Combine National Insurance and Income Tax

Currently we have these two systems of tax which are similar in many ways. As no tax is hypothecated, the argument that NI is for certain uses is bogus. Clearly, if we just had income tax on all types of income in would be more efficient to collect for both the government and business. Although this would be a radical step, people aren’t stupid and they would clearly see that the overall tax take was the same.

Why is this idea important?

Currently we have these two systems of tax which are similar in many ways. As no tax is hypothecated, the argument that NI is for certain uses is bogus. Clearly, if we just had income tax on all types of income in would be more efficient to collect for both the government and business. Although this would be a radical step, people aren’t stupid and they would clearly see that the overall tax take was the same.

the new medical assessment for incapcity has to be amended

i fully agree that there are many on long term incapacity benefit when they coud be working part-time at least and i full agree that at some point there should be an assessment to see if they really are incapable of work.  however the way the previous government has gone about this is a disgrace.  those who have undergone lafe saving surgery, suffering from cancer are being forced to attend private medical assessments just weeks after their ops, this is to establish whether they are really unable to work (some cant even walk, let alone work, but they have to attend otherwise they get no benefit despite paying into the system for many years) and to see if they deserve any beneift – waiting 8 weeks before any benefit is paid, if they're lucky  – this is completely inapropriate, a disgrace and degrading,  they shouldnt have to beg for benefit, they are sick, they are entitled to the money, they've paid their insurance, the surgeon/consultant/gp  has signed them off – but that doesnt seem enough these days, instead we pay private companies thousands to assess claimants – this is so wrong.  if the claimants are on long term benefit i agree that they should be regularly assessed but by their own consultants/gps/surgeons – the cost of using these private companies could go those in real need who cannot work

Why is this idea important?

i fully agree that there are many on long term incapacity benefit when they coud be working part-time at least and i full agree that at some point there should be an assessment to see if they really are incapable of work.  however the way the previous government has gone about this is a disgrace.  those who have undergone lafe saving surgery, suffering from cancer are being forced to attend private medical assessments just weeks after their ops, this is to establish whether they are really unable to work (some cant even walk, let alone work, but they have to attend otherwise they get no benefit despite paying into the system for many years) and to see if they deserve any beneift – waiting 8 weeks before any benefit is paid, if they're lucky  – this is completely inapropriate, a disgrace and degrading,  they shouldnt have to beg for benefit, they are sick, they are entitled to the money, they've paid their insurance, the surgeon/consultant/gp  has signed them off – but that doesnt seem enough these days, instead we pay private companies thousands to assess claimants – this is so wrong.  if the claimants are on long term benefit i agree that they should be regularly assessed but by their own consultants/gps/surgeons – the cost of using these private companies could go those in real need who cannot work

free travel for all in full time education inlc 6th form & college

its a disgrace that those entering 6th form have to fine £500 for school tranpsort to the local 6th form – cant afford the transport, they dont do 6th form, instead they sign on the dole

Why is this idea important?

its a disgrace that those entering 6th form have to fine £500 for school tranpsort to the local 6th form – cant afford the transport, they dont do 6th form, instead they sign on the dole

there has to be time when people properly retire

in this country we have a retirement age 65 – yet we go into supermarkets and see oaps on the tills, filling shelves etc., why is this, its an absolute disgrace, we're clearly not paying enough in pensions – these jobs should be going to the youngsters who dont have an income, cant get jobs and are claiming jobseekers allowance. i have no objection to the oaps who wish to take up small part time work but when they are working to supplement their income and are taking jobs from the youngsters there is clearly something wrong with our system.  it would be much cheaper to give the penisioners more than keeping the youngsters on benefits.

Why is this idea important?

in this country we have a retirement age 65 – yet we go into supermarkets and see oaps on the tills, filling shelves etc., why is this, its an absolute disgrace, we're clearly not paying enough in pensions – these jobs should be going to the youngsters who dont have an income, cant get jobs and are claiming jobseekers allowance. i have no objection to the oaps who wish to take up small part time work but when they are working to supplement their income and are taking jobs from the youngsters there is clearly something wrong with our system.  it would be much cheaper to give the penisioners more than keeping the youngsters on benefits.

childcare payments of 70% should be stopped

usually we have children because we want them, therefore why is it necessary to give the parents a huge injection of cash to dump their kids into childcare, this is causing a huge gap between the parents and the youngsters – creating sociopaths who crave attention and join gangs, parents hould be taking their responsibility seriously and looking after and nurturing their offspring. what happened to making sacrifices when you have a family? this going out to work when the baby is 6 months old so they can afford to take a foreign holiday etc., is changing society and we the tax payer are taking on the responsibility of these kids – i dont want that responsibility, i've had my own kids and brought them up myself without handouts from the government.  why are the childless couples, the single men paying for these parents to work and have holidays and  nice things? if parents want to work, fine, work but we shouldnt be paying for it.

Why is this idea important?

usually we have children because we want them, therefore why is it necessary to give the parents a huge injection of cash to dump their kids into childcare, this is causing a huge gap between the parents and the youngsters – creating sociopaths who crave attention and join gangs, parents hould be taking their responsibility seriously and looking after and nurturing their offspring. what happened to making sacrifices when you have a family? this going out to work when the baby is 6 months old so they can afford to take a foreign holiday etc., is changing society and we the tax payer are taking on the responsibility of these kids – i dont want that responsibility, i've had my own kids and brought them up myself without handouts from the government.  why are the childless couples, the single men paying for these parents to work and have holidays and  nice things? if parents want to work, fine, work but we shouldnt be paying for it.

the payment on account re: income tax for the self employed should be abolished.

it is incredibly unfair that the self- employed have to pay their income tax in advance.  in january we have to make a payment based on the previous years figures despite earning it or not, not that we know what our profict ill be for that year until april arrives.  this is the most unfair tax ever.  we should be paying income tax on what we earn – not what the tax man thinks we  might earn

Why is this idea important?

it is incredibly unfair that the self- employed have to pay their income tax in advance.  in january we have to make a payment based on the previous years figures despite earning it or not, not that we know what our profict ill be for that year until april arrives.  this is the most unfair tax ever.  we should be paying income tax on what we earn – not what the tax man thinks we  might earn

ALL BENEFITS NEED TO BE MEANS-TESTED

i cannot belive that once my friend passed 60, he received a free bus pass, free swim pass, the winter fuel payment, got a grant to draft-proof the house he owns – great – lovely we're looking after our pensioners – except he's not a pensioner is he, ( men retire at 65) he still works full time, he and his wife are on a comfortable salary.  this is totally out of order when the real pensioners are struggling.  its about time these blanket benefits were abolished, like child benefit being paid to the prime ministers wife and the poor little single mum – its wrong.  benefits should be there for those in need.

Why is this idea important?

i cannot belive that once my friend passed 60, he received a free bus pass, free swim pass, the winter fuel payment, got a grant to draft-proof the house he owns – great – lovely we're looking after our pensioners – except he's not a pensioner is he, ( men retire at 65) he still works full time, he and his wife are on a comfortable salary.  this is totally out of order when the real pensioners are struggling.  its about time these blanket benefits were abolished, like child benefit being paid to the prime ministers wife and the poor little single mum – its wrong.  benefits should be there for those in need.

Regulatory bodies must demand “lowest overall public cost”

Joined up thinking when combined with joined up opportunity, provides the lowest overall public cost.  We require integrated working in many guidance notes and statutes, yet the regulators are not up to speed, claiming no direct brief to monitor the lowest overall public cost. 

Every public service is affected adversely at present, costing the public many billions of pounds per annum, either in service revenue savings that cost far more in capital costs, or duplication of effort.  What the public see is just the tip of the iceberg, with those more technically involved far more aware of the true costs to the public.

Ulimately we need to remove the regulators, and move to an internal and external audit regime commissioned by the public body concerned with the reports being public and in plain english.

Why is this idea important?

Joined up thinking when combined with joined up opportunity, provides the lowest overall public cost.  We require integrated working in many guidance notes and statutes, yet the regulators are not up to speed, claiming no direct brief to monitor the lowest overall public cost. 

Every public service is affected adversely at present, costing the public many billions of pounds per annum, either in service revenue savings that cost far more in capital costs, or duplication of effort.  What the public see is just the tip of the iceberg, with those more technically involved far more aware of the true costs to the public.

Ulimately we need to remove the regulators, and move to an internal and external audit regime commissioned by the public body concerned with the reports being public and in plain english.

building trade, cscs, cis

Bring back cis, The big firms have a strangle hold over tradesmen their one sole aim is money no real consideration for the standard of work or its employees . When local firms won contracts they cared about their work and wanted to keep it and make a good name for itself. Smaller contractors always employed youngsters you very rarely see young lads learning a trade which is bad for our industry . The last goverment invented the cscs scheme to make money ,its all about image when it should be focus on standard. the only way to get standards back up where they should be is to reintroduce the clerk of works and employ mangers who have trade experiance. I have been on jobs where a local authority or housing associaton has paid out thousends for work to be done when hand over day comes a housing officer turns up with no trade experiance to inspect and pass it and the standards have been so bad because of mangement pushing you to finsh ,if a clerk of work was to inspect the work most of it would be condemed .The big firms have become a carbon copy of the nhs to many pen pushers and managers with no knowlage of what its like to be on the tools and how jobs should be run properly .

Why is this idea important?

Bring back cis, The big firms have a strangle hold over tradesmen their one sole aim is money no real consideration for the standard of work or its employees . When local firms won contracts they cared about their work and wanted to keep it and make a good name for itself. Smaller contractors always employed youngsters you very rarely see young lads learning a trade which is bad for our industry . The last goverment invented the cscs scheme to make money ,its all about image when it should be focus on standard. the only way to get standards back up where they should be is to reintroduce the clerk of works and employ mangers who have trade experiance. I have been on jobs where a local authority or housing associaton has paid out thousends for work to be done when hand over day comes a housing officer turns up with no trade experiance to inspect and pass it and the standards have been so bad because of mangement pushing you to finsh ,if a clerk of work was to inspect the work most of it would be condemed .The big firms have become a carbon copy of the nhs to many pen pushers and managers with no knowlage of what its like to be on the tools and how jobs should be run properly .

CQC REGISTRATION FOR DENTAL PRACTICES

I strongly diagree with the proposed introduction of CQC registration for dental practices. It is a good way to generate red tape and money for the government and without any discernable benefit to the patients..

Why is this idea important?

I strongly diagree with the proposed introduction of CQC registration for dental practices. It is a good way to generate red tape and money for the government and without any discernable benefit to the patients..

Pensions’ regime for high earners could be made a lot simpler.

The pensions’ regime for high earners could be made a lot simpler. We suggest for HMRC approved schemes:

 

  1. For DC schemes

    1. Abolish the LTA
    2. Limit the annual contribution to £40k
  2. For DB schemes

    1. Have a maximum final pensionable salary of £120,000
    2. Have a maximum accrual rate of one sixtieth of final pensionable salary (thus the maximum annual accrual would be £2,000, which if we assume a multiplier of 20 is similar to the DC limit)
    3. Have catch all anti avoidance rule so that if benefits are enhanced in the 5 years prior to retirement, the maximum value of the enhanced benefits is say £200k (using a transfer value calculation).
  3. If a person has entitlements in both DB and DC pension plans, the above limits would be pro-rated.

 

This DC proposal mirrors the way the ISA limits operate.

 

The administration of those people who are at or around the DC LTA is complex. Our proposal removes this complication.

 

Our DB proposal assumes a multiplier of 20 – so is unattractive for some, e.g. those aged 40, who are likely to move to another company in the next 10 years, will tend to prefer a reasonable DC alternative if the company offers it.

 

To preserve the Government’s goal of fiscal neutrality, the £40k and £120k figures could be varied, but the over-riding principles above could be intact.

 

 

 

We would urge the reduction in the maximum combined income tax and NI rates (soon to be 52%) down to the previous level of 40% as soon as possible. High tax rates create scope for tax avoidance. Lower tax rates remove the incentive for tax avoidance and, as history teaches us, lead to higher tax revenues.

 

Knowledge of likely future tax rates is integral to pension and wealth planning. Hence, we believe these issues should be considered together.

Why is this idea important?

The pensions’ regime for high earners could be made a lot simpler. We suggest for HMRC approved schemes:

 

  1. For DC schemes

    1. Abolish the LTA
    2. Limit the annual contribution to £40k
  2. For DB schemes

    1. Have a maximum final pensionable salary of £120,000
    2. Have a maximum accrual rate of one sixtieth of final pensionable salary (thus the maximum annual accrual would be £2,000, which if we assume a multiplier of 20 is similar to the DC limit)
    3. Have catch all anti avoidance rule so that if benefits are enhanced in the 5 years prior to retirement, the maximum value of the enhanced benefits is say £200k (using a transfer value calculation).
  3. If a person has entitlements in both DB and DC pension plans, the above limits would be pro-rated.

 

This DC proposal mirrors the way the ISA limits operate.

 

The administration of those people who are at or around the DC LTA is complex. Our proposal removes this complication.

 

Our DB proposal assumes a multiplier of 20 – so is unattractive for some, e.g. those aged 40, who are likely to move to another company in the next 10 years, will tend to prefer a reasonable DC alternative if the company offers it.

 

To preserve the Government’s goal of fiscal neutrality, the £40k and £120k figures could be varied, but the over-riding principles above could be intact.

 

 

 

We would urge the reduction in the maximum combined income tax and NI rates (soon to be 52%) down to the previous level of 40% as soon as possible. High tax rates create scope for tax avoidance. Lower tax rates remove the incentive for tax avoidance and, as history teaches us, lead to higher tax revenues.

 

Knowledge of likely future tax rates is integral to pension and wealth planning. Hence, we believe these issues should be considered together.

EUROPE

PLEASE…PLEASE…PLEASE     CAN SOMEONE TAKE US OUT OF EUROPE. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT (£$45 MILLION PER DAY?) AND TRADE CAN CONTINUE HAPPILY OUTSIDE …JUST LOOK AT NORWAY. 

NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IN MY AND MOST OTHER  BUSINESSES …OR NATO (WHILST THE EU BUILD THEIR OWN DUPLICATE DEFENCE FORCE AT HUGE COST)    GRRRRR.

 

Why is this idea important?

PLEASE…PLEASE…PLEASE     CAN SOMEONE TAKE US OUT OF EUROPE. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT (£$45 MILLION PER DAY?) AND TRADE CAN CONTINUE HAPPILY OUTSIDE …JUST LOOK AT NORWAY. 

NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IN MY AND MOST OTHER  BUSINESSES …OR NATO (WHILST THE EU BUILD THEIR OWN DUPLICATE DEFENCE FORCE AT HUGE COST)    GRRRRR.

 

CUTS

WHEN MAJOR CUTS ARE COMING FOR ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS – INCLUDING EVEN OUR OWN DEFENCE OF THESE ISLANDS I WOULD LOVE TO READ OF THE CUTS COMING TO THE OLYMPICS – THAT HUGE WASTE OF MONEY. AM I NOT READING THE RIGHT PAPERS?

 

MIKE C

Why is this idea important?

WHEN MAJOR CUTS ARE COMING FOR ALL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS – INCLUDING EVEN OUR OWN DEFENCE OF THESE ISLANDS I WOULD LOVE TO READ OF THE CUTS COMING TO THE OLYMPICS – THAT HUGE WASTE OF MONEY. AM I NOT READING THE RIGHT PAPERS?

 

MIKE C

WILDLIFE TRADE REGULATIONS (WTR) -HARSHER DOMESTIC MEASURES

These regulations implement CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in the EU and therefore the UK. Before any species in trade in CITES Appendix II species is permitted, the scientific authorities of the exporting countries are required to make a non-detriment finding that the export will not adversely impact a species survival in the wild.

The WTR require that a number of “harsher domestic measures” are applied. Among these measures is the requirement that before import UK authorities must also complete a non detriment finding. In effect ,this just repeats the work undertaken by the scientific authorities in the exporting country.

In total the harsher domestic measures in the UK can be estimated to cost almost £1 million pa (approximately 25% of the annual budget of the CITES Secretariat in Geneva). This cost burden on industry that provides for administrative capacity in UK government agencies rather than direct on the ground conservation benefits or capacity in the range states of CITES listed species in trade. In many instances the import charges exceed the price paid for species from the exporting country.

Why is this idea important?

These regulations implement CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) in the EU and therefore the UK. Before any species in trade in CITES Appendix II species is permitted, the scientific authorities of the exporting countries are required to make a non-detriment finding that the export will not adversely impact a species survival in the wild.

The WTR require that a number of “harsher domestic measures” are applied. Among these measures is the requirement that before import UK authorities must also complete a non detriment finding. In effect ,this just repeats the work undertaken by the scientific authorities in the exporting country.

In total the harsher domestic measures in the UK can be estimated to cost almost £1 million pa (approximately 25% of the annual budget of the CITES Secretariat in Geneva). This cost burden on industry that provides for administrative capacity in UK government agencies rather than direct on the ground conservation benefits or capacity in the range states of CITES listed species in trade. In many instances the import charges exceed the price paid for species from the exporting country.

VETERINARY CHECKS AT IMPORT

European rules require that import documents for live animals be signed by a vet prior to Customs clearance irrespective of the risk a particular consignment poses. This requirement increases costs to both business and government. If Animal Health Officers (AHO) were permitted, as used to be the case, to sign relevant import documents under the supervision of vets, then costs and pressure on veterinary expertise could be reduced without increasing risk. For example, consignments of tropical marine and freshwater organisms are lower risk, not least because they could not survive release in the wild, and their import could be approved by AHOs. This would allow vets to devote time to targeted inspection of higher risk consignments. Thus there would be an increase in bio security with concomitant reduction in costs and delays incurred by businesses importing low risk consignments.

Why is this idea important?

European rules require that import documents for live animals be signed by a vet prior to Customs clearance irrespective of the risk a particular consignment poses. This requirement increases costs to both business and government. If Animal Health Officers (AHO) were permitted, as used to be the case, to sign relevant import documents under the supervision of vets, then costs and pressure on veterinary expertise could be reduced without increasing risk. For example, consignments of tropical marine and freshwater organisms are lower risk, not least because they could not survive release in the wild, and their import could be approved by AHOs. This would allow vets to devote time to targeted inspection of higher risk consignments. Thus there would be an increase in bio security with concomitant reduction in costs and delays incurred by businesses importing low risk consignments.

Freedom of expression in how to run your own firm and how to find a job and stay there

My idea is to cut out a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape making it harder for able-minded as well as able bodied people on the autism spectrum start up their own businesses.  I would also like to see professionals who know little or nothing about autism/Asperger Syndrome take the trouble to educate themselves.  Misunderstandings have led to unnecessary levels of stress and anxiety in the workplace, even for the more able on the spectrum such as high-functioning and Asperger Syndrome.

I would also like to see removed barriers of communication and prejudice towards those with a disability.  Although people cannot see Asperger Syndrome, it does not however mean to say that it does not exist.  I would also like to see improvements such as employment support agencies have greater involvement in training and leading those on the spectrum into work.  I believe everyone has the right to work in order to live independently, enjoying the dame pleasures and privileges as neurotypicals.  It is a basic human right that, before the Autism Act was passed before Parliament, was largely overlooked and often ignored.

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to cut out a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape making it harder for able-minded as well as able bodied people on the autism spectrum start up their own businesses.  I would also like to see professionals who know little or nothing about autism/Asperger Syndrome take the trouble to educate themselves.  Misunderstandings have led to unnecessary levels of stress and anxiety in the workplace, even for the more able on the spectrum such as high-functioning and Asperger Syndrome.

I would also like to see removed barriers of communication and prejudice towards those with a disability.  Although people cannot see Asperger Syndrome, it does not however mean to say that it does not exist.  I would also like to see improvements such as employment support agencies have greater involvement in training and leading those on the spectrum into work.  I believe everyone has the right to work in order to live independently, enjoying the dame pleasures and privileges as neurotypicals.  It is a basic human right that, before the Autism Act was passed before Parliament, was largely overlooked and often ignored.

homes government to save money 300,000,000

 

saving money

I think this is something that the government has got to look at, why you ask it is costing the tax payer hundred of million of pounds all over the uk.

You have rented properties, council

You have rented properties, private rented

You have part rent part buy

You have properties to buy

build cost £36,000 year 1985

Councils properties you pay rent over 5,10,15,20 years that’s it, cost to build £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

Private rented you pay the rent over 5,10,16,20 years that’s it, costs to build £36,000 after 10 years property is worth £83,000.

Part rent part buy you pay rent up to about 10 years and buy, you buy the lease or freehold, it cost to build £36,000 sold for £47,000, property in worth £83,000 but these are being sold at a loss we the tax payer are giving home’s away for free or part of them

These properties should be sold at the market value

Buy your property you pay £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

I do not see any difference between rented properties, rent part buy property, and buy a property after

10 years all have the same market value, if same area, same type of construction

Why is this idea important?

 

saving money

I think this is something that the government has got to look at, why you ask it is costing the tax payer hundred of million of pounds all over the uk.

You have rented properties, council

You have rented properties, private rented

You have part rent part buy

You have properties to buy

build cost £36,000 year 1985

Councils properties you pay rent over 5,10,15,20 years that’s it, cost to build £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

Private rented you pay the rent over 5,10,16,20 years that’s it, costs to build £36,000 after 10 years property is worth £83,000.

Part rent part buy you pay rent up to about 10 years and buy, you buy the lease or freehold, it cost to build £36,000 sold for £47,000, property in worth £83,000 but these are being sold at a loss we the tax payer are giving home’s away for free or part of them

These properties should be sold at the market value

Buy your property you pay £36,000 after 10 years property worth £83,000

I do not see any difference between rented properties, rent part buy property, and buy a property after

10 years all have the same market value, if same area, same type of construction

Abolish the Charities Commission

This quango is a pointless exercise.  It does not have the resources to police charities properly and it employs people with inappropriate levels of expertise.  The consequence is that large (often corrupt) organisations are never scrutinised while small organisation may find themselves deluged with demands which undermine their viability.

As misused the Charity Commission uses the legislation to permit it to police itself and to ignore the purpose of the legislation that applies to it and its functions.

Companies House should be quite capable of fulfilling the role necessary.

Why is this idea important?

This quango is a pointless exercise.  It does not have the resources to police charities properly and it employs people with inappropriate levels of expertise.  The consequence is that large (often corrupt) organisations are never scrutinised while small organisation may find themselves deluged with demands which undermine their viability.

As misused the Charity Commission uses the legislation to permit it to police itself and to ignore the purpose of the legislation that applies to it and its functions.

Companies House should be quite capable of fulfilling the role necessary.

Contact with HMRC

I have just spent 15 minutes on the phone to HMRC PAYE section to enquire which box to tick to complete the direct debit form to pay PAYE electronically – as we are being pressured to do by HMRC.  The phone was eventually answered after holding for 8 minutes and having explained the problem, the person at the other end of the phone just read from the website, which is why I telephoned in the first place as the website does not give enough explanation.

It seems that you can only make a payment plan when paying on direct debit, not pay the exact amount that is due.  If my assumption is incorrect, then please enlighten me because I have wasted so much time on this that I have covered the cost of the cheques and postage for the next few years!

Come on powers to be – small businesses need to be able to access information quickly – not to go round and round the HMRC website because part of the direction to information is missing elsewhere, or sit and have to listen to the same "sorry to keep you holding" message when you ring up.  No wonder so many small businessmen just don't bother to get it right

Why is this idea important?

I have just spent 15 minutes on the phone to HMRC PAYE section to enquire which box to tick to complete the direct debit form to pay PAYE electronically – as we are being pressured to do by HMRC.  The phone was eventually answered after holding for 8 minutes and having explained the problem, the person at the other end of the phone just read from the website, which is why I telephoned in the first place as the website does not give enough explanation.

It seems that you can only make a payment plan when paying on direct debit, not pay the exact amount that is due.  If my assumption is incorrect, then please enlighten me because I have wasted so much time on this that I have covered the cost of the cheques and postage for the next few years!

Come on powers to be – small businesses need to be able to access information quickly – not to go round and round the HMRC website because part of the direction to information is missing elsewhere, or sit and have to listen to the same "sorry to keep you holding" message when you ring up.  No wonder so many small businessmen just don't bother to get it right

Scrap the Institute for Learning (IFL)

This body is similar to the teaching sector General Teaching Council which was recently scrapped, I am unsure why this one has not been scrapped.

My subscription and all my collegues is paid for by the tax payer, I see no benefit to being a member of the IFL. Similar to the GTC the IFL does little to improve teaching but generates unnecessary bureaucracy and wastes teachers' and tax payers hard-earned cash.

Therefore I propose that the Government save the money and use it to surport more worthy causes.

Why is this idea important?

This body is similar to the teaching sector General Teaching Council which was recently scrapped, I am unsure why this one has not been scrapped.

My subscription and all my collegues is paid for by the tax payer, I see no benefit to being a member of the IFL. Similar to the GTC the IFL does little to improve teaching but generates unnecessary bureaucracy and wastes teachers' and tax payers hard-earned cash.

Therefore I propose that the Government save the money and use it to surport more worthy causes.

bring back British Standards in construction

Earlier this year, under an initiative from the previous Office Of the Deputy Prime Minister, British Standards were replaced by European Standards. This was supposed to make it more competitive for UK firms working in Europe.

EC standards that I am familiar with, and particularly EC7 on Geotechnics, are very academic and lack practicability. there is no real facility for engineers and architects to make judgements. All methods are prescribed. The techniques that are called for and lab equipment needed are not always the same as those that we are familiar with in UK.

Most importantly, very small projects such as school extensions or bus shelters or road signs, will require a degree of investigation and analysis that is uncalled for and very expensive. 

I believe that the cost of implementing EC7 will not affect major infrastructure projects or power stations but it will add at least 10-15% to simple projects and for some projects such as say adding a toilet at a school, the cost may be doubled.

I believe that the previous BS codes of practice were adequate and safe.

One could achieve a very large saving on Government projects by allowing engineers, designers and builders to continue to use British standards until such time as the EC standards can be simplified.

Finally, I work for a French firm in UK, Norway and China. I also carry out some work for other international clients. My belief is that other EC companies may not be implementing EC7 and its sister codes

So from the viewpoint of an international engineer with 40 years plus experience, bringing back British Standards would save the UK Taxpayer a lot of money.

Dr Denis McNicholl

MSc CEng FICE FIStructE FHKIE

www.dmcnicholl-technology.com 

 

Why is this idea important?

Earlier this year, under an initiative from the previous Office Of the Deputy Prime Minister, British Standards were replaced by European Standards. This was supposed to make it more competitive for UK firms working in Europe.

EC standards that I am familiar with, and particularly EC7 on Geotechnics, are very academic and lack practicability. there is no real facility for engineers and architects to make judgements. All methods are prescribed. The techniques that are called for and lab equipment needed are not always the same as those that we are familiar with in UK.

Most importantly, very small projects such as school extensions or bus shelters or road signs, will require a degree of investigation and analysis that is uncalled for and very expensive. 

I believe that the cost of implementing EC7 will not affect major infrastructure projects or power stations but it will add at least 10-15% to simple projects and for some projects such as say adding a toilet at a school, the cost may be doubled.

I believe that the previous BS codes of practice were adequate and safe.

One could achieve a very large saving on Government projects by allowing engineers, designers and builders to continue to use British standards until such time as the EC standards can be simplified.

Finally, I work for a French firm in UK, Norway and China. I also carry out some work for other international clients. My belief is that other EC companies may not be implementing EC7 and its sister codes

So from the viewpoint of an international engineer with 40 years plus experience, bringing back British Standards would save the UK Taxpayer a lot of money.

Dr Denis McNicholl

MSc CEng FICE FIStructE FHKIE

www.dmcnicholl-technology.com 

 

Review TUPE regulations

TUPE needs reviewing as it will affect our ability to cut the public deficit.  The original intention was to protect large numbers of workers, particularly in relation to the privatisation agenda however it is applicable across the board and businesses, social enterprises and charities will be unable to deliver public sector contracts as efficiently as possible if we inherit the bulk of the costs, particularly staffing costs.  It is not just salary levels that are an issue but, in the case of public sector workers their pension and sick pay rights that are the major barrier.

Why is this idea important?

TUPE needs reviewing as it will affect our ability to cut the public deficit.  The original intention was to protect large numbers of workers, particularly in relation to the privatisation agenda however it is applicable across the board and businesses, social enterprises and charities will be unable to deliver public sector contracts as efficiently as possible if we inherit the bulk of the costs, particularly staffing costs.  It is not just salary levels that are an issue but, in the case of public sector workers their pension and sick pay rights that are the major barrier.