The daftest quango of them all

The Independent Safeguarding Authority.  Its neither independent  nor safeguarding.  It fails to understand the origin and nature of child abuse.  It criminalises us all, gives power to the police and the public authorities.  Its unintended consequences are horrific rendering it extremely difficult for hundreds of voluntary bodies to operate successfully.  And as it that is not enough,  it has created a huge and costly bureacracy which a broken country like ours can scarcely afford.   It should be abolished and some commonsense thought applied to the problem of child abuse.  The money spent here could be spent on road safety and many more lives would be saved.  Too simple for our politicians!

Why is this idea important?

The Independent Safeguarding Authority.  Its neither independent  nor safeguarding.  It fails to understand the origin and nature of child abuse.  It criminalises us all, gives power to the police and the public authorities.  Its unintended consequences are horrific rendering it extremely difficult for hundreds of voluntary bodies to operate successfully.  And as it that is not enough,  it has created a huge and costly bureacracy which a broken country like ours can scarcely afford.   It should be abolished and some commonsense thought applied to the problem of child abuse.  The money spent here could be spent on road safety and many more lives would be saved.  Too simple for our politicians!

Get rid of Council Tax Benefit bureaucracy.

There are thousands of bureaucrats in this country whose jobs include dealing with Council Tax Benefit claims. There is a mountain of excessively complicated regulation covering how these claims are to be dealt with. Vast sums of money and considerable manpower resources are lavished each year on assessing people's claims.

The main task for the bureaucrats is to assess people's incomes to see how much "benefit" they are entitled to. (Council Tax Benefit is not really a benefit anyway – it is just a reduction in the amount of Council Tax you have to pay.)

They don't just make a calculation for each year – they make a calculation for every week! If you are self-employed, the council may even insist upon seeing every receipt for your business, down to the last stamp and the last paperclip! I'm not kidding – this actually happens!

A single claim can sometimes involve literally reams of paper and hundreds of man-hours from both the council and the claimant. And if there is any change in circumstances, the council may insist on repeating the entire process. In many cases, the cost of administering the claim greatly exceeds the amount being claimed.

And yet, nearly all of this bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. The vast majority of people claiming Council Tax Benefit will already have had their incomes assessed for the purpose of claiming tax credits. So why not just use the same figures to assess Council Tax Benefit?

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of bureaucrats in this country whose jobs include dealing with Council Tax Benefit claims. There is a mountain of excessively complicated regulation covering how these claims are to be dealt with. Vast sums of money and considerable manpower resources are lavished each year on assessing people's claims.

The main task for the bureaucrats is to assess people's incomes to see how much "benefit" they are entitled to. (Council Tax Benefit is not really a benefit anyway – it is just a reduction in the amount of Council Tax you have to pay.)

They don't just make a calculation for each year – they make a calculation for every week! If you are self-employed, the council may even insist upon seeing every receipt for your business, down to the last stamp and the last paperclip! I'm not kidding – this actually happens!

A single claim can sometimes involve literally reams of paper and hundreds of man-hours from both the council and the claimant. And if there is any change in circumstances, the council may insist on repeating the entire process. In many cases, the cost of administering the claim greatly exceeds the amount being claimed.

And yet, nearly all of this bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. The vast majority of people claiming Council Tax Benefit will already have had their incomes assessed for the purpose of claiming tax credits. So why not just use the same figures to assess Council Tax Benefit?

Trust the teachers – let them teach properly

The vast majority of teachers are qualified, motivated and knowledgable individuals who know their subjects and their pupils or students, as a group, better than anyone else. They should be allowed to teach the way which delivers the subject knowledge, in their educated opinion, the best way for each individual or group. They cannot do this when bogged down by an ever-increasing burden of paperwork, which takes away from their contact time with their class or group. Trust the teachers to do the job properly, and give them the time and freedom so to do. Less paperwork, fewer targets and decreased inspection will result in a better education for the country's children and students.

Why is this idea important?

The vast majority of teachers are qualified, motivated and knowledgable individuals who know their subjects and their pupils or students, as a group, better than anyone else. They should be allowed to teach the way which delivers the subject knowledge, in their educated opinion, the best way for each individual or group. They cannot do this when bogged down by an ever-increasing burden of paperwork, which takes away from their contact time with their class or group. Trust the teachers to do the job properly, and give them the time and freedom so to do. Less paperwork, fewer targets and decreased inspection will result in a better education for the country's children and students.

Remove all ‘internal market’ constraints from public sector

Whereas previously sections of the public sector (most importantly health and education) used to serve their local communties, now, thanks to the implementation of 'internal market' economic strategies, they are now locked in competition with each other to secure funding.

Why is this idea important?

Whereas previously sections of the public sector (most importantly health and education) used to serve their local communties, now, thanks to the implementation of 'internal market' economic strategies, they are now locked in competition with each other to secure funding.

Reduce number of SACREs and Agreed Syllabuses for Religious Education

Current legislation means that every local authority in England and Wales must create a Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, which has the power to call for an LEA to review it's Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education. The legislation also means that every LEA must have it's own syllabus for RE. This has led to a wide range of different syllabuses, with sometimes vast differences in terms of quality, content, professional input and so on.

My idea is to reduce this layer of bureaucracy by calling for either a statutory National Framework for Religious Education (instead of the current non-statutory) or to greatly reduce the number of SACRE's and Agreed Syllabuses by creating regional SACRE's and syllabi. For example, Wales currentl has 22 LEA's, each wasting tax payers money on meetings, documentation and time. Most have adopted the non-statutory framework anyway, and it seems mad that a country with such as small population has so many syllabuses for it's children.

Why is this idea important?

Current legislation means that every local authority in England and Wales must create a Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education, which has the power to call for an LEA to review it's Agreed Syllabus for Religious Education. The legislation also means that every LEA must have it's own syllabus for RE. This has led to a wide range of different syllabuses, with sometimes vast differences in terms of quality, content, professional input and so on.

My idea is to reduce this layer of bureaucracy by calling for either a statutory National Framework for Religious Education (instead of the current non-statutory) or to greatly reduce the number of SACRE's and Agreed Syllabuses by creating regional SACRE's and syllabi. For example, Wales currentl has 22 LEA's, each wasting tax payers money on meetings, documentation and time. Most have adopted the non-statutory framework anyway, and it seems mad that a country with such as small population has so many syllabuses for it's children.

Repeal the Corporate Manslaughter Act

This Act means that companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Now accountability is good but there is always an equal and opposite reaction in life and teh reaction to this law is disproportionate to its intention. Every employee is now fearful of making a mistake so they overcompensate which means more money spent stopping things that aren't proably going to happen anyway.

This Act has helped push Health and safety legislation away from its core purpose which was to actually stop people being hurt and NOT to stop people worry about being sued if someone got hurt.

One small example – high visibility jackets. They used to be the uniform of highway workers helping them to be seen. Now they are everywhere, on every building site and every warehouse in the land. Mostly worn by poeple not near fast moving traffic that needs to pick you out in dark conditions. How much is the annual cost to business of these jackets? And remember they are only included in risk assessments because someone thinks they'd better cover themselves in case they get sued. They're not in teh risk assessment because they are needed to prevent accidents.

Why is this idea important?

This Act means that companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Now accountability is good but there is always an equal and opposite reaction in life and teh reaction to this law is disproportionate to its intention. Every employee is now fearful of making a mistake so they overcompensate which means more money spent stopping things that aren't proably going to happen anyway.

This Act has helped push Health and safety legislation away from its core purpose which was to actually stop people being hurt and NOT to stop people worry about being sued if someone got hurt.

One small example – high visibility jackets. They used to be the uniform of highway workers helping them to be seen. Now they are everywhere, on every building site and every warehouse in the land. Mostly worn by poeple not near fast moving traffic that needs to pick you out in dark conditions. How much is the annual cost to business of these jackets? And remember they are only included in risk assessments because someone thinks they'd better cover themselves in case they get sued. They're not in teh risk assessment because they are needed to prevent accidents.

unwarrated impact of Anti-money laundering requirements

It is becoming ever more difficult and burdensome to open new bank accounts or other financial services, even for people who already have multiple bank accounts, UK jobs, NI numbers, tax codes and passports. 

I now have to send off multiple important documents – passport, driving licence each time I want to open an account, despite the fact that these are uniquely important documents and difficult to replace.  This increases the risk of them going missing en-route and being used for identity fraud.  No wonder ID fraud is a growing probem.

I am also increasingly frustrated by the requirement to get documents signed by a person of standing.  These are apparently limited to such people as bank/building society official, solicitor, accountant, commissioner of oaths, justice of the peace, legal secretary, member of parliament, police officer or an officer of the armed services include bank managers.  Why are these the only jobs that mean people are honest and upstanding.  Surely someone who has held the same job for 10 years, has a degree and a passport and driving licence should be perfecty acceptable.  This is insulting to honest, hard working people.

There is also a growing trend for these people to charge for this signing service.  So now we have to pay for the priviledge of proving who we obviously are, just to open a bank account.  These standards need to be widened to allow any professional person to sign (like passports – why do we need a narrower standard than passports??).  Or better still, this madness needs to be unwound. 

Why is this idea important?

It is becoming ever more difficult and burdensome to open new bank accounts or other financial services, even for people who already have multiple bank accounts, UK jobs, NI numbers, tax codes and passports. 

I now have to send off multiple important documents – passport, driving licence each time I want to open an account, despite the fact that these are uniquely important documents and difficult to replace.  This increases the risk of them going missing en-route and being used for identity fraud.  No wonder ID fraud is a growing probem.

I am also increasingly frustrated by the requirement to get documents signed by a person of standing.  These are apparently limited to such people as bank/building society official, solicitor, accountant, commissioner of oaths, justice of the peace, legal secretary, member of parliament, police officer or an officer of the armed services include bank managers.  Why are these the only jobs that mean people are honest and upstanding.  Surely someone who has held the same job for 10 years, has a degree and a passport and driving licence should be perfecty acceptable.  This is insulting to honest, hard working people.

There is also a growing trend for these people to charge for this signing service.  So now we have to pay for the priviledge of proving who we obviously are, just to open a bank account.  These standards need to be widened to allow any professional person to sign (like passports – why do we need a narrower standard than passports??).  Or better still, this madness needs to be unwound. 

Reinstating newspaper deliveries

My newsagent tells me that he does not provide a newspaper deliver service in the mornings because healthy and safety regulations require him to be personally responsible for the newspaper boys or girls' bicycle. He has to ensure it has working brakes, pumped up tyres, good lights, and that they are wearing cycle helmets.

Why is this idea important?

My newsagent tells me that he does not provide a newspaper deliver service in the mornings because healthy and safety regulations require him to be personally responsible for the newspaper boys or girls' bicycle. He has to ensure it has working brakes, pumped up tyres, good lights, and that they are wearing cycle helmets.

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

get rid of NOMS and all of its bureaucracy

 

the national offender management model was created and implemented to join up the prison and probation services. For those of us working within these services, we know it has created nothing more than an extra layer of ineffective bureaucracy that does nothing to achieve the real purpose of these services (punishment, protection, rehabilitation etc).

My idea is simple:

Repeal the legislation that has brought NOMS into being, get rid of the huge central machine that adds little value (and certainly not value for money) and put the money into front line services.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

the national offender management model was created and implemented to join up the prison and probation services. For those of us working within these services, we know it has created nothing more than an extra layer of ineffective bureaucracy that does nothing to achieve the real purpose of these services (punishment, protection, rehabilitation etc).

My idea is simple:

Repeal the legislation that has brought NOMS into being, get rid of the huge central machine that adds little value (and certainly not value for money) and put the money into front line services.

 

 

Planning applications shouldn’t be an exercise in job creation

Planning applications used to need the submission of a 3 page form together with plans and elevations showing the proposals

Under directions ordered by the last government, Local Planning Authorities now require completion of a 10 page form as well as very detailed plans, sections and elevations.  They can also now ask for all sorts of things to accompany the application, such as Environmental Statements, Supporting Planning Statements, Design and Access Statements, Transport Assessments, Travel Plans, Flood Risk Assessments, Regeneration Statements, Retail Assessments, Sustainability Appraisals, Tree Surveys, Nature Conservation Assessments, Ecological Assessments, Noise Impact Assessments, Air Quality Assessments, Utilities Statements, Energy Statements, Archaeological Assessments, etc. 

As this is now all laid down in Local Authority Planning Protocols, there are many Planning Officers who will ask for unnecessary information  – without having the common sense to question it. 

The consequence is, of course, that many consultants need to be employed to prepare such assessments and statements and the cost of making planning applications has risen alarmingly.   Another side to the issue is that Local Authorities require additional staff (or their own consultants) to verfity and check the information, thereby creating an additional burden on tax payers.

These Local Planning Authority powers should be curbed so that development is allowed to proceed with minimal levels of bureaucracy.

 

Why is this idea important?

Planning applications used to need the submission of a 3 page form together with plans and elevations showing the proposals

Under directions ordered by the last government, Local Planning Authorities now require completion of a 10 page form as well as very detailed plans, sections and elevations.  They can also now ask for all sorts of things to accompany the application, such as Environmental Statements, Supporting Planning Statements, Design and Access Statements, Transport Assessments, Travel Plans, Flood Risk Assessments, Regeneration Statements, Retail Assessments, Sustainability Appraisals, Tree Surveys, Nature Conservation Assessments, Ecological Assessments, Noise Impact Assessments, Air Quality Assessments, Utilities Statements, Energy Statements, Archaeological Assessments, etc. 

As this is now all laid down in Local Authority Planning Protocols, there are many Planning Officers who will ask for unnecessary information  – without having the common sense to question it. 

The consequence is, of course, that many consultants need to be employed to prepare such assessments and statements and the cost of making planning applications has risen alarmingly.   Another side to the issue is that Local Authorities require additional staff (or their own consultants) to verfity and check the information, thereby creating an additional burden on tax payers.

These Local Planning Authority powers should be curbed so that development is allowed to proceed with minimal levels of bureaucracy.

 

Slim down the National Curriculum for teachers!

I trained up originally as a primary school teacher in the 1990s, and was very good at my job. I left because of the sheer volume of paperwork required to manage the National Curriculum.

Most of my time was devoted to "benchmarking" and assessing my pupils against various level descriptors. Not only this, but the Literacy and Numeracy hours (the principles of which which I agree with) were intensely prescriptive: we were told how to structure classes, for example, which involved me having to allocate different *topics* (not just differentiated tasks) to different groups of children in their Numeracy lesson, when commnon sense told me they should at least have the same focus, albeit at different levels.

I have since moved on to sixth form teaching, via FE and a stint doing VSO, but I still hear various horror stories about primary teachers having to submit detailed lesson plans and evaluations (including portfolios of photographs) for *every lesson* they teach! I notice that the teachers in the school oppposite where I live,one with a very good reputation, are often at work before 7a.m.

Why is this idea important?

I trained up originally as a primary school teacher in the 1990s, and was very good at my job. I left because of the sheer volume of paperwork required to manage the National Curriculum.

Most of my time was devoted to "benchmarking" and assessing my pupils against various level descriptors. Not only this, but the Literacy and Numeracy hours (the principles of which which I agree with) were intensely prescriptive: we were told how to structure classes, for example, which involved me having to allocate different *topics* (not just differentiated tasks) to different groups of children in their Numeracy lesson, when commnon sense told me they should at least have the same focus, albeit at different levels.

I have since moved on to sixth form teaching, via FE and a stint doing VSO, but I still hear various horror stories about primary teachers having to submit detailed lesson plans and evaluations (including portfolios of photographs) for *every lesson* they teach! I notice that the teachers in the school oppposite where I live,one with a very good reputation, are often at work before 7a.m.

Stop FMSIS

State schools are subject to audit by the local authority, the district audit and Ofsted.  Why do we need FMSIS.  What is the purpose of this? 

Why is this idea important?

State schools are subject to audit by the local authority, the district audit and Ofsted.  Why do we need FMSIS.  What is the purpose of this? 

quangocrats and quangos

All activities carried out by quangos should be restored to existing democratically elected bodies. This would result in all quangos being abolished. However this would take time so while they still exist all quangos should have only volunteers on their management bodies/boards. Not the paid quangocrats that now fill those places often as politically motivated sinecures. 

Why is this idea important?

All activities carried out by quangos should be restored to existing democratically elected bodies. This would result in all quangos being abolished. However this would take time so while they still exist all quangos should have only volunteers on their management bodies/boards. Not the paid quangocrats that now fill those places often as politically motivated sinecures. 

Repeal Statutory Off-Road Notification (SORN)

I am pleased to see that there are others who share this view.  The SORN is a formal requirement to notify the authorities that one is not breaking a law.  As such it is an oppressive and bureaucratic step too far, especially for those for whom its provisions are perhaps most applicable – the elderly, the infirm and those who have become incapacitated.

Notwithstanding the menace of uninsured and untaxed cars on the road, an unhappy consequence of the SORN regulation is that the passage of the expiry date on a tax disc of a motor vehicle sitting inert and unused in a garage or on a driveway, belonging to a law abiding citizen, renders that citizen guilty of an offence if they fail to notify the DVLA of their non-use of their motor vehicle. 

Repeal the SORN, free up the police to address the real offenders and preserve the good character of law abiding citizens.  It's a win-win no-brainer.

Why is this idea important?

I am pleased to see that there are others who share this view.  The SORN is a formal requirement to notify the authorities that one is not breaking a law.  As such it is an oppressive and bureaucratic step too far, especially for those for whom its provisions are perhaps most applicable – the elderly, the infirm and those who have become incapacitated.

Notwithstanding the menace of uninsured and untaxed cars on the road, an unhappy consequence of the SORN regulation is that the passage of the expiry date on a tax disc of a motor vehicle sitting inert and unused in a garage or on a driveway, belonging to a law abiding citizen, renders that citizen guilty of an offence if they fail to notify the DVLA of their non-use of their motor vehicle. 

Repeal the SORN, free up the police to address the real offenders and preserve the good character of law abiding citizens.  It's a win-win no-brainer.

Re-examination of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act

Every year, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are wasted in Wales as a direct consequence of the necessity to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Welsh Language Act. In my view, this Act needs to be urgently re-examined in great detail so as to ensure that this state of affairs is not allowed to continue. Let me provide three, fairly typical everyday examples of how public money is wasted unnecessarily within the Principality: (i) When Welsh local authorities wish to alter a road layout, they are obliged, as everywhere else, to announce their plans in the local press. In Wales, however, the cost of this announcement is effectively more than doubled because the advertising must be bilingual. Costs could easily be slashed by the simple expedient of adding one line to an English language advertisement stating that ‘a Welsh version of this announcement is available on request’. However, currently, this appears not to be acceptable under the terms of the Act. (ii) A voluntary organization recently wished to provide patient information leaflets on sickle cell disease in a range of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and Asian languages. Perhaps predictably, they ran out of money before the task was complete. One of the leaflets that was however successfully produced was in Welsh (because this was an obligatory requirement of receipt of public funding), despite the fact that it is vanishingly unlikely that any Welsh-speaking sickle cell disease patient actually exists in Wales. (iii) When scientific positions at my host institution, a leading Welsh University, are advertised in the local press, one is billed for the (more than doubled) cost of obligatory bilingual advertising. This is absolutely not what my hard-earned medical research funds were supposed to be used for! Further, I estimate that my cash-strapped host institution is obliged to fork out ~£250,000 per annum for this purpose. This is at a time when cut-backs are rife and some Welsh higher education institutions may have to merge or even close. Again, a perfectly reasonable compromise would be for the advertisement to state that a Welsh language version of the text was available on request. As the Welsh Language Act stands, however, this is unacceptable. These are just three examples of senseless waste in a virtual sea of wastefulness. Principality-wide, the sums of money involved are enormous and, to my mind, constitute a fertile hunting ground for massive savings that would be almost entirely painless to administer.    

Why is this idea important?

Every year, millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are wasted in Wales as a direct consequence of the necessity to adhere strictly to the provisions of the Welsh Language Act. In my view, this Act needs to be urgently re-examined in great detail so as to ensure that this state of affairs is not allowed to continue. Let me provide three, fairly typical everyday examples of how public money is wasted unnecessarily within the Principality: (i) When Welsh local authorities wish to alter a road layout, they are obliged, as everywhere else, to announce their plans in the local press. In Wales, however, the cost of this announcement is effectively more than doubled because the advertising must be bilingual. Costs could easily be slashed by the simple expedient of adding one line to an English language advertisement stating that ‘a Welsh version of this announcement is available on request’. However, currently, this appears not to be acceptable under the terms of the Act. (ii) A voluntary organization recently wished to provide patient information leaflets on sickle cell disease in a range of Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and Asian languages. Perhaps predictably, they ran out of money before the task was complete. One of the leaflets that was however successfully produced was in Welsh (because this was an obligatory requirement of receipt of public funding), despite the fact that it is vanishingly unlikely that any Welsh-speaking sickle cell disease patient actually exists in Wales. (iii) When scientific positions at my host institution, a leading Welsh University, are advertised in the local press, one is billed for the (more than doubled) cost of obligatory bilingual advertising. This is absolutely not what my hard-earned medical research funds were supposed to be used for! Further, I estimate that my cash-strapped host institution is obliged to fork out ~£250,000 per annum for this purpose. This is at a time when cut-backs are rife and some Welsh higher education institutions may have to merge or even close. Again, a perfectly reasonable compromise would be for the advertisement to state that a Welsh language version of the text was available on request. As the Welsh Language Act stands, however, this is unacceptable. These are just three examples of senseless waste in a virtual sea of wastefulness. Principality-wide, the sums of money involved are enormous and, to my mind, constitute a fertile hunting ground for massive savings that would be almost entirely painless to administer.    

Scrap Vehicle Excise Duty (often known as Road Tax)

Get rid of the so called road tax and spread the cost by increasing fuel duty.

That way we end up with an equitable system where by the highest users pay the most and the most frugal and efficient drivers pay the least.

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of the so called road tax and spread the cost by increasing fuel duty.

That way we end up with an equitable system where by the highest users pay the most and the most frugal and efficient drivers pay the least.

CRB CHECKS

CRB checks seem to be a good idea.I assume the idea is to check out the person who comes into contact with vulnerable people?

Why then does a person who moves between jobs have to get a new one every time?

This seems very time consuming and a complete waste of time.

My wife even had to get a new one when she moved towns and worked for the same organisation!!

Why is this idea important?

CRB checks seem to be a good idea.I assume the idea is to check out the person who comes into contact with vulnerable people?

Why then does a person who moves between jobs have to get a new one every time?

This seems very time consuming and a complete waste of time.

My wife even had to get a new one when she moved towns and worked for the same organisation!!

Simplify and consolidate existing UK tax legislation

Current UK (and EU) tax legislation is vast and overcomplicated. When studying for tax exams a few years ago (before a change of career) we were required to carry around 5 thick books of legislation and each year the amount of regulations grows still further. Whilst this may have the benefit of creating a need for tax advisers, it means that the everyday person cannot easily work out their own tax position unless they have the money to pay advisers. The complexity of the legislation also enables tax consultants to come up with loopholes and means of tax avoidance for wealthy clients that HMRC do not have the resources to counter.

My idea is therefore to consolidate and simplify tax legislation, grouping it in an orderly manner (as was started by ITEPA for income tax), repealing unnecessary legislation, and putting it into everyday English that doesn’t require a great deal of study to understand.

Why is this idea important?

Current UK (and EU) tax legislation is vast and overcomplicated. When studying for tax exams a few years ago (before a change of career) we were required to carry around 5 thick books of legislation and each year the amount of regulations grows still further. Whilst this may have the benefit of creating a need for tax advisers, it means that the everyday person cannot easily work out their own tax position unless they have the money to pay advisers. The complexity of the legislation also enables tax consultants to come up with loopholes and means of tax avoidance for wealthy clients that HMRC do not have the resources to counter.

My idea is therefore to consolidate and simplify tax legislation, grouping it in an orderly manner (as was started by ITEPA for income tax), repealing unnecessary legislation, and putting it into everyday English that doesn’t require a great deal of study to understand.

health and safety legislation and practice

the health and safety at work act was intended to reduce and prevent industrial accidents, not to provide excuses for all kinds of civil servants and local authorities for not doing their jobs. the scope of the act needs to be seriously  curtailed and interpreted accordingly in the courts

Why is this idea important?

the health and safety at work act was intended to reduce and prevent industrial accidents, not to provide excuses for all kinds of civil servants and local authorities for not doing their jobs. the scope of the act needs to be seriously  curtailed and interpreted accordingly in the courts