Clarify laws regarding red lights and emergency services

The law should be clarified or amended to permit drivers/motorcyclists to perform manoeuvres at a red lights to allow emergency services to pass safely and expediently. This could be achieved by streamlining the appeal process for fines and points received due to running a red light running where there are the mitigating circumstances of the emergency vehicles.

Why is this idea important?

The law should be clarified or amended to permit drivers/motorcyclists to perform manoeuvres at a red lights to allow emergency services to pass safely and expediently. This could be achieved by streamlining the appeal process for fines and points received due to running a red light running where there are the mitigating circumstances of the emergency vehicles.

Collect TV licence with council tax to reduce collection costs

I would like to propose that the law be amended so that the licence is payable by all and is collected by local councils (as happens with Police & Fire services. This would remove an extra tier of tax collectors working for TV licensing whilst not increasing the staff or workload of local councils. 

This proposal keeps away from the debate on how to pay for the quality services of TV, radio and Internet that are provided through the current TV licence by the BBC. S4C, and others and is restricted to the collection mechanism.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to propose that the law be amended so that the licence is payable by all and is collected by local councils (as happens with Police & Fire services. This would remove an extra tier of tax collectors working for TV licensing whilst not increasing the staff or workload of local councils. 

This proposal keeps away from the debate on how to pay for the quality services of TV, radio and Internet that are provided through the current TV licence by the BBC. S4C, and others and is restricted to the collection mechanism.

Allow several people to share a dwelling without permission

Stop the legal requirement to notify and in some cases licence or even apply for planning consent to allow three or more unrelated people to rent and share a dwelling. Housing Act of 2004 and revisions and instruments in 2006 2007 2008… A bad law aimed at doing what the law already provides for but in an unintrusive way.

I am referring to the current preoccupation with "HMO"s

If a local authority is paying the rent, then they have a right to check value for money but otherwise they should butt out! Tenaants can go to trading standards about bad landlords if there is a need. Why spend council tax money and interfere with civil liberties of prospective sharers and landlords.

Why is this idea important?

Stop the legal requirement to notify and in some cases licence or even apply for planning consent to allow three or more unrelated people to rent and share a dwelling. Housing Act of 2004 and revisions and instruments in 2006 2007 2008… A bad law aimed at doing what the law already provides for but in an unintrusive way.

I am referring to the current preoccupation with "HMO"s

If a local authority is paying the rent, then they have a right to check value for money but otherwise they should butt out! Tenaants can go to trading standards about bad landlords if there is a need. Why spend council tax money and interfere with civil liberties of prospective sharers and landlords.

Abolish Theatre Licences

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Why is this idea important?

Why are Theatre licences necessary?

This is not Eastern Europe under Stalin, or England under Elizabeth the First. "Apply for a licence so we can control what you say and monitor it".

If content is not state-regulated and state-monitored that only leaves impact on neighbours and health and safety as legitimate reasons for control, both areas that also need simplification.

Stop snooping and criminalising people for not having a TV license fee

Television and radio is perhaps the nearest to a universal service amongst households in this country. Yet, rather than have a simple settlement from central funds for the state broadcast channels, we have constructed an elaborate system of collecting license fees from owners of televisions and radios.

This has led to an industry of registering and collecting payments. The simple act of not having a license registered for your address or the simple act of purchasing a new televiisions elicits an aggressive and sceptical response from the collectors of the license fee.


 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Television and radio is perhaps the nearest to a universal service amongst households in this country. Yet, rather than have a simple settlement from central funds for the state broadcast channels, we have constructed an elaborate system of collecting license fees from owners of televisions and radios.

This has led to an industry of registering and collecting payments. The simple act of not having a license registered for your address or the simple act of purchasing a new televiisions elicits an aggressive and sceptical response from the collectors of the license fee.


 

 

 

 

Reduce Oppressive Licensing Act 2003

The Licensing Act 2003 requires all events involving music or sale of alcohol to have a licence – the requirements are oppressive for small fundraising events organised by Charities or other non-commercial organisations.  As most do not have a Personal Licence holder or the premises (such as village halls, churches) do not have Premises Licences the organisers are required to complete in triplicate a 10 page form, most of which is irrelevant.  This form must be submitted to the local authority & police for vetting on each occasion at a cost of £21 a time.  

This requirement costs my charity a significant proportion of the funds raised by such events and, as a licence has never been refused to me, is a pointless bureacratic exercise.  Obtaining a Personal Licence requires attendance at a course typically costing £300 covering far more than the requirements for the small events I organise and as the premises we use (WI Hall, church) do not Have Premises Licences would still require the £21 redundant form to be completed and submitted for approval prior to the event.

The requirement could be simplified and made less onerous by allowing an individual organising such non-commercial events to be vetted once and subsequently allowed to hold, say, 5 events per annum simply by sending the local authority a one page form (or even simpler, holding a log record of events).  This would almost be reverting to the practice prior to John Prescott's oppresive law when individual licence holders could apply for a one year licence allowing a number of events per annum. 

Why is this idea important?

The Licensing Act 2003 requires all events involving music or sale of alcohol to have a licence – the requirements are oppressive for small fundraising events organised by Charities or other non-commercial organisations.  As most do not have a Personal Licence holder or the premises (such as village halls, churches) do not have Premises Licences the organisers are required to complete in triplicate a 10 page form, most of which is irrelevant.  This form must be submitted to the local authority & police for vetting on each occasion at a cost of £21 a time.  

This requirement costs my charity a significant proportion of the funds raised by such events and, as a licence has never been refused to me, is a pointless bureacratic exercise.  Obtaining a Personal Licence requires attendance at a course typically costing £300 covering far more than the requirements for the small events I organise and as the premises we use (WI Hall, church) do not Have Premises Licences would still require the £21 redundant form to be completed and submitted for approval prior to the event.

The requirement could be simplified and made less onerous by allowing an individual organising such non-commercial events to be vetted once and subsequently allowed to hold, say, 5 events per annum simply by sending the local authority a one page form (or even simpler, holding a log record of events).  This would almost be reverting to the practice prior to John Prescott's oppresive law when individual licence holders could apply for a one year licence allowing a number of events per annum. 

Abolish requirement to pay to renew driving licence every 10 years

Currently we are required by law to replace our photo-card driving licence every ten years, on the basis that appearances change over that time. This was not a requirement until the introduction of the photo-card part of the driving licence. The current charge for this is £20. Motorists should not be required to pay every 10 years to replace a licence that is still perfectly valid. If the government/DVLA insist we need to replace them this often, then the charge to motorists should be abolished.

Why is this idea important?

Currently we are required by law to replace our photo-card driving licence every ten years, on the basis that appearances change over that time. This was not a requirement until the introduction of the photo-card part of the driving licence. The current charge for this is £20. Motorists should not be required to pay every 10 years to replace a licence that is still perfectly valid. If the government/DVLA insist we need to replace them this often, then the charge to motorists should be abolished.

Free street trading.

Councils should only require individuals and businesses to have street trading licences in areas where there is a genuine likelihood of too many traders causing problems. Even in such cases, they should provide areas where people can freely trade without needing a licence. Alternatively, we could simply make street trading licences free – at least for the first couple of years – to give businesses a chance to take off.

Why is this idea important?

Councils should only require individuals and businesses to have street trading licences in areas where there is a genuine likelihood of too many traders causing problems. Even in such cases, they should provide areas where people can freely trade without needing a licence. Alternatively, we could simply make street trading licences free – at least for the first couple of years – to give businesses a chance to take off.

Abolist the TV Licence

The complete abolishment of the TV licence as it is just another blackmail tax for the general public which is biased in favour of one company, unnecessary, unnecessarily high in price, unfair and more importatly, it is unwanted.

The license fee is too high for what it provides.  Year on year it increases, but what increase do we as a nation see for our money?  Programmes are the same repeats, why does it cost more to repeat?

They do not make it clear that it is a license to watch or record live TV and people are sent threatening letters sent out with deliberate ambiguity to entice and scare people into buying a license (that a lot of people do not actually need) to avoid ending up in court.

For example, if a documentary is produced one year and then again a year later, the increase in the license fee is disproportionate to what you see on the screen.

If other broadcasters can make money through advertising, why can't the BBC?  If they can't it adds weight to the argument they have grown too big.

In short, the BBC should create a product that people want to pay for, just like other businesses, not rely on bullying people for money – if businesses did that they would be up in court for demanding money by menaces!!

Why is this idea important?

The complete abolishment of the TV licence as it is just another blackmail tax for the general public which is biased in favour of one company, unnecessary, unnecessarily high in price, unfair and more importatly, it is unwanted.

The license fee is too high for what it provides.  Year on year it increases, but what increase do we as a nation see for our money?  Programmes are the same repeats, why does it cost more to repeat?

They do not make it clear that it is a license to watch or record live TV and people are sent threatening letters sent out with deliberate ambiguity to entice and scare people into buying a license (that a lot of people do not actually need) to avoid ending up in court.

For example, if a documentary is produced one year and then again a year later, the increase in the license fee is disproportionate to what you see on the screen.

If other broadcasters can make money through advertising, why can't the BBC?  If they can't it adds weight to the argument they have grown too big.

In short, the BBC should create a product that people want to pay for, just like other businesses, not rely on bullying people for money – if businesses did that they would be up in court for demanding money by menaces!!

Amend Private Security Industry Act 2001

This act was intended to regulate the private security industry by issuing licences for persons to hold jobs in this sector.  The excessive charges for licences tend to indicate that it is more about raising revenue, bearing in mind that licences last only 3 years, and that a licence costs £245 for first licence, and £122.50 for any other licence neded.

If regulation is needed, then OK, but not  for a prohibitively high charge.

Why is this idea important?

This act was intended to regulate the private security industry by issuing licences for persons to hold jobs in this sector.  The excessive charges for licences tend to indicate that it is more about raising revenue, bearing in mind that licences last only 3 years, and that a licence costs £245 for first licence, and £122.50 for any other licence neded.

If regulation is needed, then OK, but not  for a prohibitively high charge.

Drivers CPC

Dear Sir,

 

Firstly I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit an idea.  This is a refreshing idea from the new coalition government.

 

I would like to bring to your attention an item of increased legislation that is of little or no use, and are of considerable cost to local business.

 

The item is that of Driver CPC’s. 

 

Recently the Government has introduced a new requirement for HGV drivers to undergo 5 days of training over the next 5 years.  This is required for them to obtain drivers CPC.  Without the drivers CPC the driver will no longer be able to work as a HGV driver.  There is no exam at the end of the training and could not be as a considerable quantity of the drivers attending these courses do not have English as their first language.  I would also like to point out that if these driver’s are not to the correct standard to past their test in the first place why are we giving them a HGV licence.  This ongoing assessment is of little or no use as it does not improve in any way the driver’s ability to drive.  It is however of considerable cost in inconvenience to business.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir,

 

Firstly I would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit an idea.  This is a refreshing idea from the new coalition government.

 

I would like to bring to your attention an item of increased legislation that is of little or no use, and are of considerable cost to local business.

 

The item is that of Driver CPC’s. 

 

Recently the Government has introduced a new requirement for HGV drivers to undergo 5 days of training over the next 5 years.  This is required for them to obtain drivers CPC.  Without the drivers CPC the driver will no longer be able to work as a HGV driver.  There is no exam at the end of the training and could not be as a considerable quantity of the drivers attending these courses do not have English as their first language.  I would also like to point out that if these driver’s are not to the correct standard to past their test in the first place why are we giving them a HGV licence.  This ongoing assessment is of little or no use as it does not improve in any way the driver’s ability to drive.  It is however of considerable cost in inconvenience to business.

Remove the issue of Pedlars licence from Police to Local Aurthorities

The way the Pedlars licences are issued   is well out of date and not fit for purpose for todays society.

Currently, any Police authority can issue a pedlars licence which allows and individual to travel from town to town trading on public highways and selling goods to the general public.

The proposal is to remove the issuing of licences from the Police and allow Local Authorities to issue licences in their own local authority area.
LA's already issue street trading permits and this allows them to control, police and manage trading actvitiy in their public spaces which is the right thing to do. It also allows the public to have some form of redress if things go wrong with the "pedlar"  trader. (at least they will know who they are!)

I am not saying get rid of the Pedlars licences, Just allow the LA's to manage them.
The Police have enought to do.
Do the Police want be  accountable for issuing the licences to individuals they can not monitor or police? I don't think they do.

Why is this idea important?

The way the Pedlars licences are issued   is well out of date and not fit for purpose for todays society.

Currently, any Police authority can issue a pedlars licence which allows and individual to travel from town to town trading on public highways and selling goods to the general public.

The proposal is to remove the issuing of licences from the Police and allow Local Authorities to issue licences in their own local authority area.
LA's already issue street trading permits and this allows them to control, police and manage trading actvitiy in their public spaces which is the right thing to do. It also allows the public to have some form of redress if things go wrong with the "pedlar"  trader. (at least they will know who they are!)

I am not saying get rid of the Pedlars licences, Just allow the LA's to manage them.
The Police have enought to do.
Do the Police want be  accountable for issuing the licences to individuals they can not monitor or police? I don't think they do.

TV LICENCE LAWS

Scrap the TV licence.  It results in teenagers and impoverished families being harassed, fined and criminalised.  What's the point?

Enormous resources are wasted in collection, enforcement, punishment.  Yet this is a near-universal tax that could be rolled seamlessly into basic income tax, saving the millions spent on TV licence bureaucracy.

The TV licence is the modern Glass Tax.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the TV licence.  It results in teenagers and impoverished families being harassed, fined and criminalised.  What's the point?

Enormous resources are wasted in collection, enforcement, punishment.  Yet this is a near-universal tax that could be rolled seamlessly into basic income tax, saving the millions spent on TV licence bureaucracy.

The TV licence is the modern Glass Tax.