This issue is vital to the betterment of youths services in Peterborough. Currently, the people that are in charge of youth services have not been classed as youth in years and are in no place to have a say in the issues of the youth no matter how good they are at their job. However, if a youth council did exist, or there was a youth presence in the council (11-16 year olds) there would be better input for the decision makers. This could lead to less crime and violence as the youth would be occupied elsewhere and may lead to better results for the youth of Peterborough in academic and social terms.

The news that cash machines are closing at a record rate is alarming. Over two million Britons rely on cash for their day-to-day shopping, including many of society’s most vulnerable, such as older people and those on low incomes. And cash is essential for many small businesses. Removing dozens of isolated machines will leave many communities entirely without access to their money. The banks claim this is just a reflection of changed consumer behaviour - with lots of people not using cash anymore. But a majority of people choose to use cash regularly, and the public’s demand for cash is greater than ever before - 77 percent of people consider access to a free-to-use cash machine as essential to their lives. This is about banks putting the cash machine network under pressure to cut costs, combined with card companies’ efforts to make cash machines unprofitable. The regulator needs to step in to make sure our voices as consumers are being represented.

Every parent of a child within Suffolk, that has to rely on funded school transport to High school from September 2019 will have to pay between £600-£800 pounds per child per year for continued transport to their current recognised catchment school. SCC will only fund travel to what it now considers to be a pupils nearest school, but nearest schools admissions policies for year 2019/20 prioritises places for students from its feeder and catchment Primary schools, not students from Primary schools outside of catchment. The financial implications for Suffolk families will be immense. Siblings may have to attend different High schools, as an older child already receiving funded transport will continue to do so but parents may not be able afford to fund a sibling or siblings. There is no guarantee that a child from a non feeder or out of catchment school will be accepted, so parents could be forced to pay for their child to attend a school, occur debt and hardship to do so, have to consider home schooling. SCC sent out an online transport survey this year to parents within Suffolk. According to a report by Councillor (County) Robert Lindsay 3600 responses were received, 85% strongly opposed these proposed changes and 5% opposed, but SCC still passed the changes. School Transport should be free and funded for all pupils.

NHS Improvement have told the board of the hospital (which has been put in special measures following an unfavourable report from the Care Quality Commission) that they will have to stop all elective surgery including cancer surgery for the next six months unless an alternative solution can be found. This is despite the fact that the adverse findings by the CQC were not to do with surgical services and were primarily about insufficient numbers of nursing staff particularly in the medical wards. If this happens it will impose considerable hardship on the people of West Norfolk and South Cambridgeshire who will have major delays in their surgery and will have a 100 mile round trip for them to have treatment elsewhere. It also puts the future of the hospital in doubt as staff losses are likely to escalate due to this measure.

It is the last remaining bank in the Hope Valley, Derbyshire. Without it many people will have to travel to Sheffield to visit a branch. The demographic of the Hope Valley is such that many of the residents are elderly and the public transport is very limited. At a time when we are all being urged to use less energy I find it unbelievable that people would be expected to make a 20 to 30 mile round trip just to visit a bank. Also, as the RBS was bailed out by the government it 'belongs' to all intents and purposes to we the taxpayers and so adds insult to injury making us expend time and fuel to get to a bank. I personally have banked at RBS Hathersage since leaving school over 40 years ago and am indignant at having to go elsewhere. Online banking has been proven time and again to be unsafe - the hackers are usually ahead of the security programmers! So come on - Save Our Bank!

Do you want to save Tarporley's precious, affordable retirement flats, Oathills Lea? Where will our elderly population go, if this complex is closed or sold off by Weaver Vale Housing Trust? Oathills Lea is currently under review and its residents are worried sick, as you can imagine. Built in 1970, Oathills Lea has 23 retirement flats for residents aged 50 and over. It is the perfect location, especially for the less mobile residents and those who no longer drive. The bus stop is just 100 yards; the Co-op 250 yards; post office 250 yards; village centre 100 yards; doctors 0.5 mile(s). All of this helping our older villagers maintain their independence. Oathills Lea is the only accommodation of it's sort in the village. Not only is it made up of individual flats, but there is a communal area where the residents congregate in the afternoons to socialise with each other. Many of it's former and current residents have always lived in Tarporley and others have sold their homes and moved here to be closer to their families. None of us want to be evicted from our homes and it is putting the more vulnerable villagers under immense pressure and stress. What will Oathills Lea be replaced with ? Weaver Vale Housing Trust, recently you were promoting the flats as a "Home for Life". Why have you gone back on your word ? Why aren't you filling the empty flats, when given the ageing and increasing population of Tarporley and the surrounding villages there is probably a demand for them ? If anything more retirement flats are likely to be needed over the years. PLEASE sign our petition and share it with your friends and family

In your response to the Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices, ‘Good Work’, you rightly stated that it is important that everyone “has the ability to … earn a living to support them and their family”. We therefore hope that you will agree with us that it is outrageous that staff within your Department who keep it safe every day, clean the office, deliver the post and serve food are on poverty wages. For example, it is neither safe nor acceptable that to feed their families, security staff must work a minimum of 60 hours a week. This is at the same time as being on the front line of keeping a Whitehall Department safe. You will know that the Prime Minister has promised the “greatest extension of rights and protections for employees by any Conservative government in history”. We hope that you agree with the PM that this should extend to those working for the government and in government buildings, including your own. As you will be aware, many Departments already pay a proper liveable wage, including HM Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, Department for International Trade and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In fact, this is something your staff (from the former Department of Energy and Climate Change) fought for, won, and are rightly proud of. In addition, the Houses of Parliament, where you have a Parliamentary office, is also a Living Wage Foundation employer and so those staff that clean one of your offices are paid a liveable wage, while those that help run your Department are not. I am sure you agree this cannot be right or just. Back in 2016 the Trade Unions sought to engage positively with your Permanent Secretary, Alex Chisholm. Despite initial early indications of a positive approach, including confirmation that increases in pay were both affordable and within the Department’s gift, the Unions have at best been met with intransigence and indifference since then. We hope that given your commitment in the Industrial Strategy to be personally responsible for “improving the quality of work”, you will agree with us that when it comes to people’s livelihoods and ability to look after their families this attitude is not acceptable. We, the undersigned, are now calling on you to intervene and commit to paying at least the London Living Wage to all your support staff, and to holding proper discussions with the Trade Unions on their terms and conditions.

Many of you would have seen the story in today's Argus about the notice at Brighton Station asking commuters not to help beggars. Here's the Argus article: http://www.theargus.co.uk/…/16412688.commuters-are-asked-n…/ I must confess I never saw that sign, mainly because I seldom use the trains. I mostly cycle. But reading about it in the Argus this morning got my blood boiling. It deeply offended me that in austerity-ravaged Britain, where more and more families are forced to resort to food-banks, and where people are increasingly going into debt just to provide their kids with the basics, that anybody or company could be so heartless as to advice against Brightonians helping each other. I've lived here for one year, and I have never lived in a more welcoming, generous and kind city. The people here look out for each other and are happy to help people worse off than themselves. This notice is a blot on our city. It reflects badly on us. When people visiting us from all over Britain and the world arrive at the station, that is one of the first things they see. IT MUST BE REMOVED by GOVIA, the company that runs the station. I am trying to put together an effort to force them to remove it and replace it with a notice that reflects our city for the kind and generous city it is. PLEASE sign this petition.

Greenlight Environmental is a social enterprise employing around 100 local people in the West of Scotland and with almost three decades of experience providing recycling services. Many of their staff have been recruited through schemes to assist the long-term unemployed and these vulnerable workers are now being issued with redundancy notices. GMB Scotland is calling on the leaders of West Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and Argyll & Bute Councils to intervene and prevent the liquidation of the company and the redundancy of its workforce.

It is well reported that foodbank use in the UK has seen an unprecedented rise in use. They rely solely on public donations to feed people. Because it is government policy that has caused this rise, they must intervene now. Foodbanks are running out daily and face the awful task of turning people away. Health and wellbeing is at severe risk. These charities are doing the government's work free of charge. This must change.

The no. 17 bus is more than just a bus from A to B. It is a lifeline for many elderly people who live in the area, they use this bus service for companionship. When this bus is withdrawn many of these people will be left housebound; not able to walk to the local shops and not able to afford a taxi. St Marys hospital is expanding with more appointments being held there, with the new service cutting out a large portion of the route many people will be unable to get to the hospital, again too far for people to walk and taxis being far too expensive for OAPs to afford. It is not only the elderly this will affect, it will also affect the kids getting to school, students attending Portsmouth College, people getting to work. First Hroup are axing this service as too many old people enjoy this service.

Many people rely on these services to enable them to carry out every day tasks such as going to work, doing the shopping, attending medical appointments and meeting with friends & family. South Worcestershire is a largely rural area where public transport is limited and isolation a real risk. In addition to this an over reliance on car use is having a detrimental impact on air quality and health and well-being. These drastic cuts would be devastating.