This snapshot, taken on
13/08/2010
, shows web content acquired for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search may not work in archived websites and contact details are likely to be out of date.
 
 
The UK Government Web Archive does not use cookies but some may be left in your browser from archived websites.

Business

The Government believes that business is the driver of economic growth and innovation, and that we need to take urgent action to boost enterprise, support green growth and build a new and more responsible economic model. We want to create a fairer and more balanced economy, where we are not so dependent on a narrow range of economic sectors, and where new businesses and economic opportunities are more evenly shared between regions and industries.

  • We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount.
  • We will end the culture of ‘tick-box’ regulation, and instead target inspections on high-risk organisations through co-regulation and improving professional standards.
  • We will impose ‘sunset clauses’ on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed.
  • We will review IR 35, as part of a wholesale review of all small business taxation, and seek to replace it with simpler measures that prevent tax avoidance but do not place undue administrative burdens or uncertainty on the self-employed, or restrict labour market flexibility.
  • We will find a practical way to make small business rate relief automatic.
  • We will reform the corporate tax system by simplifying reliefs and allowances, and tackling avoidance, in order to reduce headline rates. Our aim is to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20, while protecting manufacturing industries.
  • We will seek to ensure an injection of private capital into Royal Mail, including opportunities for employee ownership. We will retain Post Office Ltd in public ownership.
  • We will seek to ensure a level playing field between small and large retailers by enabling councils to take competition issues into account when drawing up their local plans to shape the direction and type of new retail development.
  • We will give the public the opportunity to challenge the worst regulations.
  • We will review employment and workplace laws, for employers and employees, to ensure they maximise flexibility for both parties while protecting fairness and providing the competitive environment required for enterprise to thrive.
  • We will make it easier for people to set up new enterprises by cutting the time it takes to start a new business. Our ambition is to make the UK one of the fastest countries in the world to start up a new business. We will reduce the number of forms needed to register a new business, and move towards a ‘one-click’ registration model.
  • We will end the ban on social tenants starting businesses in their own homes.
  • We will promote small business procurement, in particular by introducing an aspiration that 25% of government contracts should be awarded to small and medium-sized businesses and by publishing government tenders in full online and free of charge.
  • We will consider the implementation of the Dyson Review to make the UK the leading hi-tech exporter in Europe, and refocus the research and development tax credit on hi-tech companies, small firms and start-ups.
  • We will review the range of factors that can be considered by regulators when takeovers are proposed.
  • We will reinstate an Operating and Financial Review to ensure that directors’ social and environmental duties have to be covered in company reporting, and investigate further ways of improving corporate accountability and transparency.
  • We will ensure that Post Offices are allowed to offer a wide range of services in order to sustain the network, and we will look at the case for developing new sources of revenue, such as the creation of a Post Office Bank.
  • We will end the so-called ‘gold-plating’ of EU rules, so that British businesses are not disadvantaged relative to their European competitors.
  • We will support the creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships – joint local authority-business bodies brought forward by local authorities themselves to promote local economic development – to replace Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). These may take the form of the existing RDAs in areas where they are popular.
  • We will take steps to improve the competitiveness of the UK tourism industry, recognising the important part it plays in our national economy.

Your comments (170)

  1. BrianArdrey says:

    Control the use of ‘no win, no fee’ legal claims. We need to reduce the claim culture.

  2. Mike Webb says:

    Not sure which category this fits in but why don’t we introduce mail boxes outside peoples homes (like for example in France and the USA). This must make a world of difference in the efficient of delivering mail and would save the Post Office a fortune?

  3. helen says:

    I agree with cutting red tape and lower taxes for businesses. But I also think we should cut subsidies for them – why do we need these local enterprise partnerships? They’ll just be pointless bureaucrats. Spend the money on lowering taxes, starting with exemptions for small businesses and start-ups.

  4. Chris Giles says:

    I applaud the policy that no senior Civil Servant should be paid more than twenty times the salary of the lowest paid government employee. I would like to see legislation to implement this philosophy in the private sector. Everyone in a company contributes to the success of that company, therefore it is fair that the highest paid should not receive a salary more than twenty times the lowest paid. If the lowest paid is on the minimum wage (approx £12k), then the highest paid should not earn more than £240k. If the company is very successful, the rewards should be shared proportionately throughout the company, whilst retaining the multiple of twenty. The same philosophy would clearly apply to performance bonuses.

  5. dan burton says:

    Impose the employer contribution to NI (and stop calling it a jobs tax – or are we REALLY being run by NewsCorp?)

    –> the airlines now want compensation for the effects of the ash cloud, which would protect jobs. This sounds like they want some sort of NATIONAL INSURANCE.

    So they should be contributing to it as well eh?

  6. Chris says:

    One little-understood point re IR35 is that those who are “caught” are paying BOTH Employers Ni and Employees NI. That is clearly unfair and is not how the PAYE system was designed – the employer and employee payments were obviously intended for two distinct legal entities.

    The concept of self-employment (such as in a “sole trader” under tax Schedule D) shows that in some cases Employers NI is not due at all and there can be no better place to apply this principle than where one person would otherwise have to pay both forms of NI on their income. Therefore NI has become, in all but name, income tax.

    However, all of this is due to the very existence of NI. When it began it was a levy, conferring upon the payer the right to use the NHS, access to unemployment benefits and a state pension. However, the benefits have been eroded over time to the point where the only real benefit is a fairly miserable pension since anyone can use the NHS and those who do not qualify for JSA will instead receive benefits from a tax-based fund.

    Furthermore, Employers NI is effectively a tax on employing BRITISH-BASED workers. IN a global economy British workers are not on a level playing field when companies can set up for example call centres in India.

    If there were no NI and instead a flat rate of tax then there would be no need for so-called “employment statuses” and no need for endless court cases to decide which of these statuses applies to a citizen. The existence of artificial distinct forms of income tax and having people allowed to pay tax at differing rates leads to this problem – with a single flat rate there would be no need to argue over these issues.

    There is a fly in the ointment with regard to the benefits that can be claimed, however, in that some people are forced to incorporated. For example freelancers are required by agencies to do so to avoid the agency being deemed to be the employer as per section 134 and the follow-on legislation. This means that these people are directors of their own companies and so claiming benefits such as JSA is almost impossible. Presumably this is the thinking behind SchD paying only 8% NI whereas employees (who can claim JSA etc) pay 11%.

    However, repealing s134 etc would not provide an answer since it was presumed to have been brought in to prevent the situation where, for example, a hot dog firm would offer it’s employees employed or self-employed, and those who opted for the latter would save the company paying Employers NI.

    Therefore, given that s134 serves a purpose (unless the flat tax were adopted), then that leaves those people running limited companies. It seems therefore that the best option is to apply a more sensible tax regime to those in that situation rather than the grossly unfair PAYE where the person who, but for s134, would have little trouble being seen as self-employed.

    It is tempting to see the solution as being to apply a self-employed style tax regime to such freelancers, but that implies a one-man band setup – the problem is that many people have other arrangements and have other people in their companies for sounds business reasons other than tax.

    Therefore it seems that a likely solution, which minimises the impact on existing legislation, might involve the continued use of a Ltd Co without Employers NI being paid by the freelancer. This would allow an appropriate level of NI to be levied taking into account the fact that there are few benefits available to the worker and so perhaps no NI may be an appropriate start point.

    Hope this helps.

  7. BARBARA QUARCOO says:

    Hi

    My aim is to express the pain and problems faced by the business community mostly small businesses and the unemployed.

    1. They pay far too much business rate- ie.council tax for small businesses at least £500.00 per month
    2. They also have to pay high rent of up to at least £1000.00 per month plus other leasehold fees and renewal of charges.( In mostly derelict Town centres or shopping malls/parades .
    3. They are unable to pay the individual who has a £1000.00 job centre plus voucher because they do not actually have the means. They employ all age groups.
    4. So the government should encourage them with at least £5,000.000 to £6,000.00 per person they employ for at least one year. That will
    a. Help employ others
    b. Help pay their business costs
    c. Keep them in business
    d. Turn the wheels of the economy. Please remember the accelerator and multiplier principles. They really work.
    Please make it work. Lots of people have vouchers but big businesses do not want to know. (Big businesses tend to be skewered toward ageism). I believe this is a firm way forward for economic recovery .Since the job centres will monitor the programme there will be less likelihood of any abuse of the system.

    Kind Regards
    BARBARA

  8. Chris says:

    One little-understood point re IR35 is that those who are “caught” are paying BOTH Employers Ni and Employees NI. That is clearly unfair and is not how the PAYE system was designed – the employer and employee payments were obviously intended for two distinct legal entities.

    The concept of self-employment (such as in a “sole trader” under tax Schedule D) shows that in some cases Employers NI is not due at all and there can be no better place to apply this principle than where one person would otherwise have to pay both forms of NI on their income. Therefore NI has become, in all but name, income tax.

    However, all of this is due to the very existence of NI. When it began it was a levy, conferring upon the payer the right to use the NHS, access to unemployment benefits and a state pension. However, the benefits have been eroded over time to the point where the only real benefit is a fairly miserable pension since anyone can use the NHS and those who do not qualify for JSA will instead receive benefits from a tax-based fund.

    Furthermore, Employers NI is effectively a tax on employing BRITISH-BASED workers. IN a global economy British workers are not on a level playing field when companies can set up for example call centres in India.

    If there were no NI and instead a flat rate of tax then there would be no need for so-called “employment statuses” and no need for endless court cases to decide which of these statuses applies to a citizen. The existence of artificial distinct forms of income tax and having people allowed to pay tax at differing rates leads to this problem – with a single flat rate there would be no need to argue over these issues.

    There is a fly in the ointment with regard to the benefits that can be claimed, however, in that some people are forced to incorporated. For example freelancers are required by agencies to do so to avoid the agency being deemed to be the employer as per section 134 and the follow-on legislation. This means that these people are directors of their own companies and so claiming benefits such as JSA is almost impossible. Presumably this is the thinking behind SchD paying only 8% NI whereas employees (who can claim JSA etc) pay 11%.

    However, repealing s134 etc would not provide an answer since it was presumed to have been brought in to prevent the situation where, for example, a hot dog firm would offer it’s employees employed or self-employed, and those who opted for the latter would save the company paying Employers NI.

    Therefore, given that s134 serves a purpose (unless the flat tax were adopted), then that leaves those people running limited companies. It seems therefore that the best option is to apply a more sensible tax regime to those in that situation rather than the grossly unfair PAYE where the person who, but for s134, would have little trouble being seen as self-employed.

    It is tempting to see the solution as being to apply a self-employed style tax regime to such freelancers, but that implies a one-man band setup – the problem is that many people have other arrangements and have other people in their companies for sounds business reasons other than tax.

    Therefore it seems that a likely solution, which minimises the impact on existing legislation, might involve the continued use of a Ltd Co without Employers NI being paid by the freelancer. This would allow an appropriate level of NI to be levied taking into account the fact that there are few benefits available to the worker and so perhaps no NI may be an appropriate start point.

    Hope this helps.

  9. Benita Ager says:

    We have run our business for over 5 years and have worked hard to be a good employer. However, it seems that current employment law is weighted far too strongly in favour of employees. Employers have to meet employment requirements but there seem to be no requirements for employees – it feels as though wages payments are treated as unconditional gifts.
    We have been taken to tribunal by one person who took 2 other employers to court and we now know it was the way he made his money – we won the tribunal but at a huge cost to our business, no wonder that others employers paid him off. We went through all the correct HR procedures (as advised by an external HR expert) but the tribunal still gave him a hearing, before deciding that there was no case to answer.

    I would be more than happy to talk to anyone who is reviewing employment law. I have experience of the system both as an employee and now as an employer (and winning on each occasion). I have also had our insurers pay someone who did not have a case or deserve any money just because it would have cost them more to have defended the case, even if they won.

    Given my own experience as an employee, I strongly believe that employees need to be protected from rogue employers; however, the law has gone too far the other way and all employers are treated as though they are in the wrong. Is it not fair that employers are protected from rogue employees?

  10. Gwyndaf Parri says:

    I have been self employed twice. Each time, I got really fed up with the amount administration/paperwork I had to do so that the government made sure they got their taxes. This is really discouraging. I do not intend to run my own business ever again.

  11. JB says:

    Exporters should be encouraged and supported as they bring foreign money into the UK.
    The UK needs to generate income from abroad not simply recycle money within it’s borders. Acquisitions of foreign companies by UK businesses should be encouraged and supported. It has been very disheartening to see a lot of our Utility companies ending up in foreign hands.
    Directors of publicly listed companies who destroy value in companies should not receive payouts.

  12. Graeme says:

    We’ve become too reliant on imports and we don’t export enough to counteract that. We should be looking at ways to get a good swathe of manufacturing and services back in the UK and be aggressive about doing so.
    We’ve spent the last couple of decades just allowing a brain drain to occur and doing nothing to prevent companies moving their manufacture abroad.

    Manufacturing here would require less transport, would employ our own people, would be a good way to ensure the money comes into the government’s coffers and there is the glaring fact that we wouldn’t be funding a human rights sweatshop disaster abroad.
    I guess it’s quite tough to persuade companies that they should stay here though when they could cut their costs abroad, maybe that’s what we need to be looking into.

    We don’t need to be petty or nationalistic about it, just be realistic. We need some of our manufacturing base back!

  13. Nick Sturge says:

    99.7% of UK private businesses have less than 250 employees – the main criteria for “SMEs”.
    My guess is that Business Link touches, and adds value to a not insignificant proportion of those.
    To replace BusinessLink with a website (i.e. replacing ‘push’ with ‘pull’) is likely to lead to increased business failures and reduced growth. My experience of working with some of the best high-tech, high-growth businesses is that you have to continually ‘push’ support to add value. They rarely ask for it.
    Our future economic success will be driven by new businesses and growing existing ones. A chunk of that will be in what are classed as “high-growth” businesses and they do need special attention and this is rarely covered by BusinessLink – but that doesn’t mean that BL should be scrapped. Leverage what you have rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water.
    Business Incubators, such as SETsquared, add real value to significant growth start-ups (facilitating some £250m of investment into startups over the last 8 years, for an investment of less than £10m.
    Get out of London and see what’s happening and what expertise has been built up to enable economic growth.

  14. Michael Vaughan says:

    The replacement of the RDA’s is one policy which improve the effiiciency of business support by bringing the local enterprise agencies back into the main area of business support.
    Admit I am biased, as I work with a local enterprise agency but I along with my fellow advisers at other enterprise agencies in the county, are all, or were, small business owners. We already work with our local councils to bring advice which is applicable to the area, but are doing the best with the very limited funding available.
    Bring the business support back local.& save money on a layer of bureaucracy.
    There is no ‘one solution fits all’ which has been the recent policy for the regionalised agencies.

    In addition, do not neglect, the SE. I am from an industry (electronics) background and there is industry here, which is being neglected for other areas of the country, considered the industrial heartland. I have clients who work equally as hard developing their manufacturing and are totally exaperated that if they were in another area, they would double or even treble the support available. Because we live in the SE the common presumption is that we are all in the finance sector or work in the city,.This is not so, in fact I believe, it is a minority of the area’s working population.

  15. Dirk Koopman says:

    End the practice of entering into open ended framework agreements with consultants and suppliers.

    End the Civil Service practice of rotating people regularly so that departments of state can build and, crucially, retain expertise in that department’s task(s).

    These two things are linked, because if one has to deal with technical matters with a department, more often than not; in fact more often than is desirable, one has to deal with so called consultants. If these persons are competent and also in a position to make things happen, then the situation might be liveable with – but usually these people know far less about the subject than we do. The reason for this? Well, generally they are fairly young and, whilst they are intelligent and willing graduates, they have been placed there by their firms to “learn on the job”, they have little or no “domain knowledge”. Not my definition of a “consultant”. And then there is the cost to the tax payer…

    So, in order to get contracted work done, then we have to start to educate them. Assuming our competitors don’t get in there first… Frequently, once they (the young “consultants”) are trained up, they also get rotated by their employers and we have to start again with a new lot.

    The collective knowledge of science and engineering (or even just an accurate feel for the subject) is *woefully* lacking in the higher echelons of the Service. This makes for bad decision making and the proliferation of expensive framework agreements, which are there, essentially, for CYA purposes because there is insufficient knowledge within the Civil Service.

    In fact, I would go further, it is the active disparagement/fear/lack of understanding of science or engineering based functions that is large part of the reason that the Civil Service punts off the “hard stuff” to “consultants” in framework agreements. These consultants, quite naturally and unsurprisingly, have an incentive to keep that agreement running for as long as possible. I would suggest that many of them have long since run their course, in terms of “quick win” usefulness, and are now kept on by the Civil Service for their erm.. convenience and by the consultants for obvious, sound, commercial reasons.

    Then there are the links, informal/unspoken or just OBN, between the consultants and a few favoured firms (I am presuming that the bad old days of the consultants punting the necessary work to one of their other sections [full of yet more fresh young graduates] – particularly in IT – are now long gone). The “links”, however, still exist. And big firms of consultants will usually prefer (if only by default) to use another large firm – because they speak the same language in paper and procedures. They are “too big too be likely to fail” ..cough.. This, in any other circumstance, might be called conflict of interest.

    To a large department/firm an SME represents “risk”, more work and this figures much higher in their thinking than any benefits that a competent SME, with domain knowledge, is perceived to bring. The “risk” is there because decision makers DO NOT UNDERSTAND and are SCARED. Unless the Civil Service can learn about and retain in house staff with domain knowledge, nothing will change. Especially in IT. Actually, the consultants will recommend a large “contractor” which then in turn will employ one or more specialist SMEs to do the actual work. If one is *really* unlucky (as we are) there are *two* large firms in the way between us and the end user. Oh and I forgot, the end user has to go through the government department to get the stuff they actually require. This does not make for snappy responses to problems, neither does it make for a low cost solution.

    Using consultants and large providers tends to produce overly big and, generally, centralised solutions. NPfIT springs immediately to mind. Even when this project was started, it was obvious that data was becoming more distributed. Why else would one modernise, and make available to all medical facilities, an extensive managed IP based common intranet system for the whole of the NHS? That, at least, was a good idea. What should then have happened is that the NPfIT people should have become intimately involved with the domain knowledge holders (the hospitals, doctors and any existing software suppliers [small as well as large]). NPfIT should become a standards setting body. It should have defined (all) the data that needed to be collected, the methods of interchange between producers and consumers and how that was all to be secured – both from unauthorised access and also loss whether by fire or flood or carelessness.

    Instead of plunging in and starting to commission software, it should have understood the *real* problem: which is simply to be able to share NHS information in a secure and standardised way.

    With a set of data definitions and information interchange interface documents, the work could have been parcelled out into small pieces which would have better fitted the existing SMEs that specialised in such work. Probably, because said SMEs would have been involved in the standards setting phase, and moderated it, existing software could have been used as a basis for solutions. With a very noticeable effect on costs and implementation time. There used to be more than one SME competing in this marketplace and that too would have encouraged cost control. Now we seem to have just one supplier with software which is late, apparently bloated in size, slow, and not yet complete.

    It is a new world out there. Big is no longer beautiful. Computers are no longer huge monoliths. Programs are now written to do relatively small tasks but on several computers at once. Problems have to be broken down in smaller tasks in order to achieve this. Data and interfaces have to be defined. Monolithic, centralised solutions were starting to be old fashioned ten years ago. Thinking in these terms is now obsolete. In five years time it may actually not be even tenable.

    Another side benefit would probably have been that patient data would have remained at its source, the GP’s surgery (and a few local backup sites). In other words – a distributed system – data would only transferred to a consumer (say your A&E dept) if it were necessary. This also would make for a much more accountable system as such an event would be comparatively rare and could reasonably be audited by the organisation (or section of that organisation) – may be even in near real time.

    Instead, what we seem to on course for getting, is one huge system with myriad users having access to, potentially, any or all of it. With all the attendant risks associated with that.

    This is a direct manifestation of current Civil Service thinking and practise, which is egged on and facilitated by the “consultants” and large supplier mentality that they, together, employ.

    Unless this old fashioned mindset can be broken, you will continue, in the same old way, to use large companies and your policy of involving SMEs will be so much hot air.

    Breaking problems up into smaller pieces, with Government becoming essentially a standards setting body first and commissioner of work second (which it could, in any case, farm out) would then allow the vitality, speed and flexibility of SMEs to be utilised. You would likely obtain commensurate reduction in the time needed to produce, together with (I would suggest) significant reductions in costs.

    But you will need obtain and to keep civil servants with domain knowledge in the middle to create, maintain and oversee the standards and interface specifications. Without these in place and kept there, nothing will improve.

  16. Jason Farmer says:

    All previous governments have a shocking record when it comes to succesfull IT project implementations, they always get too big and too complicated, going to the big bidders.

    Can you try smaller projects that can then be scaled up with the smaller and more delivery orientated companies? Incremental steps of improvement are easier to develop and quicker to be of use to users, as well as giving a gradual and acceptable change.

    Small projects are also less risky, more likely to be implemented and therefor actually of use to someone.

    Also A word on Business Link and funding for businesses. I was once awarded a grant by business link… It came to £1500 match funded to help pay for a website (when websites were new)

    The stipulation was that we used their provider. Having paid we then spoke to the provider and were told that if we hadn’t come through Business Link, we’d have paid £1500… This approach hasn’t changed in the more recent times. For small businesses Business Link look like they are helping, but actually they aren’t adding any value.

  17. Neale Crawford says:

    Reduction in red tape and bureaucracy is essential and removal of non-accountable quangos is a must. I run care homes, and the emphasis has shifted from providing care for the residents to complying with needless paperwork for a quango that used be called CSCI. That organisation has now morphed into the Care Quality Commission and is creating the same needless paperwork and regulations for the NHS – an organisation which needs less paperwork and form-filling and more clinical staff concentrating on treating paperwork. The overheads to my business alone are over £40k from this one quango – the cost to our NHS must run into the millions.

  18. Richard Goldring says:

    Make business more democratic! Currently large companies are like vast feudal empires run by overpaid CEOs and their director buddies and rich shareholders. Most employees have no say in the running of their businesses and yet they have the most stake in the business: they spend 5 days a week contributing to the business, they move to be near the business, their lives revolve around the business and yet have no say (no power) over the business strategy e.g. closing sites, relocating sites ( as in my case) and peole end up alienated e.g. British Airway dispute. So I’m advocating that empolyess be given more power than shareholders and the CEO and directors and be able to democratically vote out and change the CEO even, remove ineffective managers, fix pay scales, etc. So the CEO and manager would be facilitators providing options for empoyees and their representative to vote on. I think this is the next big evolution in captialism where people are more empowered in their work. I think businesses would benefit and flourish e.g. John Lewis Partnership. People would be happier. Of course CEO, directors and rich shareholders wouldn’t be happy about this at first because you’re taking their power away from them, but what its wrong with taking power from <5% of the population and giving it to the other 95% of the population – isn't that what democracy is all about? Infact companies would probably be more profitable and innovative because the employees would be more involved and empowered. There wouldn't be industrial disputes e.g. Bristish Airways because managers and employees would democratically work together and democratically decide and agree on how to run the business rather than being forced to do this or that by the management. There wouldn't be a them and us. You wouldn't need unions and strikes. Come on investigate this! Pass the legislation and MAKE THIS SO!

  19. Kevin says:

    We should push forwards with super fast broadband fibre to the home, to provide 100MB bandwith would allow all the office based workers to fully work from home reducing transport on the roads. this speed is required to provide video calls it would also match office networks so could run all tools used in offices. Offer FE and HE schools and NHS internet services to again reduce travel. this would uncongest our roads and reduce CO2 from both cars and office buildings whist providing more brown site land for conversion from offices to homes in numbers that would bring house prices down.

  20. Mark says:

    It’s all very well the government asking for comments on business while at the same time pandering to the health lobby which has resulted in thousands of pubs being closed and thousands left unemployed.

    If the coalition were really serious about helping business they’d let pub owners make their own decision whether to be smoking/non-smoking. The anti-smoking lobby are forever telling us that everyone loves the blanket ban and that it created a level playing field, some level playing field, it’s left the door wide open for big business pubcos. If ASH are right in their contention that the blanket ban is adored by everyone then what is their problem with pubs opting to be a smoking establishment. A proper level palying field is for publicans/customers to be given the choice.

    What’s been happening since 2007 can be viewed as criminal, on the word of those with a vested financial interest and a personal hatred of smoking/smokers the government have sacrificed thousands of livelihoods. Shameful & criminal.

    I remind the coalition that there’s a review on the smoking ban coming up, so I’d like to see the government publicans the right to decide, on their private property, whether to be a smoking/non-smoking venue.

    Stop panderingl to the health mafia. And how can it be justified that million upon millions has been thrown at the anti-smoking campaign without the desired results, smoking rates are up.

    One of the priorities of the coalition should be stop all taxpayer funding to the health lobby organisations. A huge saving can be made in this way.