Allowing businesses to submit expenses evidence in digital format rather than paper original

 






Scrap the requirement for businesses to keep paper records and instead allow scanned and digital documents to be kept.

 

The insistence of tax inspectors on seeing paper originals (for example of expenses) is obsolete, and creates more onerous (and less green) duties of filing, and the hassle of having to retain years of paperwork.

 

There is no more security from fraud in paper (which can be easily produced with today's desktop publishing abilities), than there is in a digital scan.

 

This would be a great relief to small businesses and easier to maintain and process.

 

Of course there is no need to completely abolish paper, but the alternative should be allowed, at least as a start.

Why is this idea important?

 






Scrap the requirement for businesses to keep paper records and instead allow scanned and digital documents to be kept.

 

The insistence of tax inspectors on seeing paper originals (for example of expenses) is obsolete, and creates more onerous (and less green) duties of filing, and the hassle of having to retain years of paperwork.

 

There is no more security from fraud in paper (which can be easily produced with today's desktop publishing abilities), than there is in a digital scan.

 

This would be a great relief to small businesses and easier to maintain and process.

 

Of course there is no need to completely abolish paper, but the alternative should be allowed, at least as a start.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why our drug laws are not working

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Why is this idea important?

Drugs should be legalized, now, i know that's a very strong statement, however if you take into account the sheer scale of drug use in the uk, and the negative aspects associated with the prohibition of drugs, you quickly realise the positivity that can be extracted from the decriminalization of cannabis, and more understanding drug laws for harder drug use.

Now, consider this, if cannabis was legalized (perhaps along with MDMA pills & psilocybin mushrooms) the revenue that could be made in tax from the sale of cannabis is huge. 27% of the uk population regularly smoke cannabis, that means that 16,683,840 people in the uk use cannabis on a regular basis  and 14% of under 13 year olds have tried cannabis, you understand that the younger you are the more likely you are to begin using cannabis. Therefore it seems to me that children under 18 are using drugs as a form of rebellion, i know, i'm 16..

16,683,840 people use cannabis, if cannabis costs £10 per gram and each of them buy £70 (7 gram or quarter ounce) per week, and the government tax at 17.5% (V.A.T) that's £204,377,040 per week in tax, multiply that by 52 and you get a staggering £10,627,606,080 in tax per year, I won't go on in figures but imagine what David cameron could do with £10,627,606,080 per year?

If £10,627,606,080 a year COULD be going into public tax money, then consider that these people that use cannabis at the moment, are using it illegally, and if the criminals are making 100% profit, as legally it can't be coming from a taxable source, then that means that £60,729,177,600 per year is going into REAL criminals pockets every year, that's nearly 61 BILLION pounds sterling. This money could be going to fund terrorism, child trafficking, organised crime, murder and gun trafficking/production, no matter how much of a fool we may think David Cameron to be, don't you believe that this money should be going to him rather than the forementioned causes?

Now my personal opinion is that the money in tax (a considerably large sum) can be used to help ease the burden out of harder drug use and be used to make this country a place with less heroin and crack cocaine addicts, through legalization and controlled S.I.S (safe injection sites) the epidemic of heroin sweeping through the world may be doctored in the UK.

I shall now point out the fact that 9000 people a year in the UK die annualy from alcohol related illnesses, and the most common cause of death for 13-18 year olds in the UK is alcohol poisoning. Take that into consideration there is evidence to show that not one single person, in the history of cannabis use, has died from a THC overdose.

My father used to tell me as a child, that all things in life are good in moderation, perhaps i took this a little TOO literally, however i believe i could go as far as to say that it's become my motto, please take this into consideration when reading this.

The fact that also, cannabis has been shown to have very few derogatory side effects and there is NO proof that cannabis has been shown to cause schitzophrenia.

If drugs are controlled themselves then the abuse of drugs can be controlled and drugs, perhaps all drugs, can be enjoyed in a more safe, healthy manner.

Local Authority Entertainment License or Temporary Events Notice

I represent a small national youth charity which organises events, and locally much smaller organisations affiliated to our national charity organise events, which probably have no more than 1,500 people attending.

In recent years, the bureaucracy and costs have spiraled. So, charities who run events for public good, for their members and the public without planning to make a profit, risk running events at a loss by have to pay £300+ to the local authority for a full Ent Lic – WHY? When a T.E.N., would do.

The events I speak of aren't rock concerts with tens of thousands of spectators and very loud amplified music, neither do they have the crowds known to be at hundreds of football matches every week, and do the latter require a license? No.

Make the process simpler. Make it consistently applied across all local authorities. Reduce the costs to something like £50 per day, and make those costs consistent across all local authorities.

Why is this idea important?

I represent a small national youth charity which organises events, and locally much smaller organisations affiliated to our national charity organise events, which probably have no more than 1,500 people attending.

In recent years, the bureaucracy and costs have spiraled. So, charities who run events for public good, for their members and the public without planning to make a profit, risk running events at a loss by have to pay £300+ to the local authority for a full Ent Lic – WHY? When a T.E.N., would do.

The events I speak of aren't rock concerts with tens of thousands of spectators and very loud amplified music, neither do they have the crowds known to be at hundreds of football matches every week, and do the latter require a license? No.

Make the process simpler. Make it consistently applied across all local authorities. Reduce the costs to something like £50 per day, and make those costs consistent across all local authorities.

Scrap National Insurance contributions & increase Tax

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

If you were to scrap national insurance contributions and increase income tax to compensate then you would greatly simplify the tax collection system for the HMRC. At a stroke this would cut in half the tax collection bureaucracy that exists in HMRC and the tax side of businesses as they would be dealing with one system (income tax) and the processes to deal with this are already in place.

This would reduce the amount of work and processes that accountants, employers, employees & HMRC had to perform.

 

 

Companies House Annual Returns

Every year small limited companies have to re register their business with companies house through an annual return. This requires the use of 2 levels of authorisation code from Companies House, one sent by email and one sent in the post.  They send a letter that threatens legal action or a fine if this rigmarole is not done on time.

Every year so far the details of my company have been unchanged and all one is doing is re confirming the exisiting situation.  What should happen is that companies house should ask for  an annual return only if there has been a change.  So Change the procedure.

On a similar note I receive a business survey form from the Census office in Swansea. It required 15 hours to complete as its sales categories do not tally with those used by modern retail businesses. I was assured that this would be required once every 5 years but got one a year for the first 3 years.  Again backed up by the threat of legal action if not completed. Surely the government can find a more efficient was of identifying changes and trends in grocery sales than this.  Does government need to know at all? Scrap it.  

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Every year small limited companies have to re register their business with companies house through an annual return. This requires the use of 2 levels of authorisation code from Companies House, one sent by email and one sent in the post.  They send a letter that threatens legal action or a fine if this rigmarole is not done on time.

Every year so far the details of my company have been unchanged and all one is doing is re confirming the exisiting situation.  What should happen is that companies house should ask for  an annual return only if there has been a change.  So Change the procedure.

On a similar note I receive a business survey form from the Census office in Swansea. It required 15 hours to complete as its sales categories do not tally with those used by modern retail businesses. I was assured that this would be required once every 5 years but got one a year for the first 3 years.  Again backed up by the threat of legal action if not completed. Surely the government can find a more efficient was of identifying changes and trends in grocery sales than this.  Does government need to know at all? Scrap it.  

 

 

 

Fewer Education Acts – more parliamentary scrutiny

Each new minister for education immediately introduces an education act – then 12 months later has another go – and 12 months later gets replaced and the cycle starts again. Michael Gove seems to continuing this trend.

Other public services are similar – how many pages of instructions did the Police say they had to wade through.

More worryingly is the tendency for Acts to give ministers power to change regulations at will without parliamentary scrutiny (Gove again) – this is the way of the last government (Blunkett was one such) – the Coalition should not be using this undemocratic process

Why is this idea important?

Each new minister for education immediately introduces an education act – then 12 months later has another go – and 12 months later gets replaced and the cycle starts again. Michael Gove seems to continuing this trend.

Other public services are similar – how many pages of instructions did the Police say they had to wade through.

More worryingly is the tendency for Acts to give ministers power to change regulations at will without parliamentary scrutiny (Gove again) – this is the way of the last government (Blunkett was one such) – the Coalition should not be using this undemocratic process

Remove regulation requiring newspaper adverst for planning applications

At present there is still a requirement for some applications – particularly listed building applications and planning applications in conservation areas – to be advertised in local newspapers. This is a ridiculous unnecessary bureacratic requirement that costs Councils lots of money. Such adverts could be on their web sites. This should be repealed. The previous government bottled it because they were lobbied by the regional newspaper groups. let's hope the neww Coalition will be braver.

Why is this idea important?

At present there is still a requirement for some applications – particularly listed building applications and planning applications in conservation areas – to be advertised in local newspapers. This is a ridiculous unnecessary bureacratic requirement that costs Councils lots of money. Such adverts could be on their web sites. This should be repealed. The previous government bottled it because they were lobbied by the regional newspaper groups. let's hope the neww Coalition will be braver.

Employment Referencing Law

Employment Referencing Law
 
Make a law about employment referencing.
 
For example, all the information an employer can give out for a reference is date started, date left and position held.
 

Why is this idea important?

Employment Referencing Law
 
Make a law about employment referencing.
 
For example, all the information an employer can give out for a reference is date started, date left and position held.
 

Allow Own Electrical DIY

Recent laws make it illegal to do any electrical DIY more complex than changing a plug. A qualified electrician must be used.

A full time Electrical Engineeers who designs missile systems would not be allowed to add a simple junction box or change a one way light swich for a 2 way one. Likewise someone with a science degree. Or a garage mechanic who specialises in car electrics.

This is absurd and out of all proportion to the number of actual accidents over the past 10 years.

In fact it is nothing more than back door closed shop rules and restraint of trade.

Why is this idea important?

Recent laws make it illegal to do any electrical DIY more complex than changing a plug. A qualified electrician must be used.

A full time Electrical Engineeers who designs missile systems would not be allowed to add a simple junction box or change a one way light swich for a 2 way one. Likewise someone with a science degree. Or a garage mechanic who specialises in car electrics.

This is absurd and out of all proportion to the number of actual accidents over the past 10 years.

In fact it is nothing more than back door closed shop rules and restraint of trade.

Remove this pointless red tape: The right to request flexible working

The right to request flexible working, part of the Work and Families Act 2006, is a pointless piece of red tape.  It gives the employer the statutary right to ask the employer a question, and nothing more.  This burden of red tape should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

The right to request flexible working, part of the Work and Families Act 2006, is a pointless piece of red tape.  It gives the employer the statutary right to ask the employer a question, and nothing more.  This burden of red tape should be removed.

Clarification of data sharing obligations of public bodies

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Why is this idea important?

To provide a simple requirement to cover the obligations of public bodies to provide (or not) information to each other.

One example of this is Section 17 of Schedule 2 of the Local Government Act 1992, This protects peoples data collected for Council Tax purposes, but appears to conflict with legislation covering, amongst others, HMRC, the police and the CSA. All of these have generic legislation, but make many requests for information from Council Tax authorities, whereas there is specific legislation covering electoral registration and certain housing functions.

There must be many other examples of this where similar disclosure (or non-disclosure) requirements exist.

These uncertainties and conflicts could be removed by a simple piece of generic legislation which could either enable disclosure, or prevent it. I would be happy either way – I just want a) clarity and b) to stop endless arguments about whether someone is entitled to information or not

Review all Health & Safety legislation for ‘reasonableness’

All H&S legislation should be subject to sweeping reform based on commonsense and reasonableness, with a view to reducing its effect on every aspect of daily life apart from the original concept of protecting life and limb in traditionally dangerous industries.

Why is this idea important?

All H&S legislation should be subject to sweeping reform based on commonsense and reasonableness, with a view to reducing its effect on every aspect of daily life apart from the original concept of protecting life and limb in traditionally dangerous industries.

Renting

If a minimum term is required it should not exceed six months from when the tenant first moves in with no further minimum terms allowed.  Tenants could reasonably be charged a penalty of, say, two month’s rent if they leave within six months.

A non-student sharing a house or flat with students should be charged council tax only on his share of the dwelling, not on the entire dwelling.

 

Why is this idea important?

If a minimum term is required it should not exceed six months from when the tenant first moves in with no further minimum terms allowed.  Tenants could reasonably be charged a penalty of, say, two month’s rent if they leave within six months.

A non-student sharing a house or flat with students should be charged council tax only on his share of the dwelling, not on the entire dwelling.

 

Scrap ATOS Origin/ATOS healthcare medical assessment quango

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

Why is this idea important?

This quango earns £80 million plus a year from the DWP to assess claimants for benefits medically. Many claimants are very disabled, have had months of treatment and surgery and are still under the care of NHS surgeons and GPs yet the DWP in their wisdom still ask for ATOS assessments.

The assesments are made by so called professionals who have been on a three day training course. Some are doctors, some are nurses aome are simply clerks. I know of numerous cases where the assessment has been so innaccurate and incorrect that appeals have been made.

Many of the appeals have been upheld but no one fines or deducts money from Atos and claimants are not given an explanation from the DWP, only from Atos. The DWP simply send out forms and start the whole ridiculous process all over again.

END RESTRICTIONS ON SUNDAY TRADING

Allow all retailers to open their premises on all Sundays without restriction. Whether or not to open on Sundays and for how long should be a business decision made in consultation with and preferably by agreement with the staff concerned. Existing protections in employment law for staff who wish to observe Sunday as a holy day should be retained.

Why is this idea important?

Allow all retailers to open their premises on all Sundays without restriction. Whether or not to open on Sundays and for how long should be a business decision made in consultation with and preferably by agreement with the staff concerned. Existing protections in employment law for staff who wish to observe Sunday as a holy day should be retained.

Reform the National Minimum Wage to allow profit-share enterprises

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

Why is this idea important?

Simply that the burden of paying the National Minimum Wage should be lifted from enterprises where the Employee or Worker has a share in any profits or gross earnings of that enterprise.

merge “employer’s” and “employee’s” national insurance: it’s all our money anyway

End employer's national insurance contribution increase employee's national insurance contribution to compensate.

Why is this idea important?

End employer's national insurance contribution increase employee's national insurance contribution to compensate.

Make politicians listen and act FOR us

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Why is this idea important?

Having just seen the new video introduction, it's abundantly clear that this site is a PR stunt.

There is another idea proposing its closure http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/repeal-the-your-freedom-forum

 

And in many ways I agree with the sentiments in that idea. If politicians are just going to discard ideas to suit their own agendas, then what is the point of debate.

 

Politicans are there to serve US, to listen and take on board OUR views – not to sit in judgement and discard ideas they may not agree with.

 

This country is allegedly a democracy, yet time and time again, politicians ignore the will of the people and do their own thing.

 

So politicians MUST be made to listen to the people they serve – as opposed to just serving their own self interests, or discarding ideas because they don't fit with their idealogy.

 

Of course, not all ideas will be viable – some will be outlandish, while others are just too draconian for a free society.

But serious suggestions that merely suggest compromise should not be discarded out of hand.

 

If they're only going to take on board those ideas which they supported before the election, then what is the point of sites like this ?

 

To my mind, it's now as pointless as the Downing Street petitions site.

Legal drafting: a regular system to find badly drafted law

Use data from surveys or users of  opsi.gov.uk/acts and Bailii.org to find which laws are referred to most. On these, add a tab on the side to ask "Do you think this law is in clear language? If not, why?"  . Third party websites like bailii.org might help if asked.

Why is this idea important?

Use data from surveys or users of  opsi.gov.uk/acts and Bailii.org to find which laws are referred to most. On these, add a tab on the side to ask "Do you think this law is in clear language? If not, why?"  . Third party websites like bailii.org might help if asked.

stop councils criminalizing people over wheelie bins

Lets put a stop to the ridiculous amount of red tape which criminalises ordinary people for putting the wrong type of container into a wheelie bin or for the lid being open an inch.

Why is this idea important?

Lets put a stop to the ridiculous amount of red tape which criminalises ordinary people for putting the wrong type of container into a wheelie bin or for the lid being open an inch.

Can You Empty Your Dustbin In Peace In The Peoples’ Republic Of China?

Too much petty interference is evident in the UK. Officials can intimidate and harrass you for a whole range of petty offences many of which carry a criminal sanction by them to levied on us. I want this pettiness and the powers to use it removed and presumed illegal in most cases and situations.

Why is this idea important?

Too much petty interference is evident in the UK. Officials can intimidate and harrass you for a whole range of petty offences many of which carry a criminal sanction by them to levied on us. I want this pettiness and the powers to use it removed and presumed illegal in most cases and situations.

MP’s & MSP’s should properly cost all their laws

Too many well meaning MSP's & MP's see problems and immediately try to legislate to solve them without regard to cost on local authorities or businesses and individual tax payers.

If every proposed law in the UK and Scottish Parliaments had to have an estimated cost per person on income / Council tax to implement it, and conversely, the cost per person on income / Council tax without it, maybe they would think twice! This should include all the time spent by MP's , researchers and other bureaucrats in implementing it, and unit cost of helping each person they intend to help with the law.

Also make MP's & MSP's do a certain amount of time on work placements in public bodies and businesses so they know what it's like in the real world.

Why is this idea important?

Too many well meaning MSP's & MP's see problems and immediately try to legislate to solve them without regard to cost on local authorities or businesses and individual tax payers.

If every proposed law in the UK and Scottish Parliaments had to have an estimated cost per person on income / Council tax to implement it, and conversely, the cost per person on income / Council tax without it, maybe they would think twice! This should include all the time spent by MP's , researchers and other bureaucrats in implementing it, and unit cost of helping each person they intend to help with the law.

Also make MP's & MSP's do a certain amount of time on work placements in public bodies and businesses so they know what it's like in the real world.