Website directories/networks for the Self-Employed

Currently a website directory/network for professional/qualified/skilled self-employed people to advertise their services, to publish references and examples of past services, to join informal overlapping teams for specific tasks, to build and maintain relationships with past current and future customers, is classified as an Employment Agency by the Employment Agency and Employment Business Regulations when it is in fact a directory network publisher. 

The current classification imposes a vast bureaucratic cost on each user and each task.  The result is this revolutionary business model doesn't exist in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

Currently a website directory/network for professional/qualified/skilled self-employed people to advertise their services, to publish references and examples of past services, to join informal overlapping teams for specific tasks, to build and maintain relationships with past current and future customers, is classified as an Employment Agency by the Employment Agency and Employment Business Regulations when it is in fact a directory network publisher. 

The current classification imposes a vast bureaucratic cost on each user and each task.  The result is this revolutionary business model doesn't exist in the UK.

Simplify viewing of British Standards publications (BS numbers)

For some bizarre reason it is really difficult to study the British Standards legislation unless you buy each 1 at an exorbitant amount of £160 or so. Libraries will let you view them on computer (with a password or some such twaddle) but you can only print off something like 15%.

If tradesmen are expected to follow these standards then for goodness sake make them accessible! 

Why is this idea important?

For some bizarre reason it is really difficult to study the British Standards legislation unless you buy each 1 at an exorbitant amount of £160 or so. Libraries will let you view them on computer (with a password or some such twaddle) but you can only print off something like 15%.

If tradesmen are expected to follow these standards then for goodness sake make them accessible! 

Overturn unfair criteria of Criminal Injuries Board

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Why is this idea important?

As it stands in familial sexual abuse cases, if  the injury or sexual assault happened before October 1 1979 and you were living with that person as a member of their family, you are not entitled to claim.

This is a complete travesty of justice. How can a child who suffered sexual abuse on 30 Sept 1979 be any less deserving than a child who suffered 1 day later.

The child would in most cases have had no choice whatsoever as to whether they lived in the same house as their abuser.

Overturn this barbaric rule. There should be retrospective awards to cover all bases.

Laws should only stipulate the intent for which they have been written.

Each law should only contain a statement which stipulates the "Intent Statement". The Judge should be given the power to make his own judgement as to whether the accused has broken this intend and the extent to which it has been broken . Any law which has masses of details, ifs and buts, is gotten around by the legal defense. Judges should be empowed to simply make their own personal judgement based on the simple one line "Intent Statement".

Why is this idea important?

Each law should only contain a statement which stipulates the "Intent Statement". The Judge should be given the power to make his own judgement as to whether the accused has broken this intend and the extent to which it has been broken . Any law which has masses of details, ifs and buts, is gotten around by the legal defense. Judges should be empowed to simply make their own personal judgement based on the simple one line "Intent Statement".

Scrap partial exemption from VAT

VAT Partial exemption  is a measure which links vat reclaimable on outgoings to the amount of vat charged on  income. It affects many types businesses, especially those in the health and not for profit sector. The problem is the the proportion  is infernally difficult to work out  and involves creating elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of what usually comes down to a minor adjustment to the final figure.

Its calculation is time consuming, and full of "grey areas" so that  no one really understands it, least of all the inspectors who's job it is to monitor  its operation. Tax lost to HMRC by scrapping, I suggest is very small. 

Why is this idea important?

VAT Partial exemption  is a measure which links vat reclaimable on outgoings to the amount of vat charged on  income. It affects many types businesses, especially those in the health and not for profit sector. The problem is the the proportion  is infernally difficult to work out  and involves creating elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of what usually comes down to a minor adjustment to the final figure.

Its calculation is time consuming, and full of "grey areas" so that  no one really understands it, least of all the inspectors who's job it is to monitor  its operation. Tax lost to HMRC by scrapping, I suggest is very small. 

Provide a national insurance number when work permit granted

Whenever a non-British / EU passport holder wishes to enter the UK they are required to have a work permit.

However, once they start working, their employer will ask them for a national insurance number.  This is not a requirement to start work, but HM Revenue & Customs expect all employees, in time, to obtain a number.

This is granted after the employee attends an interview at Job Centre Plus, which usually has to be booked weeks or even months in advance.

My idea is why not simply grant a national insurance number when the work permit is issued? 

The interview system is presumably in part to protect the Taxpayer from NI number applicants applying for social security benefits as soon as they get the number.  The solution to that is simple – put a time limit of, say, 2 years before any social security benefits can be paid.

Why is this idea important?

Whenever a non-British / EU passport holder wishes to enter the UK they are required to have a work permit.

However, once they start working, their employer will ask them for a national insurance number.  This is not a requirement to start work, but HM Revenue & Customs expect all employees, in time, to obtain a number.

This is granted after the employee attends an interview at Job Centre Plus, which usually has to be booked weeks or even months in advance.

My idea is why not simply grant a national insurance number when the work permit is issued? 

The interview system is presumably in part to protect the Taxpayer from NI number applicants applying for social security benefits as soon as they get the number.  The solution to that is simple – put a time limit of, say, 2 years before any social security benefits can be paid.

Abolish SORN

Abolish the "Statutory Off Road Notification". 

The law states I have to tell the DVLA that I am not using my car. When it is obvious that I am not using my car because I haven't brought any tax disk for it.

This is paperwork for its own sake, the government doesn't have a natural right to demand me to do something when I am not doing something wrong.  

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the "Statutory Off Road Notification". 

The law states I have to tell the DVLA that I am not using my car. When it is obvious that I am not using my car because I haven't brought any tax disk for it.

This is paperwork for its own sake, the government doesn't have a natural right to demand me to do something when I am not doing something wrong.  

Free the NHS from ‘Performance Indicators’ and the tick-box, target driven culture

The NHS has become obsessed with targets and perfomance indicators. And no wonder, because failure to meet targets, or poor results when the perfomace indicators are audited leads to extra hassle for managers who get massive grief about it from above, and ultimately results in  cuts to budgets. Yet these targets or performance indicators are often extreely poorly related to quality of clinical practice.Often they INTERFERE with quality of clinical practice. Some real-life examples from personal experience: our service has been criticised for failing to ask the marital status of our patients – which is a performance indicator for our trust. We work with 5-15 year olds! an A&E doctor moved an aggressive adolescent patient on a section who was AWOL from another hospital onto a general paediatric ward, even though we all agreed she and the other patients were safer is she stayed on A&E till staff from her inpatient psychiatric unit could fetch her. She3 was moved despite the risks because if she had stayed on A&E she would have breached a waiting time target. Attendance at Mandatory training is another performance indicator even though most mandatory training is a pointless waste of time as the training is only margininally related to your role – or is totally unrelated. It costs a fortune to monitor these targets. The targets are merely proxy indicators for good quality care and they are poorly related to quality of care. You can deiver great care and meet zero targets, or dreadful care and meet all your targets. Stafford hospital got great results on their performance indicators while patients were dying in their droves. Scrap them!

Why is this idea important?

The NHS has become obsessed with targets and perfomance indicators. And no wonder, because failure to meet targets, or poor results when the perfomace indicators are audited leads to extra hassle for managers who get massive grief about it from above, and ultimately results in  cuts to budgets. Yet these targets or performance indicators are often extreely poorly related to quality of clinical practice.Often they INTERFERE with quality of clinical practice. Some real-life examples from personal experience: our service has been criticised for failing to ask the marital status of our patients – which is a performance indicator for our trust. We work with 5-15 year olds! an A&E doctor moved an aggressive adolescent patient on a section who was AWOL from another hospital onto a general paediatric ward, even though we all agreed she and the other patients were safer is she stayed on A&E till staff from her inpatient psychiatric unit could fetch her. She3 was moved despite the risks because if she had stayed on A&E she would have breached a waiting time target. Attendance at Mandatory training is another performance indicator even though most mandatory training is a pointless waste of time as the training is only margininally related to your role – or is totally unrelated. It costs a fortune to monitor these targets. The targets are merely proxy indicators for good quality care and they are poorly related to quality of care. You can deiver great care and meet zero targets, or dreadful care and meet all your targets. Stafford hospital got great results on their performance indicators while patients were dying in their droves. Scrap them!

crazy H&S rules on building sites

how did it get so crazy. when I go on a building site I now have to undertake a one day H&S briefing… this is for each and every site even if like in my job I might attend 10 different sites in a month. When on site I am treated like a little boy and made to wear hard boots, hard hat, gloves, goggles and High visibility top. Theres an argument for hard, boots and high visibility tops but the rest is just plain stupid. There's a huge amount of red tape and 'arse covering' and very little of it actually makes me any safer.

Why is this idea important?

how did it get so crazy. when I go on a building site I now have to undertake a one day H&S briefing… this is for each and every site even if like in my job I might attend 10 different sites in a month. When on site I am treated like a little boy and made to wear hard boots, hard hat, gloves, goggles and High visibility top. Theres an argument for hard, boots and high visibility tops but the rest is just plain stupid. There's a huge amount of red tape and 'arse covering' and very little of it actually makes me any safer.

Allow Cannibalism Between Consenting Adults

In this day and age I'm sure we're more relaxed about that thing, if I wanted to put in my will that my partner would be able to cook and eat me if he or she wished rather than burying me, then currently I am not permitted to by law. We could have an amendment to the donor card; "I permit the following body parts to be eaten: …. "

Why is this idea important?

In this day and age I'm sure we're more relaxed about that thing, if I wanted to put in my will that my partner would be able to cook and eat me if he or she wished rather than burying me, then currently I am not permitted to by law. We could have an amendment to the donor card; "I permit the following body parts to be eaten: …. "

Abolish the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) scheme to save bureaucracy, avoid payment recycling and huge complications

Abolish the CRC regulations saving cost and time and bureaucracy for all businesses (and the Govt Dept that administers it). All businesses are already well motivated to reduce energy spending through the high price and shortage of funds without a blizzard of bureaucracy.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the CRC regulations saving cost and time and bureaucracy for all businesses (and the Govt Dept that administers it). All businesses are already well motivated to reduce energy spending through the high price and shortage of funds without a blizzard of bureaucracy.

How to generate massive tax revenues while significantly reducing crime and its associated cost?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

Why is this idea important?

Let me be clear. This isn’t a revolutionary idea – or even unique. It’s a simple, effective approach that will deliver results. If our Government want raise significant tax revenues, while at the same time reducing monetary and social costs, then it’s time for a fresh approach to drugs policy.

I agree that proscribed drugs can be harmful and that they can even kill you. I agree that some poor souls don’t have a sufficient mental constitution, and have the propensity to ‘loose’ their minds thru experimenting with potentially harmful substances. I’m sure a few folk reading this could cite one or two casualties they’ve known, or even heard of, over the years who are good examples of how drugs ‘can’ mess you up.  (Note: Don’t include media hype here as we all know they’re prone to BS)

But here’s the thing. So many everyday items, household good and social institutions all have the capacity to harm or even kill. It’s a fact that swimming pools are more dangerous to kids than guns but we don’t ban them. In the UK more than 1000 people die every year from falling down stairs, while according to the Office of National Statistics only 897 people died from heroin and methadone in 2008 – isn’t this a lethal substance?. Ironically a much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA, the active ingredient in Ecstasy, which is a Class A banned substance. Who would consider banning peanuts? Mind you that’s another post perhaps…

I agree that even one person dying is tragic – particularly for the family – but it’s time to get real. Deaths from illicit drugs pale into statistical insignificance compared to alcohol and, of course, tobacco. But we don’t ban them do we? No we apply the only viable strategy, which is to license, regulate and tax these industries. So why don’t we do the same with ‘drugs’ then?

Let me say once again – I’m not advocating drug use of any kind. I whole heartedly believe that ‘recreational’ drugs can be deleterious, especially to young impressionable minds. I would prefer that everyone didn’t need a chemical fix for a bad day or even a bad life. But who’s kidding who here. Millions reach for a cigarette, or a glass of wine, or even slice of cake when their shadow calls.  Unless you’re an enlightened being – and I’m sure you believe you are – I’m afraid you’re with the rest of us aspirers, each with our own ‘drug’ of choice, even if you’re too out of focus to realise.

I wrote to Michael Howard (Home Secretary of the day in 1994 explaining why his policy and ‘war of drugs’ could never work and would therefore end in failure. I could have written it verbatim today and it still would be current and spot on. It’s time for positive action not yesterday’s rhetoric. I think the great Einstein perfectly sums up our counter-productive drug policies when he said, “any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction”.

Let’s hope Dave and Nick has what it takes.

repeal compulsory licensing for all music

The lst licencing act in effect made it an offence punishible by a large fine for 'performing' music.  This included rehearsing at home, if a single person is listening, or playing the piano in a pub, or even playing a guitar out doors if someone appears to be listening.  Absolutely everyone has to obtain a licence, which costs hundreds of pounds.

The playing of amplified recorded music, TV or Videos is not covered, so it is illeagal in England and Wales to play accoustic music without a licence, but any premisis or house can play recorded music almost as loud as they like.

This licencing law should be replaced by a requiement for a licence based not on the presence of the musicians, but on the volume of noise generated – ie a guitarist singing quietly anywhere should be permitted, but anyone playing recorded music over a certain volume should obtain a licence.

Why is this idea important?

The lst licencing act in effect made it an offence punishible by a large fine for 'performing' music.  This included rehearsing at home, if a single person is listening, or playing the piano in a pub, or even playing a guitar out doors if someone appears to be listening.  Absolutely everyone has to obtain a licence, which costs hundreds of pounds.

The playing of amplified recorded music, TV or Videos is not covered, so it is illeagal in England and Wales to play accoustic music without a licence, but any premisis or house can play recorded music almost as loud as they like.

This licencing law should be replaced by a requiement for a licence based not on the presence of the musicians, but on the volume of noise generated – ie a guitarist singing quietly anywhere should be permitted, but anyone playing recorded music over a certain volume should obtain a licence.

Scrap e-borders scheme

The e-borders scheme is yet another massive Labour database system. The new government has announced it is scrapping a fewof these and toned down a few more, but it intends to continue with this Labour database.

 

Scrap it and government could save millions.

 

Why is this idea important?

The e-borders scheme is yet another massive Labour database system. The new government has announced it is scrapping a fewof these and toned down a few more, but it intends to continue with this Labour database.

 

Scrap it and government could save millions.

 

out of the EU

We must have a referendum on getting out of EU. There is vastly more fraud and expense fiddling there than in our Government and all in all, we cannot afford to belong to this criminal organisation. As a retired Accountant I know that not having an audit for such a huge organisation is just crazy but I do understand why nobody in their right mind would want to sign off any accounts at the EU.

Every time I see something happening here that seems bonkers, I dont know whether the legislation has been instigated by the UK government or we have had to abide by EU legislation.

My idea is that we have a much smaller government in this country, we have a lot less laws and that will enable the citizens here to decide everything without worrying about whether we are allowed to do it or not. It will also take the shackles off many businesses and bright individuals who want to make this country more prosperous and a great country to live in. 

Why is this idea important?

We must have a referendum on getting out of EU. There is vastly more fraud and expense fiddling there than in our Government and all in all, we cannot afford to belong to this criminal organisation. As a retired Accountant I know that not having an audit for such a huge organisation is just crazy but I do understand why nobody in their right mind would want to sign off any accounts at the EU.

Every time I see something happening here that seems bonkers, I dont know whether the legislation has been instigated by the UK government or we have had to abide by EU legislation.

My idea is that we have a much smaller government in this country, we have a lot less laws and that will enable the citizens here to decide everything without worrying about whether we are allowed to do it or not. It will also take the shackles off many businesses and bright individuals who want to make this country more prosperous and a great country to live in. 

Ear tagging and tracing sheep

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Limit Listed Building regulation to public features listed

It is reasonable that publicly accessible or viewable elevations of Listed buildings should be protected by Listed Building regulation in addition to general Planning regulation.  It is also reasonable that alterations to all buildings are subject to Building Regulations.

However, many planning departments seem to 'make work' by insisting upon their additional 'Listed Building' regulation of alterations to the private interiors of private homes on the basis that a given property had been 'Listed' after cursory  visual inspection of the exterior only in the 1970's.

This can lead to oppressive conduct by Planning officials, including threatening language and invasion of privacy, and the arbitrary refusal of consent for reasonable alterations, such as, for example, the replacement of a poor quality – even dangerous – staircase with new high quality staircase.  Such oppressive conduct seems mostly to be directed at private individuals, not substantial companies.

Listed Building regulations for private homes should be limited to those features of such properties that were itemised in the original Listing.

Why is this idea important?

It is reasonable that publicly accessible or viewable elevations of Listed buildings should be protected by Listed Building regulation in addition to general Planning regulation.  It is also reasonable that alterations to all buildings are subject to Building Regulations.

However, many planning departments seem to 'make work' by insisting upon their additional 'Listed Building' regulation of alterations to the private interiors of private homes on the basis that a given property had been 'Listed' after cursory  visual inspection of the exterior only in the 1970's.

This can lead to oppressive conduct by Planning officials, including threatening language and invasion of privacy, and the arbitrary refusal of consent for reasonable alterations, such as, for example, the replacement of a poor quality – even dangerous – staircase with new high quality staircase.  Such oppressive conduct seems mostly to be directed at private individuals, not substantial companies.

Listed Building regulations for private homes should be limited to those features of such properties that were itemised in the original Listing.

Red tape for small businesses

Small businesses are the life line of this country.  Over 80% of people are employed in small businesses.

Yet we are treated the same as huge businesses in terms of red tape, reporting, tax.  We are over burdened with rules, regulations, forms and tax that bigger businesses have Departments to deal with.  We only have ourselves.

We are now expected by HMRC to not only understand the bewildering and complex rules, but to also to work out ourselves if we get things wrong and then to tell HMRC or else get fined.  We do not know what we do not know!   We should not be fined when the rules are so complex and when we make mistakes. 

My small business has just been hit with a huge reevaluation by the VOA and hit with a huge backdated bill that we have no way of paying, due to no fault of our own.  Why is the VOA allowed to make such huge backdated valuations?  The shop we rent has been the same since we have rented it and we are being penalised.  The VOA should not be allowed to backdate such evaluations.

 

We pay huge rent bills to the Local Authorities, yet if we want any services such as our rubbish collected, we have to pay again.  Small businesses should be able to get some services from Local Authorities as part of their rates and not have to pay twice.

 

There should be recognition by way of lower taxes and national insurance for small business (as oppose to large business) and how they employ local people, and provide just as necessary services as the public sector

Why is this idea important?

Small businesses are the life line of this country.  Over 80% of people are employed in small businesses.

Yet we are treated the same as huge businesses in terms of red tape, reporting, tax.  We are over burdened with rules, regulations, forms and tax that bigger businesses have Departments to deal with.  We only have ourselves.

We are now expected by HMRC to not only understand the bewildering and complex rules, but to also to work out ourselves if we get things wrong and then to tell HMRC or else get fined.  We do not know what we do not know!   We should not be fined when the rules are so complex and when we make mistakes. 

My small business has just been hit with a huge reevaluation by the VOA and hit with a huge backdated bill that we have no way of paying, due to no fault of our own.  Why is the VOA allowed to make such huge backdated valuations?  The shop we rent has been the same since we have rented it and we are being penalised.  The VOA should not be allowed to backdate such evaluations.

 

We pay huge rent bills to the Local Authorities, yet if we want any services such as our rubbish collected, we have to pay again.  Small businesses should be able to get some services from Local Authorities as part of their rates and not have to pay twice.

 

There should be recognition by way of lower taxes and national insurance for small business (as oppose to large business) and how they employ local people, and provide just as necessary services as the public sector

Company Law – Necessary Reforms

I agree that most of the regulation as currently set up is not fit for purpose. Companies House and the FSA require complete rationalisation and reform. Let's start with a simple question – what do we want company law to achieve? We want responsible and productive companies to be protected, we want shareholders to have meaningful protection from rogue companies and directors, we want the general public to be protected from scam artists, and we want to instil confidence in our national economy. To take a concrete example, the new regulatory body would have the power to compel rogue companies and directors to produce overdue reports and accounts. What is the point of prosecution, fines and disqualification, when the perpetrators can legally withhold the evidence of their fraud indefinitely?

To summarise, I am asking for the entire body of company law to be reformed from this perspective. This will involve substantial repeal of unnecessary and ineffective legislation, combined with enactment of meaningful and effective laws.

Why is this idea important?

I agree that most of the regulation as currently set up is not fit for purpose. Companies House and the FSA require complete rationalisation and reform. Let's start with a simple question – what do we want company law to achieve? We want responsible and productive companies to be protected, we want shareholders to have meaningful protection from rogue companies and directors, we want the general public to be protected from scam artists, and we want to instil confidence in our national economy. To take a concrete example, the new regulatory body would have the power to compel rogue companies and directors to produce overdue reports and accounts. What is the point of prosecution, fines and disqualification, when the perpetrators can legally withhold the evidence of their fraud indefinitely?

To summarise, I am asking for the entire body of company law to be reformed from this perspective. This will involve substantial repeal of unnecessary and ineffective legislation, combined with enactment of meaningful and effective laws.

No more right to repair shenanigans

Repeal this anachronistic relic of the 1994 Citizen's Charter http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19940133_en_1.htm

It promises compensation to secure tenants where their landlord fails to repair their home. However the compensation is paid only after the landlord has had days, if not weeks to respond and goes up by £2 a day to a maximum of £50 – until or unless the repair is carried out.

Hardly anyone uses this right because it is so poorly defined and there are so many get-out clauses.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal this anachronistic relic of the 1994 Citizen's Charter http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19940133_en_1.htm

It promises compensation to secure tenants where their landlord fails to repair their home. However the compensation is paid only after the landlord has had days, if not weeks to respond and goes up by £2 a day to a maximum of £50 – until or unless the repair is carried out.

Hardly anyone uses this right because it is so poorly defined and there are so many get-out clauses.

Lower minimum age for buying alcohol in pubs/clubs to 16

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

Simplifying Driving Licences

Anyone who has obtained a full unlimited driving licence for a motorcycle (or an HGV or PSV, or any vehicle that requires more input from the driver than a car) should automatically have a full car licence as well.

To sucessfully and safely drive these vehicles a driver must have far better situational awareness, roadcraft, skill and caution than a 'mere' car driver.

This would simplify things for both the DVLA and the driver.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone who has obtained a full unlimited driving licence for a motorcycle (or an HGV or PSV, or any vehicle that requires more input from the driver than a car) should automatically have a full car licence as well.

To sucessfully and safely drive these vehicles a driver must have far better situational awareness, roadcraft, skill and caution than a 'mere' car driver.

This would simplify things for both the DVLA and the driver.

Companies Act – Unnecessary Forms

The Companies Act 2006 has created a significant number of new forms, many of which appear to have little purpose. For example, Form CC04 – Statement of company's objects. Other than the company's number and name , this form has just a choice of three tick boxes to complete: 'addition to', 'removal of' and 'alteration to'.

Under the 1985 Companies Act it was only necessary to submit a special resolution and the new or revised memorandum and articles. This still has to be done under the 2006 Companies Act, but this pointless form also has to completed and filed. According to the notes on the form the amendment to the objects of the company is not effective until entry of the form on the Register.

The form cannot be filed using the Companies House WebFiling service. It can only be filled in on-line for printing. It cannot be saved or emailed. It still has to be signed on behalf of the company and sent in paper form to Companies House.

All these new forms should be reviewed to see if they are really necessary, and those that are not should be abolished, to cut down on needless red tape.

Why is this idea important?

The Companies Act 2006 has created a significant number of new forms, many of which appear to have little purpose. For example, Form CC04 – Statement of company's objects. Other than the company's number and name , this form has just a choice of three tick boxes to complete: 'addition to', 'removal of' and 'alteration to'.

Under the 1985 Companies Act it was only necessary to submit a special resolution and the new or revised memorandum and articles. This still has to be done under the 2006 Companies Act, but this pointless form also has to completed and filed. According to the notes on the form the amendment to the objects of the company is not effective until entry of the form on the Register.

The form cannot be filed using the Companies House WebFiling service. It can only be filled in on-line for printing. It cannot be saved or emailed. It still has to be signed on behalf of the company and sent in paper form to Companies House.

All these new forms should be reviewed to see if they are really necessary, and those that are not should be abolished, to cut down on needless red tape.