Abolish requirement to present documents when ordering a numberplate

It should no longer be required to present a vehicle logbook and a proof of address when seeking to purchase a new or replacement numberplate.  Should a law-breaker require a numberplate, he will steal mine (that's why I wanted a new one in the first place).  Exasperated with petty bureaucracy, I will purchase future numberplates over the internet, without any documents, as will the law-breaker who can't be bothered to steal mine.  The local motor spares emporium will thus be deprived of my business (and the law-breaker's).

Why is this idea important?

It should no longer be required to present a vehicle logbook and a proof of address when seeking to purchase a new or replacement numberplate.  Should a law-breaker require a numberplate, he will steal mine (that's why I wanted a new one in the first place).  Exasperated with petty bureaucracy, I will purchase future numberplates over the internet, without any documents, as will the law-breaker who can't be bothered to steal mine.  The local motor spares emporium will thus be deprived of my business (and the law-breaker's).

Remove FSMA2000 Restrictions on Info Sharing for Start-Up Biz Funding

FSMA2000 regulations, designed to protect the consumer in their financial dealings, inadvertently roped in early-stage businesses who wanted to pass their business plans around prospective investors.  Even if they were looking for only £50,000 the Act imposed untenable fees and liabilities on them.  FSMA2000 (Financial Promotion Orders 2001) was amended in 2005, after much lobbying by myself and a few others, to assist in loosening up the process, but there is still great fear around about what an early-stage business can or cannot do about raising capital. 

Introduce a complete exclusion for business people/entrepreneurs who simply want to invest and collaborate between/amongst each other. 

Why is this idea important?

FSMA2000 regulations, designed to protect the consumer in their financial dealings, inadvertently roped in early-stage businesses who wanted to pass their business plans around prospective investors.  Even if they were looking for only £50,000 the Act imposed untenable fees and liabilities on them.  FSMA2000 (Financial Promotion Orders 2001) was amended in 2005, after much lobbying by myself and a few others, to assist in loosening up the process, but there is still great fear around about what an early-stage business can or cannot do about raising capital. 

Introduce a complete exclusion for business people/entrepreneurs who simply want to invest and collaborate between/amongst each other. 

Stop the claiming for damages culture against schools, hospitals, …

We should by using an NHS hospital for ourself or a state school for our children, for examples, implicitly accept that we cannot sue those organisations.

I think we should accept that things do go wrong. Sometimes by mistake, sometimes by incompetence and sometimes by evil intent.

Evil intent should be the liability of the wrongdoer, even if they have no means to compensate their victims or those affected by their actions. That may be and should be covered by criminal law. We should accept that rare possibility.

Mistakes, even when fatal, do happen and should be identified quickly and apologies issued. If procedures need to be changed that should be for that organisation to consider.

Where incompetence has serious consequences then whether the person or persons found to be incompetent should be allowed to continue working as before should be examined quickly.

In extreme cases, such as death or serious injury, there may be a need for a standard (i.e. irrespective of the deceased's wealth and circumstances) payment. I believe that for all but the most serious injuries an apology at most should be offered.

Why is this idea important?

We should by using an NHS hospital for ourself or a state school for our children, for examples, implicitly accept that we cannot sue those organisations.

I think we should accept that things do go wrong. Sometimes by mistake, sometimes by incompetence and sometimes by evil intent.

Evil intent should be the liability of the wrongdoer, even if they have no means to compensate their victims or those affected by their actions. That may be and should be covered by criminal law. We should accept that rare possibility.

Mistakes, even when fatal, do happen and should be identified quickly and apologies issued. If procedures need to be changed that should be for that organisation to consider.

Where incompetence has serious consequences then whether the person or persons found to be incompetent should be allowed to continue working as before should be examined quickly.

In extreme cases, such as death or serious injury, there may be a need for a standard (i.e. irrespective of the deceased's wealth and circumstances) payment. I believe that for all but the most serious injuries an apology at most should be offered.

Planning laws

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Why is this idea important?

Review the whole planning legislation. The cost of submitting a planning application is now far too high due to the massive amount of additional "expert" reports required. This cost has to be incurred prior to submiiting the application and the planning authority can still say no.

What I propose is:

  1. Free up the whole system by allowing a simple application to be filed without any supporting reports. The planning authority can then say yes or no. If it is a yes, it can be conditioned by the additional reports required. Simple and very cost effective.
  2. Allow more development – we only have 8% of land built on. To provide a further 1 miliion homes we would need a further 1.5%, which is not going to destroy our heritage
  3. Allow the full development of all existing buildings on brown field sites, farms etc. They are already there and it is far more cost effective to allow their conversion to housing than to start a whole new build.

Scrap unnecessary checks on university students

Scrap bureaucratic antiterrorism checks on student attendance.

The last government had plans to introduce checks on university students attendance in September as an antiterrorism measure. This was going to be a monthly formal requirement during termtime. Failure to attend two consecutive meetings would result in a report being make to the Home Office of suspicious behaviour.

Firstly attendance (or lack of) should already be known by universities. If some universities have contact with students less often they probably shouldn't have the right to issue qualifications because they cannot prove students are actually studying anything.

Secondly this does not work for students who may have long research projects with overseas fieldwork (e.g. 5 month stint in Australia recording birdsong) when attending a meeting at university is not possible.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap bureaucratic antiterrorism checks on student attendance.

The last government had plans to introduce checks on university students attendance in September as an antiterrorism measure. This was going to be a monthly formal requirement during termtime. Failure to attend two consecutive meetings would result in a report being make to the Home Office of suspicious behaviour.

Firstly attendance (or lack of) should already be known by universities. If some universities have contact with students less often they probably shouldn't have the right to issue qualifications because they cannot prove students are actually studying anything.

Secondly this does not work for students who may have long research projects with overseas fieldwork (e.g. 5 month stint in Australia recording birdsong) when attending a meeting at university is not possible.

Review all DEFRA regulations hastily put in place during Foot & Mouth outbreak

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

Why is this idea important?

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

Reform HMO legislation

The 2004 Housing Act introduced a requirement that houses of 3 or more stories occupied by 5 or more people (other than a single household) should conform to expensive planning requirements eg installation of fire doors throughout, fire-resistant ceilings, etc. There is no evidence that this has achieved any benefit whatsoever.

A 2010 statutory instrument extended these to houses newly in multiple occupation by as few as 3 people. Fortunately the Coalition has announced a review of this latter legislation: however a better approach would be to scrap the regulations altogether.

Why is this idea important?

The 2004 Housing Act introduced a requirement that houses of 3 or more stories occupied by 5 or more people (other than a single household) should conform to expensive planning requirements eg installation of fire doors throughout, fire-resistant ceilings, etc. There is no evidence that this has achieved any benefit whatsoever.

A 2010 statutory instrument extended these to houses newly in multiple occupation by as few as 3 people. Fortunately the Coalition has announced a review of this latter legislation: however a better approach would be to scrap the regulations altogether.

Scrap ‘tax on account’ robbery of small businesses

The current tax situation for the self-employed & small businesses, whereby they are required to pay half the coming year's tax in advance 'on account', is completely unnaccepatable & counter productive to business growth.
Imagine if employees were told they had to pay half of the next year's tax in advance in addition to their existing tax burden? There would be rioting in the streets!
It's impossible in a recession to predict the coming year's earnings & totally unrealistic for HMRC to 'assume' you will earn the same amount in the coming year.
This is daylight robbery & must be stopped. You are allowed to put in a 'lower estimate' (with yet more additional form filling) but if this estimate is wrong you are then penalised with interest!
How can this be conducive to small business confidence & growth? Businesses are living in a state of perpetual financial anxiety & this has been the last straw.
Come on Coalition….scrap this totally unfair burden & prove you have small business' interests at heart, unlike the last Labour government.

Why is this idea important?

The current tax situation for the self-employed & small businesses, whereby they are required to pay half the coming year's tax in advance 'on account', is completely unnaccepatable & counter productive to business growth.
Imagine if employees were told they had to pay half of the next year's tax in advance in addition to their existing tax burden? There would be rioting in the streets!
It's impossible in a recession to predict the coming year's earnings & totally unrealistic for HMRC to 'assume' you will earn the same amount in the coming year.
This is daylight robbery & must be stopped. You are allowed to put in a 'lower estimate' (with yet more additional form filling) but if this estimate is wrong you are then penalised with interest!
How can this be conducive to small business confidence & growth? Businesses are living in a state of perpetual financial anxiety & this has been the last straw.
Come on Coalition….scrap this totally unfair burden & prove you have small business' interests at heart, unlike the last Labour government.

Stop Road Tax

Remove road tax and add the necessary revenue shortfall to petrol duty.

Benefits:

– Petrol is naturally 'progressive' (to use this weeks popular token).

– We will be able to remove the departments that currently manage the road tax process including the road tax evasion group (and their spy vans).

– We will reduce the overhead on the police

– We will be able to stop the very unadvisable adverts that talk about crushing people's property (not a good example for the state to set).

– Lets face it, in today's digital world sticking a bit of paper on your car is very dated. We can already chack insurance and MOT compliance on-line so it adds no value there either.

Finally, petrol station receipts need to show the petrol cost and the break down of duties paid. This will add transparency any allow us to keep an eye on the government's expenditure. All very healthy.

Lets just do it.

Why is this idea important?

Remove road tax and add the necessary revenue shortfall to petrol duty.

Benefits:

– Petrol is naturally 'progressive' (to use this weeks popular token).

– We will be able to remove the departments that currently manage the road tax process including the road tax evasion group (and their spy vans).

– We will reduce the overhead on the police

– We will be able to stop the very unadvisable adverts that talk about crushing people's property (not a good example for the state to set).

– Lets face it, in today's digital world sticking a bit of paper on your car is very dated. We can already chack insurance and MOT compliance on-line so it adds no value there either.

Finally, petrol station receipts need to show the petrol cost and the break down of duties paid. This will add transparency any allow us to keep an eye on the government's expenditure. All very healthy.

Lets just do it.

Consumer Credit Licences

Many business are constituted as groups of limited companies – usually 100% owned by the top, parent company.

This should be streamlined so that Group licences are available.

I am sure that there are other compliance processes where this principle could be extended such as Data Protection Notification, FSA registration, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Many business are constituted as groups of limited companies – usually 100% owned by the top, parent company.

This should be streamlined so that Group licences are available.

I am sure that there are other compliance processes where this principle could be extended such as Data Protection Notification, FSA registration, etc.

Remove need to display road tax disc

Remove the offence of failure to display road tax disc.  The DVLA has a record of vehicle tax anyway – so should automatically inform police of unpaid tax anyway.  Would reduce enforcment costs.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the offence of failure to display road tax disc.  The DVLA has a record of vehicle tax anyway – so should automatically inform police of unpaid tax anyway.  Would reduce enforcment costs.

Noise polluting reversing alarms on heavy goods vehicles

Amend the "Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) 1986" legislation mandating the operation of an audible warning devices on reversing vehicles.

These audible warning devices do little for safety but create a cacophony of undesirable noise pollution.

Such devices presume an unwitting person will stand clear. However, if they miss the lorry movement and its engine noise they’ll be oblivious to a loud bleeper, won’t they?

Instead, legislate to install high mounted rear facing camera on heavy vehicles with restricted rear vision so the driver can properly see obstructions.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the "Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) 1986" legislation mandating the operation of an audible warning devices on reversing vehicles.

These audible warning devices do little for safety but create a cacophony of undesirable noise pollution.

Such devices presume an unwitting person will stand clear. However, if they miss the lorry movement and its engine noise they’ll be oblivious to a loud bleeper, won’t they?

Instead, legislate to install high mounted rear facing camera on heavy vehicles with restricted rear vision so the driver can properly see obstructions.

Discontinue Part P Buildings Regs

This regulation requires electrical work either notified in advance to the building control authorities or done by an electrician who can self certify. Local authorities did not receive additional funding to support the scheme when it was introduced, and it presents a unnecessary level of bureaucracy for electricians and competent homeowners to go through. It does nothing to prevent cowboy builders or DIY bodgers.

Why is this idea important?

This regulation requires electrical work either notified in advance to the building control authorities or done by an electrician who can self certify. Local authorities did not receive additional funding to support the scheme when it was introduced, and it presents a unnecessary level of bureaucracy for electricians and competent homeowners to go through. It does nothing to prevent cowboy builders or DIY bodgers.

Change CRB Regulations Slightly

Allow a single CRB check to apply to several organisations.

At the moment if you are involved with a club or activity involving children you have to apply for a CRB check for each organisation. If you help at (say) Scouts or Guides and are also helping at a kids football, rugby or swimming club you need a separate CRB check for each organisation – even though the information checked is the same and the activities (in the context of contact with children) are similar.

If you had a named list of common organisation types (say – Scouting, Registered Sports Clubs, Schools, Theatres etc) you could have a single CRB check which would be valid for similar activities in all of them. This would save a huge amount of time and money – for the taxpayer, the individual, and the organisations involved.

 

Those organisations or activities that don't fit into these categories could continue with CRB as it is now.

Why is this idea important?

Allow a single CRB check to apply to several organisations.

At the moment if you are involved with a club or activity involving children you have to apply for a CRB check for each organisation. If you help at (say) Scouts or Guides and are also helping at a kids football, rugby or swimming club you need a separate CRB check for each organisation – even though the information checked is the same and the activities (in the context of contact with children) are similar.

If you had a named list of common organisation types (say – Scouting, Registered Sports Clubs, Schools, Theatres etc) you could have a single CRB check which would be valid for similar activities in all of them. This would save a huge amount of time and money – for the taxpayer, the individual, and the organisations involved.

 

Those organisations or activities that don't fit into these categories could continue with CRB as it is now.

Change restrictive planning laws that constrict housing supply

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

Why is this idea important?

People are in poverty because the cost of living relative to income is too high.

The single biggest cost of living is housing.

To bring down housing costs, you have to build to meet rising demand, and build cost effectively.

The biggest cost of building is usually the land which is only in short supply due to highly restrictive and conservative planning regulations.

Save live music in pubs – Repeal Licensing Act 2003

Repeal the Licensing Act 2003. Or, as a bare minimum, remove "the provision of regulated entertainment" from the licensable activities definition.

The Act defines "licensable activities" as:

  • the retail sale of alcohol,
  • the supply of alcohol in clubs,
  • the provision of late night refreshment, and
  • the provision of regulated entertainment

In turn, "regulated entertainment" is defined as:

  • a performance of a play,
  • an exhibition of a film,
  • an indoor sporting event,
  • a boxing or wrestling entertainment (both indoors and outdoors),
  • a performance of live music,
  • any playing of recorded music, or
  • a performance of dance

The highlighted definition above has seen small bands and local pubs lose out to beauracracy, red tape and high fees.

I propose that you repeal the definition of  "The provision of regulated entertainment" from licensable activities.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Licensing Act 2003. Or, as a bare minimum, remove "the provision of regulated entertainment" from the licensable activities definition.

The Act defines "licensable activities" as:

  • the retail sale of alcohol,
  • the supply of alcohol in clubs,
  • the provision of late night refreshment, and
  • the provision of regulated entertainment

In turn, "regulated entertainment" is defined as:

  • a performance of a play,
  • an exhibition of a film,
  • an indoor sporting event,
  • a boxing or wrestling entertainment (both indoors and outdoors),
  • a performance of live music,
  • any playing of recorded music, or
  • a performance of dance

The highlighted definition above has seen small bands and local pubs lose out to beauracracy, red tape and high fees.

I propose that you repeal the definition of  "The provision of regulated entertainment" from licensable activities.

Barbecues on Brighton Beach/Hove Lawns

Quite simply – at the moment they're not allowed/banned.  

People do it anyway and there's never any problems with them therefore, why does there need to be a law there in the first place?!

Why is this idea important?

Quite simply – at the moment they're not allowed/banned.  

People do it anyway and there's never any problems with them therefore, why does there need to be a law there in the first place?!

Repeal excessive construction warning signs legislation

This proposal is to repeal the slew of laws and regulations relating to warning signs on and around construction sites.

Repealing the legislation that introduced these pointless warning signs will have no real impact on accidents at construction sites and will lower the cost of construction works – which affects both taxpayers and private investors.

Why is this idea important?

This proposal is to repeal the slew of laws and regulations relating to warning signs on and around construction sites.

Repealing the legislation that introduced these pointless warning signs will have no real impact on accidents at construction sites and will lower the cost of construction works – which affects both taxpayers and private investors.

Amend Private Water Supply Regulations 2009

These Regulations were introduced to give force to EU Directive 98/83/EC which altered the regime for testing of private water supplies. However, the original Directive includes a provision to exempt any supply of less than 10 cubic metres, (2,200 gallons), per day. The last Governement chose to disregard the exemption and has therefore imposed an unwelcome and unnecessary burden of a small number of households in rural areas who already pay for abstraction, filtration and purification.

Why is this idea important?

These Regulations were introduced to give force to EU Directive 98/83/EC which altered the regime for testing of private water supplies. However, the original Directive includes a provision to exempt any supply of less than 10 cubic metres, (2,200 gallons), per day. The last Governement chose to disregard the exemption and has therefore imposed an unwelcome and unnecessary burden of a small number of households in rural areas who already pay for abstraction, filtration and purification.