Policies 1-5 - please use

1.                   Against Mansion Tax as there is no need for more infrastructure.  Instead raise more money via the Council Tax which already exists as a system and works and put in some more bands at the top end of the scale. That way the money raised by the Local Authority, not central government, can then be distributed amongst public services such as the NHS and integrated social care structures for things like community based services in mental health, district nursing and older age services can come via existing co-operation structures which provide money to the NHS. Rather than a Mansion Tax in wealthy areas going into one pot to be distributed together with the need for the implementation of specific tax raising powers and computers, valuations, etc, etc. Via the Local Authority they already know where their wealthy citizens are and how much their houses are

worth. Redistributing the bands or increasing the number of bands should not require new computers, new employees etc - we are after all supposed to be doing "AUSTERITY MEASURES".

2.1          I support David Cameron's call for an English Parliament and would qualify this it could also be a new UK parliament - perhaps smaller given the reduced amount of work that would be involved if English only policies are split from UK policies. I agree there would need to be an English First Minister too. The English or UK parliament could be sited somewhere between Chester and Yorkshire.  By way of clarification – this is a line management exercise – EU Parliament, UK Parliament, 4 devolved parliaments.  At UK level policies should be “inclusive”, ie Airports.  At Devolved level policies should be “exclusive”, ie “Heathrow”.  If it is a UK wide policy then eg all airports should be looked at strategically, if devolved then specific airports to be created or networked further should be looked at. 

2.2          Also a new English only parliament could be “virtual” especially as there is a construction need to move out of the House of Commons for structural repairs.  Video Conferencing technology at Universities could be utilised to network politicians or their constituency offices could do away with second homes and have video conferencing facilities put in place.  Scheduling for question time and debates would mean that people no longer travel outside their constituencies which have an environmental impact too. 

2.3          Instead of second homes each political party could have a hotel and schedule their expenses through the reception desk, sharing taxis and computer equipment, security etc.  This would prevent expenses scandals and misconduct in public office. 

2.3.1.     The expenses scandal under Gordon Brown ex-pm still needs to be resolved.  Lord Straw had a conflict of interest when he prevented 400+ MPs being processed for misconduct in public office with a handful being prosecuted for criminality.  Lord Straw removed the word “responsibility” and added the word “transparent” – he did not have the power constitutionally to do this because he was also caught up in the expenses scandal, thereby having a conflict of interest.  So also was David Cameron and Gordon Brown per se.  All 400+ MPs including Lord Straw need to be processed for misconduct in public office.

2.3.2.     Further, when there is a scandal on this scale all MPs should have been suspended and the second place positions at the General Election should have stood forward. There has to be a reason for getting second place in a democracy and it should not be necessary to hold a bi election because an MP is caught in a scandal and has to resign.

2.4          As part of the reforms for an English only parliament, the House of Lords could be revisited as a Libdem reform and I would like to see an age bar of at least 75 being created qualified only if you have specialist knowledge and skill to go on longer. I would like to see every Lord elected on merit and once elected can only be removed on the basis of illness, criminality or misconduct or reaching age 75. I am minded under New Labour reforms that there was a banker who spoke 8

languages fluently one of which was Japanese and he was removed to be replaced with what? There is a danger of losing experienced and skilled people who have had access to the best education, work experience and lifestyles but this should not prevent selection on merit over birth. If putting an age limit on the Lords did not reduce the numbers, then some other consideration be used like for example removal after 25 years or reaching 75 which ever is earliest.

2.5.1      All members of the House of Lords be called “lay representatives” and remove the pomp and privilege of Lords and Ladies.  The House of Lords should be renamed the House of lay representatives and should remain “unelected” to balance the House of Commons and “elected” politicians. 

2.5.2.     Also £300 per day is acceptable as a lawyer in London is £500 per hour.  The standard of editing and parliamentarianism in the House of Lords is currently exceptionally good most of the time.

3. Then the Lothian question - I would give consideration to giving up the right of Scottish MPs to vote on English matters as a matter of fairness. This would mean Labour potentially losing votes outright in the UK parliament, but so be it. Fair is fair.

4.1          The Conservatives are going against the European Court of Human Rights, as a court of last resort.  I would bring in the ECHR level as the second tier in a domestic court process on appeal, thereafter if there was a need to appeal further then it would be a last resort national court jurisdiction, ie the Supreme Court.  It would mean that the European judicial circuit happens earlier in proceedings with the significant impact of ensuring that cases do not go on appeal further.  This would provide a solution to Theresa May's problem with the ECHR court. It should be very rare for

a case to go to appeal.

4.2          There is a need to bring back equality, impartiality, fairness and justice to the UK domestic court system as these were removed via the Woolf Reforms and the position in Scotland is not known via the Gill reforms.   Currently the court procedural rules in England do not provide any wording in relation to equality.  Impartiality is for expert witnesses only.  Article 6 of the Human Right Act and right to a fair trial does not feature in the CPR rules.  And Justice does not feature either.  Costs are proportionate.  There is multi and fast track in relation to expediency but the word expediency is not used.  Mediation is used which I call “contemporary equality” and should not feature in a public domain institution as it does the opposite removes the case to the private domain and gags by compromise agreements.  Justice and Compromise are two distinct issues but are currently packaged as “Access to Justice”. And Economy is featured but I cannot recall how, maybe fees.   There is a need to embed equality, impartiality, fairness and justice as the objective of the courts in a democracy to include all parties and the judge, with a specific limit on judicial subjectivity to equitable doctrine only, ie first in time prevails and interests of justice. 

4.3          There is a need to split “fairness” and a right to a fair trial under the HRA into – if a miscarriage of justice as the judge has been inadvertent, possibly through a lack of evidence, then civil appeal.  If a judge has been careless, reckless and especially deliberate, eg not citing citations of case precedent or statute law in his/her judgment or discarding evidence or overruling pleading then the judge be prosecuted for (a) perversion of the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office, ie criminal division as jurisdiction on appeal.

5.            The Prime Minister wanted people to engage in the Big Society - something for something. 

I understand that it is possible to do permitted earnings whilst still claiming welfare benefits which is approximately £100 per week.  I would like to see people who do something for something being provided an increase in their benefits to £100, ie a potential extra £400 per month. For this they should be doing at least 4, 8, 12 hours or 16 hours plus voluntary work a month, paid at £25, £50, £75 or £100 - the maximum being £100 per week. It is the Prime Minister and Iain Duncan Smith who wanted "something for something" and to engage with the Third Sector as the Big Society. The Big Society is for corporate volunteering days, but people are paid.  The issue I am seeking to remedy is that people are volunteering and are not receiving anything whilst engaged in the welfare reforms agenda.  I am aware that if you volunteer this is recorded with DWP, so you know who people are and are gathering data already. It is quite wrong of the Prime Minister to lump people who do volunteering and engage with the Big Society with benefits and scroungers and people living off the system.  Giving folks something for volunteering by way of “increased benefit” would encourage others who are struggling on welfare to engage in society.  You could have a “basic benefit” plus the opportunity to earn an “increased benefit” or “replacement benefit” where you have recovered or recovering but are not quite job ready.  Also, some people have engaged in volunteering for many years, have really good CV/resume and cannot get paid employment meaning meaning they are "volunteer trapped".  They may have lost Disability living allowance and severe disability living allowance so need to replace these benefits whilst still claiming long term out of work benefits.  Doing something for nothing is a lacuna in the current welfare reforms that needs to be plugged.  You either get DLA/SDA or you are recovered sufficiently to do some form of volunteering or you get JSA and an opportunity to increase your benefit.  This would assist people who want to work the ability to earn their benefits to keep them out of relative poverty or absolute poverty.  Freedom of choice would mean that people who don’t want to work and just claim a basic benefit can do so too.  It would also assist people who work in rural communities and may also assist carers as they could increase their benefits as part of their caring role as volunteers for a cared for person for 16 plus hours they already do and currently receive nothing.