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.

CRB checks

Introduce one-time CRB checks which will be acceptable by agencies other than the one initially requiring it

*   issue a visa like certificate of passing to successful applicants which will be placed on a page of their passport

*   the person's passport then becomes their proof of passing as well as of ID and will last the lifetime of the passport

Why is this idea important?

Introduce one-time CRB checks which will be acceptable by agencies other than the one initially requiring it

*   issue a visa like certificate of passing to successful applicants which will be placed on a page of their passport

*   the person's passport then becomes their proof of passing as well as of ID and will last the lifetime of the passport

Remove notification, compliance and licensing for landlords

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Reduce the remit of the GLA

The Gangmasters Licencing Authority needs to be disbanded or it's remit greatly reduced to decrease the impact on small business. It could mean that small businesses I use can't tender for contracts (and potential lose money and go out of business) and larger firms are at an advantage being able to absorb the cost of a licence up front. The licence duplicates much of the regulation under health and safety and employment law.

Why is this idea important?

The Gangmasters Licencing Authority needs to be disbanded or it's remit greatly reduced to decrease the impact on small business. It could mean that small businesses I use can't tender for contracts (and potential lose money and go out of business) and larger firms are at an advantage being able to absorb the cost of a licence up front. The licence duplicates much of the regulation under health and safety and employment law.

Scrap CQC for dentists

Yet another waste of time and resources in an already over regulated and micro -managed profession. This will achieve nothing more than the regulatory bodied that are already there which at least  have some idea about what is involved in Dentistry. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of thes layers of unnecessary management.

Why is this idea important?

Yet another waste of time and resources in an already over regulated and micro -managed profession. This will achieve nothing more than the regulatory bodied that are already there which at least  have some idea about what is involved in Dentistry. I thought we were supposed to be getting rid of thes layers of unnecessary management.

Remove restrictions on photography in public places and private property.

Remove all restrictions on taking photos in public and on private property.  This would apply to every thing but military instillations.  

My view is that if you do some thing in a public place or on some one else's property then that was you decision and you should live with the photos. This would have the effect of removing rules about displaying notices to warn of CCTV and would mean that your cameras could view adjacent public property. 

Why is this idea important?

Remove all restrictions on taking photos in public and on private property.  This would apply to every thing but military instillations.  

My view is that if you do some thing in a public place or on some one else's property then that was you decision and you should live with the photos. This would have the effect of removing rules about displaying notices to warn of CCTV and would mean that your cameras could view adjacent public property. 

Houses in Multiple Occupation Licences

Abolish the concept of a House in Multiplle Occupation. The definition of an HMO applies to  property rented to two or more unrelated adults and is used by councils to create revenue in the form of licencing costs to lanlords – thereby increasing rents to tenants – and as an excuse to spawn a plethora of public sector jobs policing the strict requirements that HMO status conveys.

A family with six children can rent a property without the intrusive and costly rules and regulations of HMO status being policed by an army of council officials. Three adult friends sharing an identical house next door will be deemed to be separate households  -as they are unrelated – and the landlord required to obtain an expensive HMO licence.

Environmental health officers will then make regular and intrusive inspections ,demand fire doors be installed, windows be locked to stop people falling out and many other requirements as presumably two or more unrelated adults are incapable of living in an ordinary rented property without risking life and limb!

HMO legislation serves no purpose, is unneccessary, increases private sector rental costs and daunts potential landlords thereby reducing the pool of rented property available. Owner occupiers are not exposed to local council demands and intruisions – why should tenants have to suffer such interference and landlords and taxpayers pay for the jobs created to support such legislation?

Legislation related to the rental of property needs a comprehensive overhaul.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the concept of a House in Multiplle Occupation. The definition of an HMO applies to  property rented to two or more unrelated adults and is used by councils to create revenue in the form of licencing costs to lanlords – thereby increasing rents to tenants – and as an excuse to spawn a plethora of public sector jobs policing the strict requirements that HMO status conveys.

A family with six children can rent a property without the intrusive and costly rules and regulations of HMO status being policed by an army of council officials. Three adult friends sharing an identical house next door will be deemed to be separate households  -as they are unrelated – and the landlord required to obtain an expensive HMO licence.

Environmental health officers will then make regular and intrusive inspections ,demand fire doors be installed, windows be locked to stop people falling out and many other requirements as presumably two or more unrelated adults are incapable of living in an ordinary rented property without risking life and limb!

HMO legislation serves no purpose, is unneccessary, increases private sector rental costs and daunts potential landlords thereby reducing the pool of rented property available. Owner occupiers are not exposed to local council demands and intruisions – why should tenants have to suffer such interference and landlords and taxpayers pay for the jobs created to support such legislation?

Legislation related to the rental of property needs a comprehensive overhaul.

Stop costly duplication of CRB checks

My wife has a small business teaching music to 'early years children.  As a contractor to different employers and working in different venues, she has to get multiple CRB checks, and each comes from a different "provider".  These cost around £70 each – it varies – and take a lot of time and effort to complete.  They make getting back to work after a period of illness almost prohibitively expensive.  What a waste!

Why is there not one provider?  The ISA was being set up to do that, were stopped. Why? Perhaps some "providers" will lose business?

Why is this idea important?

My wife has a small business teaching music to 'early years children.  As a contractor to different employers and working in different venues, she has to get multiple CRB checks, and each comes from a different "provider".  These cost around £70 each – it varies – and take a lot of time and effort to complete.  They make getting back to work after a period of illness almost prohibitively expensive.  What a waste!

Why is there not one provider?  The ISA was being set up to do that, were stopped. Why? Perhaps some "providers" will lose business?

Update 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act

The 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act, to be updated & simplified.

Ambiguities & outdated clauses should be repealed.

The December 2008 HSE 3rd Simplification Plan, should be enacted and the included in a modernised act.

Why is this idea important?

The 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act, to be updated & simplified.

Ambiguities & outdated clauses should be repealed.

The December 2008 HSE 3rd Simplification Plan, should be enacted and the included in a modernised act.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Should all government data on citizens be controlled by independent trusts? And to whom would they be answerable?

Just wondering on this, but the more storage we get, inevitably the more data the government holds will increase. Computers were supposed to reduce paperwork, they increased it due to data.

The more data the government holds the more capacity, power and potential corruption therein they have to start abusing it. Should the control of what requests in their various contexts are acceptable and what not, lie with the system, or should it be independently controlled?

Trusts can be used to monitor which types of data requests are asked (by polticians, police, insurance companies), of whom and why. Police are already known to use anti terror requests to identify comparatively petty criminals, showing that (through the abuse of power) they can be no more trusted with data than said criminals.

As we have more data over time over more issues, I propose that the data is pulled away from the people that can unaccountably use that data to trusts that are accountable. Once appointed, they could appoint new members keeping themselves independent. But to whom should the trusts be accountable? The people via votes, other data trusts, or the politicians they are supposed to regulate?

Why is this idea important?

Just wondering on this, but the more storage we get, inevitably the more data the government holds will increase. Computers were supposed to reduce paperwork, they increased it due to data.

The more data the government holds the more capacity, power and potential corruption therein they have to start abusing it. Should the control of what requests in their various contexts are acceptable and what not, lie with the system, or should it be independently controlled?

Trusts can be used to monitor which types of data requests are asked (by polticians, police, insurance companies), of whom and why. Police are already known to use anti terror requests to identify comparatively petty criminals, showing that (through the abuse of power) they can be no more trusted with data than said criminals.

As we have more data over time over more issues, I propose that the data is pulled away from the people that can unaccountably use that data to trusts that are accountable. Once appointed, they could appoint new members keeping themselves independent. But to whom should the trusts be accountable? The people via votes, other data trusts, or the politicians they are supposed to regulate?

Get rid of the new ‘central clearing for hospital referrals’

As a busy dental surgery we often refer patients to hospitals and orthodontic clinics. Until recently we wrote directly to the secretary of the consultant  concerned who liased with the patient.

Now the 'Central Clearing of Hospital Referrals' office has been bought in and we must write to them. They decide which specialist the patient should see and where they should go.

Of course, when our patients telephone us wanting to know why they have not heard from the hospital, we cannot answer their questions. We don't kow to whom they will be referred nor when their appointment will be. The personal touch has completely gone. Not only this, we have had instances of this new office losing referrals.

The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' is a complete waste of money, presumably created to create a few more jobs. Why should it be up to office workers to decide where a patient goes. It should be up to the dentist who knows who is best to solve the patient's problem. Through their experience, they know the best professionals to refer their patients to.

The orthodonists have also given us their opinion,  that they also think this office is un-necessary. One orthodontist whose clinic is outside of a hospital environment is receiving greatly reduced referrals and feels that his clinic is going down the tubes, whilest his wife, who works in the hospital, said there is many months waiting list. This is obvioulsy not working.

The original system worked well and should be reinstated. The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' should be scrapped now.

 

Why is this idea important?

As a busy dental surgery we often refer patients to hospitals and orthodontic clinics. Until recently we wrote directly to the secretary of the consultant  concerned who liased with the patient.

Now the 'Central Clearing of Hospital Referrals' office has been bought in and we must write to them. They decide which specialist the patient should see and where they should go.

Of course, when our patients telephone us wanting to know why they have not heard from the hospital, we cannot answer their questions. We don't kow to whom they will be referred nor when their appointment will be. The personal touch has completely gone. Not only this, we have had instances of this new office losing referrals.

The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' is a complete waste of money, presumably created to create a few more jobs. Why should it be up to office workers to decide where a patient goes. It should be up to the dentist who knows who is best to solve the patient's problem. Through their experience, they know the best professionals to refer their patients to.

The orthodonists have also given us their opinion,  that they also think this office is un-necessary. One orthodontist whose clinic is outside of a hospital environment is receiving greatly reduced referrals and feels that his clinic is going down the tubes, whilest his wife, who works in the hospital, said there is many months waiting list. This is obvioulsy not working.

The original system worked well and should be reinstated. The 'Central Clearing for Hospital Referals' should be scrapped now.