Guarantee the Minimum Wage for interns

Young people are now expected to work unpaid at the start of their careers as the very few opportunities that exist are "for "interns". These are, in the main, just unpaid work.

We have a minimum wage in this country, a guaranteed sum which must be paid to every worker, however this is being abused by employers who think that, by calling their jobs "internships", they can avoid paying the legal minimum. The Minimum Wage regulations should be amended to cover "internships" (they are not mentioned at all) and for employers to be required to pay all young people what they should be paying them.

Why is this idea important?

Young people are now expected to work unpaid at the start of their careers as the very few opportunities that exist are "for "interns". These are, in the main, just unpaid work.

We have a minimum wage in this country, a guaranteed sum which must be paid to every worker, however this is being abused by employers who think that, by calling their jobs "internships", they can avoid paying the legal minimum. The Minimum Wage regulations should be amended to cover "internships" (they are not mentioned at all) and for employers to be required to pay all young people what they should be paying them.

Streamlining of Arab British Certificates of Origin

We are a small trading company exporting primarily to Middle East. Nearly all customers require a Certificate of Origin from the UK Chamber of Commerce and legalised by an Arabic Embassy.

In some European countiies this is quick and easy eg Malta or Italy (and probably many others). But in UK the local Chambers insist on letters from the manufacturer stating orgin of goods (Imagine, as a small trader,  trying to get that from say, ABB or Phillips etc etc!) In other countries the chambers accept the word of the trading company regardiong the origin of the goods. I appreciate the information should be correct – but the current implication is that the traders cannot be trusted…. When it should be that they can be trusted and that occasional checks should be made. At presentl, we are effectivel guilty until proven innocent!

To add insult to injury, if we pay substantially more and deal through a specialist Consular documentation company (eg Blair consular) – then we do NOT need to provide this evidence.

Why do the local chambers (in my case, Sussex Enterprise) need this info when others do not?? Why should I pay more to a private company when I pay taxes to support Sussex enterprise?

The whole system should be reviewed and it should be remembered that we pay for these C of O's – so we should be able to determine their format and composition (within reason). There is much too much beaurocracy and 'Gold plating' of the regulations, at the moment, the tail is wagging the dog!

Why is this idea important?

We are a small trading company exporting primarily to Middle East. Nearly all customers require a Certificate of Origin from the UK Chamber of Commerce and legalised by an Arabic Embassy.

In some European countiies this is quick and easy eg Malta or Italy (and probably many others). But in UK the local Chambers insist on letters from the manufacturer stating orgin of goods (Imagine, as a small trader,  trying to get that from say, ABB or Phillips etc etc!) In other countries the chambers accept the word of the trading company regardiong the origin of the goods. I appreciate the information should be correct – but the current implication is that the traders cannot be trusted…. When it should be that they can be trusted and that occasional checks should be made. At presentl, we are effectivel guilty until proven innocent!

To add insult to injury, if we pay substantially more and deal through a specialist Consular documentation company (eg Blair consular) – then we do NOT need to provide this evidence.

Why do the local chambers (in my case, Sussex Enterprise) need this info when others do not?? Why should I pay more to a private company when I pay taxes to support Sussex enterprise?

The whole system should be reviewed and it should be remembered that we pay for these C of O's – so we should be able to determine their format and composition (within reason). There is much too much beaurocracy and 'Gold plating' of the regulations, at the moment, the tail is wagging the dog!

Review and remove building regulations

Many of the current and pending building regulations have been developed and promoted by equipment and product manufacturers. Their intention is to promote the requirement for use of their equipement and products. For example a recent introduction to Part G requires any new build to have an anti scald valve as part of the system. This was championed by a Lib Dem MP and supported by one of the large valve manufacturers. If anyone scalds themselves getting into a hot bath they are either; too young to be getting in on their own: too old to be allowed to get in on their own or are simply plain stupid. To impose this requirement on all new builds increases the cost again caused by the few onto the many. The number who scald themselves out of 60 million people I would hazard a guess to be very small but under the last government their stock answer was to create a blanket regulation or law against the many.

I do agree that a number of building regs are necessary and should be retained.

Why is this idea important?

Many of the current and pending building regulations have been developed and promoted by equipment and product manufacturers. Their intention is to promote the requirement for use of their equipement and products. For example a recent introduction to Part G requires any new build to have an anti scald valve as part of the system. This was championed by a Lib Dem MP and supported by one of the large valve manufacturers. If anyone scalds themselves getting into a hot bath they are either; too young to be getting in on their own: too old to be allowed to get in on their own or are simply plain stupid. To impose this requirement on all new builds increases the cost again caused by the few onto the many. The number who scald themselves out of 60 million people I would hazard a guess to be very small but under the last government their stock answer was to create a blanket regulation or law against the many.

I do agree that a number of building regs are necessary and should be retained.

Impose National Insurance on Dividends

Many companies pay their owners / directors in dividends(assuming the directors are shareholders in many companies either because they are closed companies or get share options. No National Insurance is paid on the dividends albeit it is naturally income. Repeal this tax break to increase revenue and decrease inequality of treatment of income.

Why is this idea important?

Many companies pay their owners / directors in dividends(assuming the directors are shareholders in many companies either because they are closed companies or get share options. No National Insurance is paid on the dividends albeit it is naturally income. Repeal this tax break to increase revenue and decrease inequality of treatment of income.

Set us Free

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

INCOME BASED BENEFITS ‘UNFAIRLY’ NOT CONSEDERED ON PREVIOUSLY PAID NATIONAL INSURANCE STAMPS

If for any reason a UK citizen has been unable to pay their NI stamps for two years their entitlement to contribution based benefits is no longer available. This would include people  who are disabled who have returned from abroad or any other person unable to afford to pay their national insurance stanps for any other reason.

It does not matter how long you had previously paid your National insurance stamps, it could be 41 years! yet if you return to the UK and were unable to pay your stamps while abroad you will be entitled to no contribution  based benefits whatsoever. This would leave a person in a position of being treated entirely differently to all other UK citizens.

Why is this idea important?

If for any reason a UK citizen has been unable to pay their NI stamps for two years their entitlement to contribution based benefits is no longer available. This would include people  who are disabled who have returned from abroad or any other person unable to afford to pay their national insurance stanps for any other reason.

It does not matter how long you had previously paid your National insurance stamps, it could be 41 years! yet if you return to the UK and were unable to pay your stamps while abroad you will be entitled to no contribution  based benefits whatsoever. This would leave a person in a position of being treated entirely differently to all other UK citizens.

Allow electronic voting in trade union executive ballots

The idea

Allow all trade union members who wish the ability to vote for members of their executive bodies by means of an electronic vote. Currently all votes must be postal.

 

The blocking legislation

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179274

Balloting trade union members

When it comes to determining the method of selecting individuals to to fill the most senior positions in trade unions, the law requires a postal election to be held.

With few exceptions, there must be elections by ballot for the following senior positions in a trade union:

  • member of the executive
  • other positions where the person holding the position is automatically a member of the executive
  • president
  • general secretary

If you go to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992 at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1

and scroll down to chapter 51 paragraph 4 you will read:

4)So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a)have sent to him by post, at his home address or another address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

(b)be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post

Why is this idea important?

The idea

Allow all trade union members who wish the ability to vote for members of their executive bodies by means of an electronic vote. Currently all votes must be postal.

 

The blocking legislation

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179274

Balloting trade union members

When it comes to determining the method of selecting individuals to to fill the most senior positions in trade unions, the law requires a postal election to be held.

With few exceptions, there must be elections by ballot for the following senior positions in a trade union:

  • member of the executive
  • other positions where the person holding the position is automatically a member of the executive
  • president
  • general secretary

If you go to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidated) Act 1992 at:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920052_en_1

and scroll down to chapter 51 paragraph 4 you will read:

4)So far as is reasonably practicable, every person who is entitled to vote at the election must—

(a)have sent to him by post, at his home address or another address which he has requested the trade union in writing to treat as his postal address, a voting paper which either lists the candidates at the election or is accompanied by a separate list of those candidates; and

(b)be given a convenient opportunity to vote by post

Adhere to EC regulations since the 26/52 week criterion is unlawful

The EC began infringement proceedings against the UK in relation to the 26 out of 52 week rule for claiming benefits, these proceedings remain open and will cost a considerable amount of money to the UK when they lose their case.

This is clearly set out in Article 10 (10a) of Council Regulations 1408/71 and Article 6 of the new Regulation 883/04, which replaced 1408/71 as of  01/05/2010, and any impediment to the right of free movement within the Member States is contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty.

Currently there is no free movement of workers, especially disabled UK citizens within the European community.

Why is this idea important?

The EC began infringement proceedings against the UK in relation to the 26 out of 52 week rule for claiming benefits, these proceedings remain open and will cost a considerable amount of money to the UK when they lose their case.

This is clearly set out in Article 10 (10a) of Council Regulations 1408/71 and Article 6 of the new Regulation 883/04, which replaced 1408/71 as of  01/05/2010, and any impediment to the right of free movement within the Member States is contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty.

Currently there is no free movement of workers, especially disabled UK citizens within the European community.

Scrap the CIS Scheme

Repeal all legislation imposing a different tax regime on the Construction Industry to the rest of the economy. The CIS scheme is complex (thanks to the Legal parasites), slow and unnecessary as the CBI reports that over 90% of Construction Industry paymenmts are on time and accurate. The current CIS scheme imposes fines on many small sub-contractors even when a mistake is entirely the fault of HMRC. Small businesses then have to find the time to appeal against these manifest injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal all legislation imposing a different tax regime on the Construction Industry to the rest of the economy. The CIS scheme is complex (thanks to the Legal parasites), slow and unnecessary as the CBI reports that over 90% of Construction Industry paymenmts are on time and accurate. The current CIS scheme imposes fines on many small sub-contractors even when a mistake is entirely the fault of HMRC. Small businesses then have to find the time to appeal against these manifest injustices.

Unfettered outdoor advertisement

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Why is this idea important?

PROPOSAL

Repeal the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations, the roadside advertisement provisions of the Highways Act and teh Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.

REASON

This is the most universal form of civil disobedience and criminal negligence carried out across Britain today.  It is ignored by the tens of thousands of perpetrators and beneficiaries,

It is also actively and negligently disregarded and tacitly accepted by all the Government Agencies from the Planning Officers, Environmental Health Officers, Highways Inspectors and others charged with control and enforcement. 

 

Make all educational establishments exempt charities

Charities Commission registration for the Oxbridge college where I am involved in administration (as a lay trustee) has been a complete and utter waste of time and money. The college is already regulated by the University of which it is a part, and by various educational regulators, as well as HMRC in relation to its trusts, endowments etc. There is no need to add yet another layer of regulation in the shape of the Charities Commission, which actually hinders the aims of the charity, by necessitating the employment of c. 2 admin staff, whose salaries could otherwise pay for teaching!

Why is this idea important?

Charities Commission registration for the Oxbridge college where I am involved in administration (as a lay trustee) has been a complete and utter waste of time and money. The college is already regulated by the University of which it is a part, and by various educational regulators, as well as HMRC in relation to its trusts, endowments etc. There is no need to add yet another layer of regulation in the shape of the Charities Commission, which actually hinders the aims of the charity, by necessitating the employment of c. 2 admin staff, whose salaries could otherwise pay for teaching!

Update 1974 Health & Safety at Work Act

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

Ambiguities & outdated clauses should be repealed.

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

Why is this idea important?

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

Ambiguities & outdated clauses should be repealed.

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

Raffles – remove requirement to register.

Anyone holding a raffle is supposed to register and get permission. On tickets of larger raffles you will see the name and the address of the promoter. Most raffles however are quite small and involve generic raffle tickets bought from stationers, involve relatively few people and may only last a few hours for the duration of an event. The requirement to register is largely ignored in practice by the general public for these smaller raffles, so you may as well remove the law which states that the raffle shoudl be registered.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone holding a raffle is supposed to register and get permission. On tickets of larger raffles you will see the name and the address of the promoter. Most raffles however are quite small and involve generic raffle tickets bought from stationers, involve relatively few people and may only last a few hours for the duration of an event. The requirement to register is largely ignored in practice by the general public for these smaller raffles, so you may as well remove the law which states that the raffle shoudl be registered.

reduce paperwork in risk assessments

Currently voluntary organisations, churches and small businesses are required to spend much time and energy on producing written risk assessments for every activity they undertake.

My suggestion is to reduce the workload for every organisation which has say below 10 FTE paid staff who would not be required to do anything more than:

1. show that they had adequate public and staff liability insurance cover for their activities.

2. show on inspection  that any building or equipment they owned was in compliance with fire regulations and other H&S law to the extent that staff and public were not exposed to serious risk (against a check list of say the 50 most common types of accident resulting in personal injury and the 20 most serious types of incident likely to result in multiple fatalities)

3. never to instruct or ask staff or public to carry out any task which was evidently risky, or which they might be reluctant to do because the risk was greater than they might encounter in everyday domestic life.

Why is this idea important?

Currently voluntary organisations, churches and small businesses are required to spend much time and energy on producing written risk assessments for every activity they undertake.

My suggestion is to reduce the workload for every organisation which has say below 10 FTE paid staff who would not be required to do anything more than:

1. show that they had adequate public and staff liability insurance cover for their activities.

2. show on inspection  that any building or equipment they owned was in compliance with fire regulations and other H&S law to the extent that staff and public were not exposed to serious risk (against a check list of say the 50 most common types of accident resulting in personal injury and the 20 most serious types of incident likely to result in multiple fatalities)

3. never to instruct or ask staff or public to carry out any task which was evidently risky, or which they might be reluctant to do because the risk was greater than they might encounter in everyday domestic life.

Remove the requirement to notify the government of “private fostering”

If I were to arrange for my 15 year old child to stay with a friend for 28 days over the summer holidays, I would be legally obliged ot notify the government, and a social services would need to assess the friends my child is staying with.

Parents should be able  to make arrangements for their childrens' care without unnescessary interference from the government. The requirement to notify the government of "private fostering" should be removed.

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and the government should not intervene in private child care arrangenents unless there is reason to suspect a child may be at risk of harm.

There is even a government web site which encourages citzens to snoop on each other in order to report suspected cases of "private fostering" which the government may be unaware of.

This site should be abolished to save costs.

Why is this idea important?

If I were to arrange for my 15 year old child to stay with a friend for 28 days over the summer holidays, I would be legally obliged ot notify the government, and a social services would need to assess the friends my child is staying with.

Parents should be able  to make arrangements for their childrens' care without unnescessary interference from the government. The requirement to notify the government of "private fostering" should be removed.

Parents are responsible for the welfare of their children and the government should not intervene in private child care arrangenents unless there is reason to suspect a child may be at risk of harm.

There is even a government web site which encourages citzens to snoop on each other in order to report suspected cases of "private fostering" which the government may be unaware of.

This site should be abolished to save costs.

Change the PCI DSS Compliance regulations

For small businesses like mine the annual PCI DSS compliance review is just unnecessary red tape. Although I accept that there needs to be legislation in place to protect card details, this could be served by a simple set of standards, rules and guidelines that all businesses must follow.

We don't keep any card details, other than keeping the merchant copy of a transaction slip for six months before shredding them, so why should I have to complete a lengthy questionnaire every year? If our card handling system has been found compliant, why do I have to apply for verification of compliance every year? Why not just make it necessary for me to report any changes? Yet again this appears to be a regulation where we have to confirm how we are doing something so that someone else can decide we are doing nothing wrong. It just seems like another job creation scheme.

Why is this idea important?

For small businesses like mine the annual PCI DSS compliance review is just unnecessary red tape. Although I accept that there needs to be legislation in place to protect card details, this could be served by a simple set of standards, rules and guidelines that all businesses must follow.

We don't keep any card details, other than keeping the merchant copy of a transaction slip for six months before shredding them, so why should I have to complete a lengthy questionnaire every year? If our card handling system has been found compliant, why do I have to apply for verification of compliance every year? Why not just make it necessary for me to report any changes? Yet again this appears to be a regulation where we have to confirm how we are doing something so that someone else can decide we are doing nothing wrong. It just seems like another job creation scheme.

End employer’s responsibility for home workers’ H&S

I help organisations adopt teleworking – that is, have employees who work at home.

 Amazingly, an employer has the same responsibilities for ensuring the health and safety of home workers as they do for staff based at their premises.

 This means employers have to organise assessments of the home workers' home office, covering H&S risk, electrical safety, ergonomics, lighting etc.

 What I see is a bureaucratic mess as managers sign off home workers' self-assessments without knowing what they are endorsing, whilst worrying what their own liabilities are. And both home workers and managers worry about carrying out sometimes-obligatory physical inspections of the home office.

 For large businesses this red tape creates loads of paperwork and consumes much time and effort. For small businesses it can be a step too far which stops them adopting teleworking.

 It is crazy and anomalous that an employer has responsibility for a home office. Apart from employer-provided equipment, the responsibility is clearly the home worker's themselves, just as it is for the rest of their home. I propose that that part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974  should be cut.

Why is this idea important?

I help organisations adopt teleworking – that is, have employees who work at home.

 Amazingly, an employer has the same responsibilities for ensuring the health and safety of home workers as they do for staff based at their premises.

 This means employers have to organise assessments of the home workers' home office, covering H&S risk, electrical safety, ergonomics, lighting etc.

 What I see is a bureaucratic mess as managers sign off home workers' self-assessments without knowing what they are endorsing, whilst worrying what their own liabilities are. And both home workers and managers worry about carrying out sometimes-obligatory physical inspections of the home office.

 For large businesses this red tape creates loads of paperwork and consumes much time and effort. For small businesses it can be a step too far which stops them adopting teleworking.

 It is crazy and anomalous that an employer has responsibility for a home office. Apart from employer-provided equipment, the responsibility is clearly the home worker's themselves, just as it is for the rest of their home. I propose that that part of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974  should be cut.

Reduce Bureaucracy By Reducing Income Tax

Increase the threshold for Income Tax significantly – say to £50,000 p.a and remove most people from the Income tax system – with significant savings in administering income tax. Tax Credits cease to be relevant either.

To replace the revenue increase direct taxation – primarily VAT. There is no consequential increase in the adminstration of VAT as it is collected anyway atthe current rate.

Ensure that essentials are zero rated for VAT ensuring the less well off do not pay the increase.

A tax system then based upon peoples spending and related to whether they can afford it. If you buy the luxuries in life you can afford the tax.

Government should then live within the budget of what the population can afford.

Why is this idea important?

Increase the threshold for Income Tax significantly – say to £50,000 p.a and remove most people from the Income tax system – with significant savings in administering income tax. Tax Credits cease to be relevant either.

To replace the revenue increase direct taxation – primarily VAT. There is no consequential increase in the adminstration of VAT as it is collected anyway atthe current rate.

Ensure that essentials are zero rated for VAT ensuring the less well off do not pay the increase.

A tax system then based upon peoples spending and related to whether they can afford it. If you buy the luxuries in life you can afford the tax.

Government should then live within the budget of what the population can afford.