Rename Royal Bank Of Scotland as Royal Bank of England

As the english taxpayer is the majority shareholder by far, and as this Bank has more branches In England than Scotland, it should be renamed as Royal bank of England as part of the price it has to pay for the money it has cost the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

As the english taxpayer is the majority shareholder by far, and as this Bank has more branches In England than Scotland, it should be renamed as Royal bank of England as part of the price it has to pay for the money it has cost the taxpayer.

Make the regulation of lawyers properly independent

Review the compromise reached for 'self-regulation' by the profession embodied in the Legal Services Act 2005. Look at  how far it is being implemented in spirit as well as practice particularly by the Law Society and its regulatory arm the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  Is the regulator clearly independent and properly funded by the profession ?  There has been scandalous and massive waste of time and resources over the last 5 years, as the Law Society has indulged in byzantine internecine warfare to limit the SRA's independence and this is easily verifiable.  

Is the concept of 'outcome-based' regulation, relying on ethical principles rather than rule and introducing a free market in ownership and control of legal firms still appropriate given recent experience in the financial sector ? Are proper and timely controls yet being exercised over entry to the profession and over incompetent and unethical lawyers ?   

Simplify the whole complex structure by removing regulation entirely from the control of the legal professions and merging all legal regulation under the new Legal Services Board. This will reduce cost and clarify accountability. It will also enable a proper platform for international regulation of the legal profession to be developed – which lags even further behind the international coordination, ineffective though it may have been, in the financial sector. 

Why is this idea important?

Review the compromise reached for 'self-regulation' by the profession embodied in the Legal Services Act 2005. Look at  how far it is being implemented in spirit as well as practice particularly by the Law Society and its regulatory arm the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  Is the regulator clearly independent and properly funded by the profession ?  There has been scandalous and massive waste of time and resources over the last 5 years, as the Law Society has indulged in byzantine internecine warfare to limit the SRA's independence and this is easily verifiable.  

Is the concept of 'outcome-based' regulation, relying on ethical principles rather than rule and introducing a free market in ownership and control of legal firms still appropriate given recent experience in the financial sector ? Are proper and timely controls yet being exercised over entry to the profession and over incompetent and unethical lawyers ?   

Simplify the whole complex structure by removing regulation entirely from the control of the legal professions and merging all legal regulation under the new Legal Services Board. This will reduce cost and clarify accountability. It will also enable a proper platform for international regulation of the legal profession to be developed – which lags even further behind the international coordination, ineffective though it may have been, in the financial sector. 

remove strict rules governing use of mini buses – stems from EU Directive 2003/20/EC

compulsary seat belts, disability access etc etc, it all makes a 10 grand mini bus which any little voluntary sports team or community group could run into a major bus operation, im not suggesting public buses are exempt but id like to see anyone in the voluntary sector be able to run a mini bus without red tape as though it were a private car basically, so long as it has an MOT

Why is this idea important?

compulsary seat belts, disability access etc etc, it all makes a 10 grand mini bus which any little voluntary sports team or community group could run into a major bus operation, im not suggesting public buses are exempt but id like to see anyone in the voluntary sector be able to run a mini bus without red tape as though it were a private car basically, so long as it has an MOT

Restricting and /or banning private bailiffs

I am constantly hearing stories of  bailiffs1) entering homes (apparently if you leave a window  open you are deemed to have invited them in then2)taking the kids computer games etc then3)selling the items at auction for  a pittance and then4)leaving the debtor in even more debt because bailiffs and auction fees are more than the amount realised at auction.

We urgently need a complete overhaul of bailiffs powers and ,in my view,consider banning a lot of their activity and certainly banning the private sector bailiffs.It is 2010,we should not have  a society tolerating private bailiffs and car clampers etc.In so many instances they have been called licensed threateners and thugs.

I would gladly sit on any panel to champion such changes. 

Why is this idea important?

I am constantly hearing stories of  bailiffs1) entering homes (apparently if you leave a window  open you are deemed to have invited them in then2)taking the kids computer games etc then3)selling the items at auction for  a pittance and then4)leaving the debtor in even more debt because bailiffs and auction fees are more than the amount realised at auction.

We urgently need a complete overhaul of bailiffs powers and ,in my view,consider banning a lot of their activity and certainly banning the private sector bailiffs.It is 2010,we should not have  a society tolerating private bailiffs and car clampers etc.In so many instances they have been called licensed threateners and thugs.

I would gladly sit on any panel to champion such changes. 

Remove Money Laundering Regulations

In these days of low interest rates, we find it necessary to move money around regularly to take advantage of the best returns. Every time this happens the institutions invoke the money laundering regulations even if the amount being deposited is as little as £1.

The institutions all behave differently in the way they check for money laundering. Some insist on paper documentation being sent through the post, others will carry out an electronic check.

Those requesting paper documentation risk that documentation being lost. Worse still, that documentation is the very documentation that would prove useful to a money launder or identity thief, wishing to obtain a “clean” identity.

Those carrying out electronic checks, use credit reference agencies. The results of these seem arbitrary. For instance in the last two weeks my wife and I both opened two online savings accounts. On one of these both of us passed the checks, but on the second I passed whilst my wife was rejected. She phoned the call centre but was fobbed off by the bank with the check was failed by the credit agency. They could not tell her why she failed, even though we have lived together at the same addresses for over 30 years and as far as we know have identical official documentation. Now she is back to risking her documentation (and identity) in the post. Worst of all, my savings account became available today; hers will take some time making her feel unfairly discriminated against.

It is not clear why money laundering regulations are required.

1.        How many people do these regulations catch? Those who are laundering money surely already have their own methods to avoid being caught.

2.       All my money comes from another bank account in my name so it’s already been through “money laundered checks”. 

3.       The requirement for “identity” documentation puts those documents and the individual’s identity at risk if the documents are lost in the post.  In every financial institution, there is a department that contains an Aladdin’s Cave of identity documents – ripe for the picking.

4.       Opening financial accounts is delayed whilst these dubiously effective hoops are jumped through.

5.       Time and effort is wasted both by the customer and the bank officials for what seems like box-ticking.

Money Laundering regulations seem like a using a hammer to crack a nut – and missing. Everyone is plagued by it, yet no-one seems able to explain how it stops money laundering.  Having opened a legitimate account how does it stop  “dirty” money being funnelled through it?

  • Repeal its current use
  • Identify what the real problem is that it’s meant to be addressing
  • Find an effective replacement

Why is this idea important?

In these days of low interest rates, we find it necessary to move money around regularly to take advantage of the best returns. Every time this happens the institutions invoke the money laundering regulations even if the amount being deposited is as little as £1.

The institutions all behave differently in the way they check for money laundering. Some insist on paper documentation being sent through the post, others will carry out an electronic check.

Those requesting paper documentation risk that documentation being lost. Worse still, that documentation is the very documentation that would prove useful to a money launder or identity thief, wishing to obtain a “clean” identity.

Those carrying out electronic checks, use credit reference agencies. The results of these seem arbitrary. For instance in the last two weeks my wife and I both opened two online savings accounts. On one of these both of us passed the checks, but on the second I passed whilst my wife was rejected. She phoned the call centre but was fobbed off by the bank with the check was failed by the credit agency. They could not tell her why she failed, even though we have lived together at the same addresses for over 30 years and as far as we know have identical official documentation. Now she is back to risking her documentation (and identity) in the post. Worst of all, my savings account became available today; hers will take some time making her feel unfairly discriminated against.

It is not clear why money laundering regulations are required.

1.        How many people do these regulations catch? Those who are laundering money surely already have their own methods to avoid being caught.

2.       All my money comes from another bank account in my name so it’s already been through “money laundered checks”. 

3.       The requirement for “identity” documentation puts those documents and the individual’s identity at risk if the documents are lost in the post.  In every financial institution, there is a department that contains an Aladdin’s Cave of identity documents – ripe for the picking.

4.       Opening financial accounts is delayed whilst these dubiously effective hoops are jumped through.

5.       Time and effort is wasted both by the customer and the bank officials for what seems like box-ticking.

Money Laundering regulations seem like a using a hammer to crack a nut – and missing. Everyone is plagued by it, yet no-one seems able to explain how it stops money laundering.  Having opened a legitimate account how does it stop  “dirty” money being funnelled through it?

  • Repeal its current use
  • Identify what the real problem is that it’s meant to be addressing
  • Find an effective replacement

The “private sphere” should be larger

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

Why is this idea important?

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

The “private sphere” should be larger

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

Why is this idea important?

The "private sphere" is supposed to that area of each person's life where legislators have a very restricted right  to intrude.  But much recent legislation seems to have intruded ever deeper into the personal sphere.  Inevitably this has meant that legislators have had to choose which group of people's personal choices, views, right etc are right… and how far to limit the people who are "wrong". 

A more generous view of what constitutes a person's "personal sphere" would allow legislators to provide rights for each group without having to impinge so much on the rights of other groups, where their interests and freedoms might conflict.

It would, however, require people to tolerate, and respect, the right of other people to be "wrong"!

Get rid of Council Tax Benefit bureaucracy.

There are thousands of bureaucrats in this country whose jobs include dealing with Council Tax Benefit claims. There is a mountain of excessively complicated regulation covering how these claims are to be dealt with. Vast sums of money and considerable manpower resources are lavished each year on assessing people's claims.

The main task for the bureaucrats is to assess people's incomes to see how much "benefit" they are entitled to. (Council Tax Benefit is not really a benefit anyway – it is just a reduction in the amount of Council Tax you have to pay.)

They don't just make a calculation for each year – they make a calculation for every week! If you are self-employed, the council may even insist upon seeing every receipt for your business, down to the last stamp and the last paperclip! I'm not kidding – this actually happens!

A single claim can sometimes involve literally reams of paper and hundreds of man-hours from both the council and the claimant. And if there is any change in circumstances, the council may insist on repeating the entire process. In many cases, the cost of administering the claim greatly exceeds the amount being claimed.

And yet, nearly all of this bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. The vast majority of people claiming Council Tax Benefit will already have had their incomes assessed for the purpose of claiming tax credits. So why not just use the same figures to assess Council Tax Benefit?

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of bureaucrats in this country whose jobs include dealing with Council Tax Benefit claims. There is a mountain of excessively complicated regulation covering how these claims are to be dealt with. Vast sums of money and considerable manpower resources are lavished each year on assessing people's claims.

The main task for the bureaucrats is to assess people's incomes to see how much "benefit" they are entitled to. (Council Tax Benefit is not really a benefit anyway – it is just a reduction in the amount of Council Tax you have to pay.)

They don't just make a calculation for each year – they make a calculation for every week! If you are self-employed, the council may even insist upon seeing every receipt for your business, down to the last stamp and the last paperclip! I'm not kidding – this actually happens!

A single claim can sometimes involve literally reams of paper and hundreds of man-hours from both the council and the claimant. And if there is any change in circumstances, the council may insist on repeating the entire process. In many cases, the cost of administering the claim greatly exceeds the amount being claimed.

And yet, nearly all of this bureaucracy is totally unnecessary. The vast majority of people claiming Council Tax Benefit will already have had their incomes assessed for the purpose of claiming tax credits. So why not just use the same figures to assess Council Tax Benefit?

Stricter Regime for Dog Owners

 

I make the following recommendations: (i). All dogs when in public spaces – woods, parks, highways, golf courses and so on – must be on a lead at all times. Dog owners who flout this law are to be fined. The burden for ensuring that their dogs do not harm or harass other users of public spaces falls firmly on the dog owner(s); (ii). All dog owners are to have full insurance for all the dogs they own. Failure to have insurance shall incur heavy fines in the first instance; (iii). All dog owners must possess a license. A part of the fee levied can be used to fund dog wardens on local councils. I see no reason why those members of the public who do not have dogs should have to bear the costs – funding dog wardens – incurred by sentimental and selfish dog owners; Penalties for dog owners who go to work and leave their dogs to bark all day must also be tightened up.

Why is this idea important?

 

I make the following recommendations: (i). All dogs when in public spaces – woods, parks, highways, golf courses and so on – must be on a lead at all times. Dog owners who flout this law are to be fined. The burden for ensuring that their dogs do not harm or harass other users of public spaces falls firmly on the dog owner(s); (ii). All dog owners are to have full insurance for all the dogs they own. Failure to have insurance shall incur heavy fines in the first instance; (iii). All dog owners must possess a license. A part of the fee levied can be used to fund dog wardens on local councils. I see no reason why those members of the public who do not have dogs should have to bear the costs – funding dog wardens – incurred by sentimental and selfish dog owners; Penalties for dog owners who go to work and leave their dogs to bark all day must also be tightened up.

Remove building societies restrictions from renting a room/2nd room

Remove Building Society restrictions on renting a room and 2nd room in a house which are as follows:

a)  Apparantly one would have to involve a solicitor for 1st room if permitted to rent in the first place                                                                                                                                               

b) One wouldn't be allowed to live in the house if one was renting a second room as it is classified as a business. 

Due to restrictions some people rent a 2nd room covertly not because they want to avoid tax but because they could get into trouble with the building society.

However as the vast majority of people have interest only mortgages (I know this due to the fact I worked for a well known Mortgage Lender) they would be probably liable to very little tax in their now rent rooms business as you can offset the tax against any profits you reap.

ALTERNATIVELY

Alternatively due to the small amounts of tax involved in renting a 2nd room scrap the tax altogether and raise the threshhold.

Why is this idea important?

Remove Building Society restrictions on renting a room and 2nd room in a house which are as follows:

a)  Apparantly one would have to involve a solicitor for 1st room if permitted to rent in the first place                                                                                                                                               

b) One wouldn't be allowed to live in the house if one was renting a second room as it is classified as a business. 

Due to restrictions some people rent a 2nd room covertly not because they want to avoid tax but because they could get into trouble with the building society.

However as the vast majority of people have interest only mortgages (I know this due to the fact I worked for a well known Mortgage Lender) they would be probably liable to very little tax in their now rent rooms business as you can offset the tax against any profits you reap.

ALTERNATIVELY

Alternatively due to the small amounts of tax involved in renting a 2nd room scrap the tax altogether and raise the threshhold.

Legal Services Act 2007

Repeal the Legal Services Act 2007. This act limits rights of audience before tribunals and courts to a select few in elite clubs such as the Bar Council and the Law Society.

Many ordinary people cannot afford high legal fees and would like to take advantage of lay representation and chariy based advocacy services.

Judges are wll able to control advocates behaviour in their courtrooms and can easily kick out those wo are not assisting their client and the Court..

The Solicitor's Law Society is past its sell by date.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal the Legal Services Act 2007. This act limits rights of audience before tribunals and courts to a select few in elite clubs such as the Bar Council and the Law Society.

Many ordinary people cannot afford high legal fees and would like to take advantage of lay representation and chariy based advocacy services.

Judges are wll able to control advocates behaviour in their courtrooms and can easily kick out those wo are not assisting their client and the Court..

The Solicitor's Law Society is past its sell by date.

Datasharing

Under New Labour the laws on data protection were changed so that you had to give a reason why your data could not be shared, otherwise it was automatically shared.  Change this back so that privacy is sacrasanct

Why is this idea important?

Under New Labour the laws on data protection were changed so that you had to give a reason why your data could not be shared, otherwise it was automatically shared.  Change this back so that privacy is sacrasanct

Credit Reference Agencies – proper regulation and accountability

The Credit Reference Agencies seem to be a wholly unregulated industry yet there activities have a direct bearing on questions involving human rights, namely Data Protection and the right to respect for privacy.

 

They should be brought within a proper transparent and controlled regulatory framework with very clear rules as to the operation of their activities and with direct access by person aggrieved.

Why is this idea important?

The Credit Reference Agencies seem to be a wholly unregulated industry yet there activities have a direct bearing on questions involving human rights, namely Data Protection and the right to respect for privacy.

 

They should be brought within a proper transparent and controlled regulatory framework with very clear rules as to the operation of their activities and with direct access by person aggrieved.

Great Repeal Bill – Part 1

 

It is an extremely promising and most welcome initiative for the Coalition government to take the matter of excessive regulation seriously and enlist and trust citizens to help define a future legislative programme, and offer views on how the role of the state might be reduced.

I propose a Great Reform Bill to remove the following pieces of legislation or regulations from the statute book, initially consisting of repealing of reforming the following pieces of legislation:

  • The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Excessive health and safety legislation has replaced common sense and the sheer volume and proliferation of rules and regulations stifles innovation and swamps small businesses or charitable organisations in the Third Sector. It is time for a thorough review of all aspects of this act as well as the numerous offshoot pieces of legislation, which create unnecessary jobs for the HSE.
  • Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations do not apply to small domestic projects where statistically most construction deaths or accidents occur. Where CDM does apply eg on major commercial projects, costs have increased typically by 1% due to the fees for a new breed of professional, the Planning Coordinator, whose sole task is to prepare reams of risk assessments and health and safety documentation. Yet again this role has done little to reduce construction-related deaths or injuries.
  • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This act forces many small businesses to prepare significant amounts of paperwork, and carry out detailed risk assessments for audit and inspection, and allows Fire Authorities to close businesses without appeal, yet does nothing to reduce the risk of fire.
  • Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. RDAs and Government Offices of the Regions should be abolished as they have failed to fulfil heir remit but at considerable expense to the public purse and merely duplicate the functions of national and county government. RDAs were established despite public antipathy and rejection in a referendum in North East England.
  • The Police Act 1997, specifically with regard to the new Criminal Records Bureau and recently created Independent Safeguarding Authority, both of which should be abolished.
  • Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. There is an urgent need to review existing asbestos legislation to take account of the diverse range of asbestos-containing products, some of which are much more harmful than others.
  • Identity Cards Act 2006. A wholly undemocratic act worthy of a fascist state that will do nothing to make the nation more secure.
  • Firearms Act 1998. Introduced as a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane tragedy but has done nothing to reduce gun crime and instead criminalises those who take part in sport shooting.
  • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Specifically with regard to the impact of this piece of regulation on music venues.
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers ACT 2000. This act provides a legal framework that allows authorities to snoop and spy on citizens and is grossly undemocratic. Abolish The Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  • The Local Government Act 2000. Abolish Standards for England.
  • Part P Building Regulations 2000, which came into force in 2005 and imposes an undue cost burden on consumers, who are obliged to employ ‘competent’ trained electricians to carry out even the most modest alterations to electrical circuits.
  • Licensing Act 2003.
  • Human Rights Act 1998. Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, arguably one of the most hasty and ill-considered pieces of legislation of all time.

Why is this idea important?

 

It is an extremely promising and most welcome initiative for the Coalition government to take the matter of excessive regulation seriously and enlist and trust citizens to help define a future legislative programme, and offer views on how the role of the state might be reduced.

I propose a Great Reform Bill to remove the following pieces of legislation or regulations from the statute book, initially consisting of repealing of reforming the following pieces of legislation:

  • The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974. Excessive health and safety legislation has replaced common sense and the sheer volume and proliferation of rules and regulations stifles innovation and swamps small businesses or charitable organisations in the Third Sector. It is time for a thorough review of all aspects of this act as well as the numerous offshoot pieces of legislation, which create unnecessary jobs for the HSE.
  • Construction Design & Management Regulations 2007 (CDM). These regulations do not apply to small domestic projects where statistically most construction deaths or accidents occur. Where CDM does apply eg on major commercial projects, costs have increased typically by 1% due to the fees for a new breed of professional, the Planning Coordinator, whose sole task is to prepare reams of risk assessments and health and safety documentation. Yet again this role has done little to reduce construction-related deaths or injuries.
  • The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This act forces many small businesses to prepare significant amounts of paperwork, and carry out detailed risk assessments for audit and inspection, and allows Fire Authorities to close businesses without appeal, yet does nothing to reduce the risk of fire.
  • Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. RDAs and Government Offices of the Regions should be abolished as they have failed to fulfil heir remit but at considerable expense to the public purse and merely duplicate the functions of national and county government. RDAs were established despite public antipathy and rejection in a referendum in North East England.
  • The Police Act 1997, specifically with regard to the new Criminal Records Bureau and recently created Independent Safeguarding Authority, both of which should be abolished.
  • Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. There is an urgent need to review existing asbestos legislation to take account of the diverse range of asbestos-containing products, some of which are much more harmful than others.
  • Identity Cards Act 2006. A wholly undemocratic act worthy of a fascist state that will do nothing to make the nation more secure.
  • Firearms Act 1998. Introduced as a knee jerk reaction to the Dunblane tragedy but has done nothing to reduce gun crime and instead criminalises those who take part in sport shooting.
  • Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005. Specifically with regard to the impact of this piece of regulation on music venues.
  • Regulation of Investigatory Powers ACT 2000. This act provides a legal framework that allows authorities to snoop and spy on citizens and is grossly undemocratic. Abolish The Office of Surveillance Commissioners.
  • The Local Government Act 2000. Abolish Standards for England.
  • Part P Building Regulations 2000, which came into force in 2005 and imposes an undue cost burden on consumers, who are obliged to employ ‘competent’ trained electricians to carry out even the most modest alterations to electrical circuits.
  • Licensing Act 2003.
  • Human Rights Act 1998. Withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, arguably one of the most hasty and ill-considered pieces of legislation of all time.

Legalise Filesharing

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Why is this idea important?

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Regulatory Authorities

As a practising solicitor I am well aware of the passion of the now defunct Labour Government  for control freakery which is legend.

The new government must now set about repealing or limiiting overbearing and burdonsome authorities such as the Solicitors Regulation Aurhority.  

This wholly unnecessary body is now  becoming an empire building monstrosity.  The vast majority of practising solicitors are honest and hard working and do not need an interfering institution such as this which has taken upon its self  the task of teling us how to run our practises and businesses. 

 

All the legal profession needs is a good independent complaints body  and nothing more..

Why is this idea important?

As a practising solicitor I am well aware of the passion of the now defunct Labour Government  for control freakery which is legend.

The new government must now set about repealing or limiiting overbearing and burdonsome authorities such as the Solicitors Regulation Aurhority.  

This wholly unnecessary body is now  becoming an empire building monstrosity.  The vast majority of practising solicitors are honest and hard working and do not need an interfering institution such as this which has taken upon its self  the task of teling us how to run our practises and businesses. 

 

All the legal profession needs is a good independent complaints body  and nothing more..

introduce tax on more food

There is so much wastage on food and drink in the UK.

We should tax higher for foods with very high fat and/or very high sugar and or high salt content.

We should eat less and  use our money more wisely.

Fast food outlets hsoul serve smaller portions

We need a national food amnesty and obesity campaign starting in primary schools

We need to give more to charities.

Why is this idea important?

There is so much wastage on food and drink in the UK.

We should tax higher for foods with very high fat and/or very high sugar and or high salt content.

We should eat less and  use our money more wisely.

Fast food outlets hsoul serve smaller portions

We need a national food amnesty and obesity campaign starting in primary schools

We need to give more to charities.

Dispense with the obsessive craze of ‘proof of identity’ under, for example, the Money Laundering Regulations

The law requires that when instructing, for example, a solicitor or estate agent, to handle selling your house you need provide proof of identity and they duly photocopy your passport and driving licence (though its debateable whether they in fact need only note the reference numbers from them, but anyway …).

But what does that prove?  If you are laundering money chances are you will have bogus documents anyway!

Meanwhile, it simply means in this day and age of ID theft there are countless hundreds of copies of everyone's documents blowing around in the wind, so to speak.  It devalues the real weight of passport and driving licence to prove identity when it might truly be required.

And though, to continue the example, estate agents have no need or right to ask to see a copy of a house buyer's passport/licence (because there is no monetary custom between the two parties) many agents gormlessly try it on, and likewise many house buyers gormlessly oblige and hand their documents over.

When changing doctors surgeries recently I was asked to let them have a copy of passport and driving licence.  Oh yes?, I asked.  What law or regulation requires that?  Erm, well, oooh, uhmmm, dunno, there isn't one, sorry, we don't really need it.

Why is this idea important?

The law requires that when instructing, for example, a solicitor or estate agent, to handle selling your house you need provide proof of identity and they duly photocopy your passport and driving licence (though its debateable whether they in fact need only note the reference numbers from them, but anyway …).

But what does that prove?  If you are laundering money chances are you will have bogus documents anyway!

Meanwhile, it simply means in this day and age of ID theft there are countless hundreds of copies of everyone's documents blowing around in the wind, so to speak.  It devalues the real weight of passport and driving licence to prove identity when it might truly be required.

And though, to continue the example, estate agents have no need or right to ask to see a copy of a house buyer's passport/licence (because there is no monetary custom between the two parties) many agents gormlessly try it on, and likewise many house buyers gormlessly oblige and hand their documents over.

When changing doctors surgeries recently I was asked to let them have a copy of passport and driving licence.  Oh yes?, I asked.  What law or regulation requires that?  Erm, well, oooh, uhmmm, dunno, there isn't one, sorry, we don't really need it.

Limit employment laws affecting parents with childminders/ nannies

Background

It is hard for both parents to find full time jobs if they have several children, because of childcare issues.  Making use of a nanny/ au-pair is often the most convenient option.

Suggestion

Anything that makes the provision of childcare easier is welcomed.  For example, individuals, who are not running a business, could be exempted from statutory employment regulations.

Why is this idea important?

Background

It is hard for both parents to find full time jobs if they have several children, because of childcare issues.  Making use of a nanny/ au-pair is often the most convenient option.

Suggestion

Anything that makes the provision of childcare easier is welcomed.  For example, individuals, who are not running a business, could be exempted from statutory employment regulations.

Remove dental professionals from regulation by the Care Quality Commission

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Why is this idea important?

Background
The Dental Law Partnership is a specialist solicitors’ company which acts exclusively for dental patients, representing them in clinical negligence litigation. The Directors of the Dental Law Partnership are doubly qualified dentists and solicitors. We therefore have a special interest in the safety of dental patients and the quality of dental care. We are profoundly concerned regarding the impact of CQC regulation upon the delivery of dental care in England.

Relevant Legislation
The former Secretary of State for Health introduced the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1st April 2010. The impact of those regulations was to widen dramatically the jurisdiction of the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which had originally been established to regulate only the large organisations involved in the delivery of health and social care – NHS Trusts, Private Hospitals etc. Just one year after the establishment of the CQC, the introduction of the 2009 Regulations brought individual health care professionals into CQC regulation including, by operation of Schedule 1, s5(4)(a) and (d) of the Regulations, the activities of all dental professionals including dentists, dental nurses, dental hygienists and therapists, dental technicians and orthodontic therapists. Following the Regulations the CQC set the date for the proposed registration and regulation of dental professionals at 1st April 2011.

Comparison of CQC regulation with existing regulation of dental professionals by the General Dental Council
Dental Professionals are currently regulated by the General Dental Council. We have considered the likely impact of proposed CQC regulation of dental professionals upon the activities of dental professionals, and in particular have compared the existing regulatory jurisdiction of the General Dental Council with the proposed jurisdiction of the CQC in order to determine whether or not additional CQC regulation of the dental profession from April 2011 is likely to improve patient safety or treatment outcomes.

The comparative analysis involved a consideration of the CQC’s own guidance regarding compliance with Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2009 and Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 published in December 2009, and the professional guidance for dental professionals issued by the General Dental Council since May 2005. The Headings considered are those of the CQC with the relevant CQC ‘Outcomes’ recorded. It should be noted that a number of CQC ‘Outcomes’ are not relevant to individual dental professionals and have not been considered.

Involvement and Information
CQC Outcome 1 Respect for individuals
CQC Outcome 2 Consent to care and treatment
CQC Outcome 3 Fees

Our conclusion is that in the area of involvement and information, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Consent s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Patient Confidentiality s1, s2, s3.

Personalised care, treatment and support
CQC Outcome 4 Care and welfare of people who use services
CQC Outcome 6 Co-operating with other providers

Our conclusion is that in the area of personalised care, treatment and support, the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s4, GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5

Safeguarding and safety
CQC Outcome 7 Safeguarding people
CQC Outcome 8 Cleanliness and infection control
CQC Outcome 9 Management of medicines
CQC Outcome 10 Safety and suitability of premises
CQC Outcome 11 Safety, availability and suitability of equipment

Our conclusion is that in the area of safeguarding and safety the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2, s3.

Suitability of staffing
CQC Outcome 12 Requirements relating to workers
CQC Outcome 13 Staffing
CQC Outcome 14 Supporting workers

Our conclusion is that the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s2, s3. GDC Principles of Dental Team Working s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s4

Quality and management
CQC Outcome 16 Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision
CQC Outcome 17 Complaints
CQC Outcome 21 Records
CQC Outcome 25 Registered person: training

Our conclusion is that in the area of quality and management the CQC proposals duplicate existing regulations set out in General Dental Council’s Standards for Dental Professionals May 2005 s1, s5, GDC Principles of Complaints Handling s1, s2, s3, s4, s5, s6, s7. GDC Principles of Raising Concerns s1, s2.

Overall
Our analysis indicates the regulation of the dental profession by the CQC would create widespread duplication of existing areas of regulation both in terms of coverage and substantive requirements.
 

Prescriptions & Education

Standardising prescriptions nationwide so the nation pays a reduced prescription charge. What I mean by this is forcing Wales to charge for prescriptions. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from.

Standardising University Education nationwide. What I mean by this is forcing Scotland to charge for University fees. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from and we already have a huge defeatist in university education.

Create a rating system for university courses. Someone who qualifies as a doctor earns over their professional life, much more than someone who has qualified in say a teacher. So why should a teacher pay the same fees as a doctor? Surely it is more financially viable to stagger the rate of fees dependant on what course you are doing and where you go? America rate their universities, and Ivy League universities are allowed to charge more. Ivy League don't exclude poorer students, who can apply for grants to plug their financial gap. This is subsidised by higher fees to those that can afford it.

Why is this idea important?

Standardising prescriptions nationwide so the nation pays a reduced prescription charge. What I mean by this is forcing Wales to charge for prescriptions. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from.

Standardising University Education nationwide. What I mean by this is forcing Scotland to charge for University fees. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from and we already have a huge defeatist in university education.

Create a rating system for university courses. Someone who qualifies as a doctor earns over their professional life, much more than someone who has qualified in say a teacher. So why should a teacher pay the same fees as a doctor? Surely it is more financially viable to stagger the rate of fees dependant on what course you are doing and where you go? America rate their universities, and Ivy League universities are allowed to charge more. Ivy League don't exclude poorer students, who can apply for grants to plug their financial gap. This is subsidised by higher fees to those that can afford it.

Clamp Down on Spurious “Business” Purchase of 4WD Trucks

There are thousands of 4WD Trucks on the road that are bought through companies "For Business Use " on which the VAT is claimed back, which are NOT used for Business. They are bought for personal use, and the owners get them VAT free. This would raise Millions for the Revenue, AND keep these awful vehicles off the road. Check out the number of these  vehicles being sold compared to ten years ago.

Why is this idea important?

There are thousands of 4WD Trucks on the road that are bought through companies "For Business Use " on which the VAT is claimed back, which are NOT used for Business. They are bought for personal use, and the owners get them VAT free. This would raise Millions for the Revenue, AND keep these awful vehicles off the road. Check out the number of these  vehicles being sold compared to ten years ago.