I want to highlight the sparsity of resources in the NHS for treating patients with eating disorders. This is a national issue but it has to begin somewhere. I mention anorexia in particular because it came into our family, but the same points apply to all eating disorders. The eating disorder charity BEAT states: "Anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, from medical complications associated with the illness as well as suicide." So where is the funding? Where are the specialists? The Royal College of Psychiatrists report: “We are seeing waits of up to 16 months for non-urgent referrals. It is really worrying, because we know that the more quickly people start receiving treatment the quicker they are to respond to it.” Anorexia is an illness. Despite what some people might think, no-one chooses to be anorexic in the same way that no-one chooses cancer. It is a physical illness and it is a mental illness but it is also a neglected illness as far as the NHS is concerned. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, until recently, there was no provision for eating disorders. This year, CAMHS has established an Eating Disorder Service. What about those patients who are not children? Those patients like my own loved one. Four years ago, a beautiful, talented, artistic young lady whom I love with all my heart fell prey to anorexia and I watched in impotence as she shrank before my eyes. She was 16 and resisted medical treatment for the best part of a year. Once she accepted help, her GP was wonderful at keeping an eye on her and referring her to a general mental health therapist but there were no specialists in eating disorders or any specialist treatment. Early in 2017, when my loved one became so ill that she weighed 5 stone and had a BMI of 12, she was admitted to a gastroenterology ward at the general hospital. The doctors and nurses were marvellous but they were not experts in the treatment of eating disorders. However, they found her a place at a residential ED Clinic in Grimsby, 54 miles and a drive of an hour and a half away. Grimsby is not in East Yorkshire; it’s in Lincolnshire. Still, we were lucky. Did you see the programme, ‘Wasting Away: The Truth about Anorexia’, which told the story of news reader Mark Austin’s daughter? I watched in tears as their story unfolded in an almost carbon copy of our own. Now if someone in the public eye, with a doctor for a wife, had no clue what to do, and if help wasn’t readily available to them, then what chance did we have? Mark Austin's research taught him that there are only 200 beds for ED patients in Britain and his programme revealed a young woman from Nottingham who was sent to Edinburgh for treatment. Her mum had to make a 600 mile round trip to visit her. UK eating disorder statistics • 1.6 million people in the UK are affected by an eating disorder • 11% of the 1.6 million people struggling with an eating disorder are male • Eating disorders are more common in individuals between the ages of 14 and 25 years old • There are up to 18 new diagnoses of bulimia nervosa, per 100,000 people, per year • 1 in 100 women aged between 15 and 30, are affected by anorexia nervosa • 10% of people affected by an eating disorder suffer from anorexia nervosa • 40% of people affected by an eating disorder suffer from bulimia nervosa • The rest of sufferers fall into the BED (binge eating disorder) or OSFED (other specified feeding or eating disorder) categories of eating disorders • Research suggests that the earlier that eating disorder treatment is sought, the better the sufferer’s chance of recovery These UK eating disorder statistics are derived from data published by Beat and Mind. For the sake of the futures of our young people, we need to hold the government to account, locally and nationally, to keep their promises and to ensure that there is money in every local authority for ED Services.

This is a iconic historic landmark, and is home to a collection dedicated to documenting the social history of Glasgow. When it was opened in 1898, Lord Rosebery described it as "A palace of pleasure and imagination around which the people may place their affections and which may give them a home on which their memory may rest" - and he declared the building "open to the people for ever and ever!" This building is a hive of activity and local people hold it in their hearts and they are passionate and proud of its success. It's physical building is a significant but also the events and activities it hosts contribute to the health and well being of local people and also contribute to the Glasgow's vibrant and historic culture.

The University, as one of Birmingham’s largest employers, must use its political influence to prioritise the safety of its students and keep this at the top of the agendas of local councillors and MPs. Whilst the police have continually offered wonderful support in times of crisis, due to local and national funding cuts to the police it is clear they are overworked and not able to offer the support that is so badly needed in the area. Every year there is a call to action but nothing is ever resolved. It’s time for the University and local government to follow through on its promises and ensure that student safety is continually at the forefront of their priorities – and not just something discussed ‘after the event’. These stakeholders need to take individual and collective responsibility for ensuring the safety of students in Selly Oak.

Grantown Initiative and Grantown-on-Spey and Vicinity Community Council recently wrote to The Highland Council regarding the changes to parking arrangements in Grantown-on-Spey which appear to have been made without due consultation with community organisations or consideration for businesses in Grantown-on-Spey. We believe that changes made to the parking arrangements in Grantown-on-Spey have resulted in a dangerous situation for drivers and pedestrians, are potentially damaging to businesses in the town and generally make the Square far less attractive to visitors. Meanwhile Highland Council has failed to provide adequate additional parking in spite of the fact that it holds land at the former council depot which could be used for such. A review of these newly made parking restrictions and a meeting to discuss was requested by both groups. Whilst we support the principle of Highland Council taking civil enforcement powers in respect of parking in Grantown, we must object to the implementation of this draft Order. We feel that that the Parking Scheme recently introduced in Grantown, over which Highland Council appears to be seeking these powers, is not fit for purpose. Not only does it raise serious safety concerns but it has removed essential parking bays around the Square and along the High Street. Not having had the opportunity to discuss the recently introduced parking scheme, Grantown Initiative now requests that The Highland Council takes immediate steps to rectify these issues enact sensible parking restrictions in Grantown-on-Spey. Specifically we request the following changes; • The removal of the parking bay(s) opposite the Co-Operative which have added to congestion around the busy High street / Seafield Avenue junction and have created a hazardous situation for pedestrians and motorists alike. • Removal of the chicane style parking bays along the length of the square which creates congestion, particularly around the Bus Stops where busses cannot properly access the stops due to parked cars. We would suggest that spaces be realigned to allow easier access for buses and freer flowing traffic and reduce unnecessary congestion. • Removal of the new double yellow lines, which have robbed the square of 20 parking places. • The creation of a new off street parking facility to provide sufficient parking for the town as a whole. This could be provided at the site of the old council yard adjacent to Grantown Primary. This could also be used to provide a safe drop off area for the school. • Provide an opportunity for the community to have a say in parking restrictions in Grantown-on-Spey

Stoke-on-Trent has the dubious distinction of being called the Monkey Dust capital of the U.K. A blite on the reputation and economy of Stoke-on-Trent. We the undersigned, are disgusted and ashamed that Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire Police, rather than tackling the supply and use of drugs and other street crimes, are focusing on the homeless and fining them £100. This proposal is not only sadistic but increases the pressure on the police, courts, probation services as well as council resources, during a time of peak demand and will do nothing to reduce genuine homelesses. We demand that as the Councillor responsible for Communities, you take immediate action to stop the persecution of the most vulnerable people in our city and drop plans to fine the genuinely homeless. This is the second year in a row that Stoke-on-Trent City Council has attempted to victimise the homeless and profit from their misfortune In a move so disgusting that Scrooge himself would be ashamed by it. Homelessness will not end by hiding the problem nor profiting from their misery but by acting with compassion, decency and vision. To be clear, we have no objection to the prosecution of criminals, who feign homelessness to take advantage of the public or aggressively beg for money, however, we seek an acceptance and protection for the genuine homeless.

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.