sum regularly although I dont have a family and am very rarely in and not a big consumer. I had a meter installed to lower my fortnightly payments and noticed I only used one unit in the first month. Im not dirty but I shower at the pool almost every day and use a launderette to wash my clothes. To my horror the payments they demanded went higher than what I paid when I didnt have a water meter which is inside my flat. In several years they have only come to read the meter once. Then they doubled their charges and I found threatening letters with sums demanded on top of these payments were regular. Fuel companies should not exploit customers like this. Their charges should be restricted to usage. Water meters are obviously a CON  for them to make money out of and not a good idea for consumers.

Why is this idea important?

Thames Water, for example, have no competition. Where I live they are the only supplier of water. They can charge more or less what they like. When I first moved into my flatafter the previous resident died they insisted I pay a huge amount of money to them before they set me up as their customer. At my previous address my water rate was included in my rent so it was a fair system with less leeway given to the company's profit making impulse. I went to my local CAB who told me to pay the sums and so I did. I then had to pay a fairly high sum regularly although I dont have a family and am very rarely in and not a big consumer. I had a meter installed to lower my fortnightly payments and noticed I only used one unit in the first month. Im not dirty but I shower at the pool almost every day and use a launderette to wash my clothes. To my horror the payments they demanded went higher than what I paid when I didnt have a water meter which is inside my flat. In several years they have only come to read the meter once. Then they doubled their charges and I found threatening letters with sums demanded on top of these payments were regular. Fuel companies should not exploit customers like this. Their charges should be restricted to usage. Water meters are obviously a CON  for them to make money out of and not a good idea for consumers.

Caution ‘Freedom’ mentioned.

'Freedom' is a very seductive word. Regulation (telling people what they can and can't do) does have its plus side. Simply put, often when one party exercises its freedoms the result of that act or choice can be of detriment to the freedoms of another party. When we talk about regulation of buisiness for example, we can look at  the banks recent 'freedoms' to conduct buisiness as they saw fit and it's impacts on the freedoms of everyone else in the country. I do not want an Aston martin i just want a roof over my head, shelter is a fundimental human need. To own my own home i must get in debt for most of my life and constantly worry about reposession or eviction because house prices and with it rent prices have gone through the roof due to the existence of credit and its unregulated behaviour by those buisiness's in a position to lend/exploit (delete as appropriate). The freedom to lend money, we see here, has detracted from the freedom of feeling comfortable in our own homes. 'The common good of all' is the ultimate quest, we must remeber this. So when we talk about regulation we must seperate it into Arbitrary and necessary.  I would argue, that regulation around credit and the behaviour of money lenders is necessary to preserve the economic freedoms of the population. Credit pushes up prices and makes itself indispensible. Anyone selling anything is going to price it in between what will make them a profit and what people can pay. What people can pay is increased when people can lend, when people can pay more 'the seller' can charge more so those unwilling to lend, must in order to compete finacially with those who are willing to lend. You can always not compete if its for a luxury, but when the prices of necessities such as shelter and food rise because of this mechanism then you must compete or live a live in which the prospects for minimal happiness are vastly diminished homelessness and hunger do not make for a fertileplot for the cultivation of happiness after all. lets not be seduced by sexy words like 'freedom' as this word has been used in the past to manipulate people, Thatcher removed regulation from the banks gaining public approval by calling it a freedom, (and it is a freedom) just look at the impacts of one entitys freedom on anothers and wiegh them up using 'the common good' as the yardstick, this should be the purpose of regulation. I welcome your thoughts, disagreements and comments.

Why is this idea important?

'Freedom' is a very seductive word. Regulation (telling people what they can and can't do) does have its plus side. Simply put, often when one party exercises its freedoms the result of that act or choice can be of detriment to the freedoms of another party. When we talk about regulation of buisiness for example, we can look at  the banks recent 'freedoms' to conduct buisiness as they saw fit and it's impacts on the freedoms of everyone else in the country. I do not want an Aston martin i just want a roof over my head, shelter is a fundimental human need. To own my own home i must get in debt for most of my life and constantly worry about reposession or eviction because house prices and with it rent prices have gone through the roof due to the existence of credit and its unregulated behaviour by those buisiness's in a position to lend/exploit (delete as appropriate). The freedom to lend money, we see here, has detracted from the freedom of feeling comfortable in our own homes. 'The common good of all' is the ultimate quest, we must remeber this. So when we talk about regulation we must seperate it into Arbitrary and necessary.  I would argue, that regulation around credit and the behaviour of money lenders is necessary to preserve the economic freedoms of the population. Credit pushes up prices and makes itself indispensible. Anyone selling anything is going to price it in between what will make them a profit and what people can pay. What people can pay is increased when people can lend, when people can pay more 'the seller' can charge more so those unwilling to lend, must in order to compete finacially with those who are willing to lend. You can always not compete if its for a luxury, but when the prices of necessities such as shelter and food rise because of this mechanism then you must compete or live a live in which the prospects for minimal happiness are vastly diminished homelessness and hunger do not make for a fertileplot for the cultivation of happiness after all. lets not be seduced by sexy words like 'freedom' as this word has been used in the past to manipulate people, Thatcher removed regulation from the banks gaining public approval by calling it a freedom, (and it is a freedom) just look at the impacts of one entitys freedom on anothers and wiegh them up using 'the common good' as the yardstick, this should be the purpose of regulation. I welcome your thoughts, disagreements and comments.

Automatically register for Child Benefit & Child Tax Credit when you register birth

Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times.  That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.

Why is this idea important?

Everyone is required to register the birth of thier child… why can't you just autotcially register for Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit at the same time? I've had to make 3 separate applications to 3 separate governement bodies to give them the same lot of information 3 times.  That's 3 lots of people on the other end processing it, a wast of money, and of my time. Child Tax Credit system failed so miserably that I actually e-mailed the chief exec to register my daugther as the website was down, the phone never answered and the contact given at the Job Centre said they couldn't help.

A checklist of all the ‘red tape’ that remains?

I run a Community Centre (and have done for 2 years now) and am still finding new things that I'm 'required' to do.  Whether or not they're red tape or not is one discussion, but the feeling that there's always potentially more out there looming over me is a burden!  Today for example I found out that the council requires us to map our entire water supply system to prove that we've mitigated against the risk of Legionnaires disease.  My other recent favourite was to discover that my signs 'caution water hot' were insufficient, as I was required to have a picture with the message. Requirement to prove annual checks of first aid kits, annual PAT testing of all electrical equipment, PRS licencing, risk assessments for fire, asbestos, corperate governance are all others that have sneaked up on me.  As scary as one enormous list of everything that you need to do for a building that is open to the public might be, it would be a very useful, and ultimatly reasssuring and time saving device.

Why is this idea important?

I run a Community Centre (and have done for 2 years now) and am still finding new things that I'm 'required' to do.  Whether or not they're red tape or not is one discussion, but the feeling that there's always potentially more out there looming over me is a burden!  Today for example I found out that the council requires us to map our entire water supply system to prove that we've mitigated against the risk of Legionnaires disease.  My other recent favourite was to discover that my signs 'caution water hot' were insufficient, as I was required to have a picture with the message. Requirement to prove annual checks of first aid kits, annual PAT testing of all electrical equipment, PRS licencing, risk assessments for fire, asbestos, corperate governance are all others that have sneaked up on me.  As scary as one enormous list of everything that you need to do for a building that is open to the public might be, it would be a very useful, and ultimatly reasssuring and time saving device.

A loophole in discrimination legislation

delete the word "personally" from the Equality Act 2010 s83 (2) (a). Currently it reads,

"Employment means

(a)
employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work;

Why is this idea important?

delete the word "personally" from the Equality Act 2010 s83 (2) (a). Currently it reads,

"Employment means

(a)
employment under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship or a contract personally to do work;

Weights and Measures

Market traders and small shopkeepers rightly baulk at having to buy expensive scales. With Tory MP support in the past, many have declared they want to stop selling fruit and veg by weight altogether. Why not sell by the bowlful if consumers see the size of the bowl? I am told by trading standards that apples can be sold by number, carrots by the bunch but not by number, and grapes only by weight, not by the bunch or bowlful. What madness! And all time Starbucks and other places like that can see a regular, large, small, venti coffee without even saying how many mililitres are in it.

My suggestion- bring weights and measures in line with health and safety. if a business has less than 4 employees, it doesn'd need to comply with weights and measures AT ALL, except for the sale of alcohol.  This could also apply to turnover instead of employees- maybe if a business does not have to register for VAT, it doesn't have to use government approved scales or sell by weight.

Why is this idea important?

Market traders and small shopkeepers rightly baulk at having to buy expensive scales. With Tory MP support in the past, many have declared they want to stop selling fruit and veg by weight altogether. Why not sell by the bowlful if consumers see the size of the bowl? I am told by trading standards that apples can be sold by number, carrots by the bunch but not by number, and grapes only by weight, not by the bunch or bowlful. What madness! And all time Starbucks and other places like that can see a regular, large, small, venti coffee without even saying how many mililitres are in it.

My suggestion- bring weights and measures in line with health and safety. if a business has less than 4 employees, it doesn'd need to comply with weights and measures AT ALL, except for the sale of alcohol.  This could also apply to turnover instead of employees- maybe if a business does not have to register for VAT, it doesn't have to use government approved scales or sell by weight.

Repeal most money laundering regulations

Businesses are not the guardians of the country and should not be required to monitor or check the identity of their clients who wish to carry out inherently legal acts.

 

There should be no requirement for companies or citizens to report the legal actions of people to the Government.

 

In fact it should be illegal for anybody to pass the information of a client (or other person with whom they have a fiduciary duty or other client contract) to any person or organisation (inc the State) without a Court Order based upon some evidence of wrongdoing.

Why is this idea important?

Businesses are not the guardians of the country and should not be required to monitor or check the identity of their clients who wish to carry out inherently legal acts.

 

There should be no requirement for companies or citizens to report the legal actions of people to the Government.

 

In fact it should be illegal for anybody to pass the information of a client (or other person with whom they have a fiduciary duty or other client contract) to any person or organisation (inc the State) without a Court Order based upon some evidence of wrongdoing.

Defra / Government Buying Standards / Sustainability / a quicker system

The current rules on sustainability & purchasing come from DEFRA as part of Government Buying Standards, which are a long academic pre-amble to a very short & useless list of suppliers called Buyingsolutions.gov.uk. I suggest a tweak to the pre-amble and then a way of expanding the list. A longer list of suppliers the shorter the buyers' jobs. At the moment they have to read a great long pre-amble and then find only about one firm per industry on the list. I guess the preamble is wasted because a buyer would think:

"Dell for computers, BMW for vehicles, Microsoft for software: they'll know the rules".

The tweak is just to mention the sustainability of UK manufacturing.

Then I suggest that certain UK manufacturing industries are chosen which could do with some understanding, but not subsidy, from government because they have been forced to work in a very lean low-admin way over the past decades.

This is how to expand the list and so make buyers' jobs easier

When buying in each industry, buyers should be required to look for every last supplier and write to each about future contracts asking for advice about whether the contracts could be changed to sustain UK manufacturers. A specialist business link team could be set-up to advise the industry on how to get onto government tender lists and advice government buyers on how to find suppliers. More generally, there might be something to be done about getting enthusiasts and people with a background in the industry to do the buying. An example:

  • LDV Vans is not in a position to change its model range but the receiver is in a position to read a draft tender and write back saying

    "change that bit and we could put in a bid and open-up a production line if we got it".
     

  • The department for business is in a position to fund or run a vehicle-making business link office
     
  • Some public sector organisations could be in a position to hire enthusiast staff to make purchasing decisions about a particular industry. Police ambulence & fire services near LDV vans have more work if there is more unemployment & social exclusion, so it's in their interest to use an enthusiast who can see ways of making local employment by buying local vans.

These are the current regulations on sustainable purchasing which are all pre-amble.

Government Buying Standards (formerly known as Buy Sustainable Quick Wins) are designed to make it easier for government buyers to buy sustainably. They include:

Why is this idea important?

The current rules on sustainability & purchasing come from DEFRA as part of Government Buying Standards, which are a long academic pre-amble to a very short & useless list of suppliers called Buyingsolutions.gov.uk. I suggest a tweak to the pre-amble and then a way of expanding the list. A longer list of suppliers the shorter the buyers' jobs. At the moment they have to read a great long pre-amble and then find only about one firm per industry on the list. I guess the preamble is wasted because a buyer would think:

"Dell for computers, BMW for vehicles, Microsoft for software: they'll know the rules".

The tweak is just to mention the sustainability of UK manufacturing.

Then I suggest that certain UK manufacturing industries are chosen which could do with some understanding, but not subsidy, from government because they have been forced to work in a very lean low-admin way over the past decades.

This is how to expand the list and so make buyers' jobs easier

When buying in each industry, buyers should be required to look for every last supplier and write to each about future contracts asking for advice about whether the contracts could be changed to sustain UK manufacturers. A specialist business link team could be set-up to advise the industry on how to get onto government tender lists and advice government buyers on how to find suppliers. More generally, there might be something to be done about getting enthusiasts and people with a background in the industry to do the buying. An example:

  • LDV Vans is not in a position to change its model range but the receiver is in a position to read a draft tender and write back saying

    "change that bit and we could put in a bid and open-up a production line if we got it".
     

  • The department for business is in a position to fund or run a vehicle-making business link office
     
  • Some public sector organisations could be in a position to hire enthusiast staff to make purchasing decisions about a particular industry. Police ambulence & fire services near LDV vans have more work if there is more unemployment & social exclusion, so it's in their interest to use an enthusiast who can see ways of making local employment by buying local vans.

These are the current regulations on sustainable purchasing which are all pre-amble.

Government Buying Standards (formerly known as Buy Sustainable Quick Wins) are designed to make it easier for government buyers to buy sustainably. They include:

AMEND INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

It should be a condition for the granting of planning permission (at the Local Authority's discretion) for Industrial Buildings that the roofing should carry panels to generate electricity for the use of the unit concerned, with excess being fed into the national grid.

Why is this idea important?

It should be a condition for the granting of planning permission (at the Local Authority's discretion) for Industrial Buildings that the roofing should carry panels to generate electricity for the use of the unit concerned, with excess being fed into the national grid.

Removing health and safety responsibilities for recruitment agencies and businesses

Currently, under Gangmasters Licencing Act (2004) and the Conduct of Employment Agencies Act, recruitment businesses are obliged to check with hirers about health and safety risks to the temporary worker and what has been done to minimise these risks.

To a larger extent, the Gangmasters Act goes even further indicating that recruitment businesses should assess the hirer's health and safety policies, risk assessments, etc., to satisfy themselves that the hirer is providing suitable (health & safety) conditions for any temporary worker(s).

Recruitment businesses/agencies are themselves subject to health and safety legislation (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations).  Recruitment businesses (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations) for their own internal employees, have to have a health and safety policy statement and risk assessments for the work that is conducted as part of its' business activities.

As such, this means that agencies not only have to be capable to adhere to the above health and safety requirements for their own business BUT also have to be able to assess and check the health and safety policies and risk assessments of a wide range of hirer businesses/sectors/jobs to satisfy themselves prior to supplying the temporary worker. 

The types of businesses that a recruitment business could deal with can be extremely diverse!  It is impossible for the recruitment agency, in a commercial world, to be expert on all the different health and safety requirements for the different jobs in the different industry sectors.

To make matters worse, recruitment businesses are then subject to having to acquire these documents and then print/copy and then issue and explain these documents to temporary workers prior to them going out on assignment!

Normally all hirers go through all this information with their own staff, contractors and temporary workers as a matter of precaution and good practice (and for some as part of their health and safety policy).  So when recruitment businesses ask for this information and then scrutinise it and then want to give copies to temporary workers and explain it to them, hirers complain of duplication and causing them additional work.

This is also a complaint of temporary workers and equally of recruitment businesses (the ones who bother to comply in a industry where no-one is policing the matter!).  So why do we do it?  Because its the law!  In a recent experiment, we contacted the main recruitment agencies in Cumbria and South West Scotland to ask for a temporary worker.  None of the agencies (10 asked) asked for any information in repsect of health and safety!

Any professional recruiter will have a terms of business contract with the hirer which includes a clause stating the hirer should manage the temporary worker as if she/he were a member of their own staff.  Recruitment businesses have no control over the work environment of the hirer whatsoever, so why involve the recruiter in taking responsibility for something it cannot control???

Our idea is, that being employers are responsible for health and safety for their own businesses anyway and that recruitment businesses cannot change/influence/be responsible for a third party hirers' health and safety, then the government should make a simple clear ruling that all businesses in the UK should be responsible for health and safety for temporary workers they hire.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, under Gangmasters Licencing Act (2004) and the Conduct of Employment Agencies Act, recruitment businesses are obliged to check with hirers about health and safety risks to the temporary worker and what has been done to minimise these risks.

To a larger extent, the Gangmasters Act goes even further indicating that recruitment businesses should assess the hirer's health and safety policies, risk assessments, etc., to satisfy themselves that the hirer is providing suitable (health & safety) conditions for any temporary worker(s).

Recruitment businesses/agencies are themselves subject to health and safety legislation (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations).  Recruitment businesses (just like all other qualifying businesses/organisations) for their own internal employees, have to have a health and safety policy statement and risk assessments for the work that is conducted as part of its' business activities.

As such, this means that agencies not only have to be capable to adhere to the above health and safety requirements for their own business BUT also have to be able to assess and check the health and safety policies and risk assessments of a wide range of hirer businesses/sectors/jobs to satisfy themselves prior to supplying the temporary worker. 

The types of businesses that a recruitment business could deal with can be extremely diverse!  It is impossible for the recruitment agency, in a commercial world, to be expert on all the different health and safety requirements for the different jobs in the different industry sectors.

To make matters worse, recruitment businesses are then subject to having to acquire these documents and then print/copy and then issue and explain these documents to temporary workers prior to them going out on assignment!

Normally all hirers go through all this information with their own staff, contractors and temporary workers as a matter of precaution and good practice (and for some as part of their health and safety policy).  So when recruitment businesses ask for this information and then scrutinise it and then want to give copies to temporary workers and explain it to them, hirers complain of duplication and causing them additional work.

This is also a complaint of temporary workers and equally of recruitment businesses (the ones who bother to comply in a industry where no-one is policing the matter!).  So why do we do it?  Because its the law!  In a recent experiment, we contacted the main recruitment agencies in Cumbria and South West Scotland to ask for a temporary worker.  None of the agencies (10 asked) asked for any information in repsect of health and safety!

Any professional recruiter will have a terms of business contract with the hirer which includes a clause stating the hirer should manage the temporary worker as if she/he were a member of their own staff.  Recruitment businesses have no control over the work environment of the hirer whatsoever, so why involve the recruiter in taking responsibility for something it cannot control???

Our idea is, that being employers are responsible for health and safety for their own businesses anyway and that recruitment businesses cannot change/influence/be responsible for a third party hirers' health and safety, then the government should make a simple clear ruling that all businesses in the UK should be responsible for health and safety for temporary workers they hire.

Planned Registration of dentists with CQC is totally unnecessary and should be abandonded

Dentistry is already overregulated. Registration with the cqc will be an unnecessary tickbox expense  of no benefit to the patient and will not improve clinical care.

Why is this idea important?

Dentistry is already overregulated. Registration with the cqc will be an unnecessary tickbox expense  of no benefit to the patient and will not improve clinical care.