The government are currently bringing in more companies and small businesses to run apprenticeships within the work place. However once you have an apprenticeship you are not entitled to the same privileges to someone the same age without an apprenticeship if you want a prescription or dental care. Currently someone on an apprenticeship's minimum wage you earn £2.73 an hour, so if you need to get a prescription at a cost of £8.20 then this is roughly 3 hours work just to pay for it! I say we as apprentices should be allowed to have free prescriptions and free dental care.

At the moment that Financial Conduct Authority is able to make statements or take action with absolute impunity and if clients lose money or advisers lose money as a result, then there is no effective remedy to claim compensation . For example, in the EEA Life Settlements Funds case mentioned above, the Financial Conduct Authority issued a guidance consultation into their proposals for ensuring that the investment was not marketed to unsuitable clients. There were several ways in which this could have been resolved, unfortunately when issuing the consultation guidance the Financial Services Authority (at the time) issued a statement that described the investment in inaccurate, emotive and pejorative terms. This led to an immediate run on the fund and consequent closure, trapping many clients in the fund and creating large scale immediate losses to existing clients. The Financial Conduct Authority has since then been highly active in trying to encourage any client to seek compensation from advisers in order to distract investors from the part it played. Whilst I am wholly supportive of clients making claims against advisers where poor advice has been given, it is not feasible to suggest that all clients were poorly advised, whereas all investors have been adversely affected by the Financial Conduct Authority statement and subsequent refusal to accept any responsibility. The status of immunity against prosecution for damages simply cannot be justified. Any person or body with the ability to affect third parties by its actions, whether verbal, written or by dint of action must be capable of being held responsible for any disadvantage caused to those third party (ies)

NHS children's community health services and the inpatient adolescent mental health service in Bristol & South Gloucestershire are in the process of being recommissioned. The first stage of this campaign has already been successful with the recent announcement that the interim contract to deliver community children's health services for one year during 2016/17 has been won by a partnership made up of Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (AWP) and two social enterprises, Sirona Care & Health CIC and Bristol Health CIC. The adolescent inpatient mental health unit, the Riverside Unit, will also be provided by AWP, with private company The Huntercombe Group, acting in a 'consultancy' role. However, AWP will be running the unit on a day-to-day basis and staff will be employed by AWP, so it will essentially remain within the NHS. The demand that services remain integrated has also been won, with the announcement that for the longer-term contract these services will be commissioned together by the Clinical Commissioning Groups and their partners. However, the campaign is not over yet. The next stage of the process during which the same services will be commissioned for the next 5 or 7 years from 2017 has begun. We must keep the pressure on to protect children's health services in Bristol for the long-term. And now we know it can be done! The next stage of this campaign will focus on bringing all of these services entirely back into the NHS for the long-term. We know private companies are planning to bid to run them. There should not be a role for companies who seek to make a profit or for social enterprises (many of whom operate in a similar way to private companies) in the delivery of our health services. There are two reasons why this campaign is vitally important: Firstly, children and young people in Bristol and South Gloucestershire need to get the best possible care and treatment. This means having services which are integrated and can work together, provided by people who are interested in delivering top quality care, not making maximum profit. Secondly, every time an NHS service in the UK is privatised we are a step closer to a US-style health system which would mean the end of free-at-point-of-need healthcare. The evidence is mounting that this government is not fully committed to a future publicly-owned health service. We are a group of concerned local people, including service users and NHS staff, who understand how damaging the consequences of moving these services to a private provider could be. We think the principle of 'people before profit' in the NHS is fundamental in Bristol, South Gloucestershire and the rest of the UK. Join our campaign at https://www.facebook.com/ProtectCCHP or search 'Protect CCHP' on Twitter for more information.

People seeking sanctuary are now given a further push into poverty due to the Home Office’s decision to drastically reduce the weekly support payments made to asylum seekers. Following a review of asylum support payments earlier this year, the Home Office has now taken the decision to provide every asylum seeker, adult or child, the total of £36.95 a week to cover what they refer to as the “essential living needs” of a person claiming asylum in the UK. This amounts to a 20% cut in support for each child. Families with very young children will receive an additional £5 per week for children under the age of 1 and £3 for those age 1-3 years old. Similarly pregnant women will continue to receive an extra £3 per week and be able to apply for a maternity grant of £300. Below are the different payments made currently and the impact from 10th August 2015 Single Parent and a child is £96.90 will be £73.90 Single Parent and 2 children is £149.86 will be £110.85 Couple and 1 child is £125.48 and will be £110.85 Couple and 2 children is £178.44 and will be 147.80 Given that many asylum seekers already experience destitution due to the low level of support provided, it seems inevitable that these cuts will have a huge impact on the quality of living for people seeking sanctuary. Many asylum seekers come to the UK with almost nothing. In addition asylum seekers are forbidden from working by the Home Office. The current level of support is already inadequate and many rely on the support of voluntary agencies to help them get through the day. It is important to remember that asylum seekers have to rely on this £36.95 a week to feed, clothe and take care of themselves and their family, not forgetting travel costs for asylum appointments, solicitors, healthcare and other essential journeys. The Home Office states that “full consideration has been given to the welfare of children”. However it is families with children who will experience the greatest impact of this reduction in support. At the Welsh Refugee Council, we see many asylum seekers coming through our doors for food and clothing vouchers including food and welfare supplies for their children. Welsh Refugee Council Chief Executive, Salah Mohamed, says ‘These changes suggest the UK Government’s intention is to prolong the suffering of asylum seekers and make it more difficult to access their right to sanctuary and protection. This kind of treatment is unacceptable. The Welsh Refugee Council and other agencies in Wales calls upon all organisations working with asylum seekers to express their disapproval of these cuts by asking the government to abandon its plan to put people in further destitution and help families in the asylum process get a decent quality of life after fleeing conflict or persecution.’

-Government will efficiently be able to raise taxes from banking/ financial sector -The tax could reduce some speculation in the currency market -The tax would raise up to £100 billion for UK Treasury -The countries who are keen to introduce this tax, will follow our lead -We can end Austerity & the misery caused for 10 million families in UK -We can invest this extra source of revenue to make our economy work for all -We can bear pressure on our governments (under the influence of strong vested interests) to act for the common good. By putting your name to this petition, not only can we make a huge difference soon, we can also give hope for our future generations.

Whilst many of us do agree that high earners should probably pay more for living in social housing, an entire household on £30,000 (or £40,000 in London) a year just isn’t high or wealthy. That would consist of a couple earning just £15,000 each, and we know how hard it is to get by on that meagre amount. The current government are contradicting themselves when they say they’ll “make work pay” and they’re the party for the workers; yet if a social housing tenant works, they will now be penalised for it. If you live in social housing and you work, you will now face the prospect of losing your home. Many of these working families in social housing (just like most other people) have aspirations to get out of the poverty trap and use the opportunity of social housing to save for a deposit to one day buy their own home, thus freeing up the home for the next family who needs it. Now it is as though they are not allowed to have dreams or better themselves. All hope of saving for a decent mortgage have been ripped out from under their feet while they are pushed back down into the ground where they apparently “belong”. It is increasingly depressing that there is near to no hope for people’s futures. Mortgages aside, many families, especially those with children, will find it increasingly hard to manage day to day. These families could be forced to private rent, but not their own self contained flat as before, as the rents would again be too high, they will be forced into renting a room and sharing a house. Is this the way a family should live? We are regressing back to the days of overcrowded houses with notorious rip off landlords. The ONS says that a family of four will spend on average £517.30 per week. If both parents earned a total of £31,000, they would (after tax), have only around £465 to spend per week, this is well below the UK average. When their rents are raised to market level, where will they get the extra money from? This will result in more poverty, tenants giving up jobs or reducing their hours to earn under the threshold, or in worst case scenarios, couples splitting up or living apart to avoid being penalised for having a job or older working children being kicked out to reduce the household income. If these children are under 21, and on a low wage, how will they find housing without a Housing Benefit top up? Let’s cut out the “luxuries” of living, the ONS estimates that to live basically (rent/mortgage not included), a household will spend an average of £350 a week on bills, food, basic clothing, travel and health. This would leave a £30,000 earning home with about £100 a week to spend on their social housing rent. The average UK market rent is £960 per month, or £222 per week. How will these households meet the shortfall of market rent? Where will these families go? This petition is to ask for consideration that the threshold for Pay to Stay be increased to at least £60,000 per household (£70,000 for London). This would ensure that the average family is able to live without poverty, keep a roof over their head and still be able to save a little each month for a deposit to buy their own home, freeing up social housing without first making more people homeless. The current proposed threshold will only make one family homeless to rehome another, thus not bringing down homeless levels, and increasing the housing benefit spend. A consultation paper was produced which asked the opinions of experts in the field – Local Authority landlords, Private Registered Landlords, Tenant Representative Bodies, Private Landlords, and Individuals. A brief quote from the paper is below. Why was there a consultation when the majority of the views were not taken into account? “About a third of respondents thought that the threshold of £60,000 was appropriate. A smaller proportion thought that £80,000 should be the minimum, while the least favoured was £100,000. Social landlords largely preferred £60,000. There were also views that the threshold could be lower than £60,000, though not a consensus in favour of lowering the threshold. If the threshold was below £60,000 it could act as a disincentive to work, particularly for larger households and in high demand areas such as London. Those who favoured the threshold of £60,000 suggested it was reasonable and consistent with other Government policies involving income thresholds, such as access to affordable home ownership (although it was noted that the threshold may need to be adjusted to £74,000 for London, to align with London schemes) and the child benefit “cap”. There were also views that no more than 30% of a household’s income should go on housing costs; otherwise, it could start to impact detrimentally on the household’s budget.”

Mr Ellwood's recent claim that his MP's salary is insufficient shows a disregard for and disconnect from his many constituents who have accepted limited or no pay increases over recent years in order to boost the nation's economic recovery. Furthermore we feel that his enthusiasm for a pay increase of 10% at a time when public service employees are being restricted to rises of 1%, shows contempt for his electorate and a self-serving attitude which is not in the interest of his constituents.

The Living Wage is a concept which has been developed independently and it should not be hi-jacked by the Chancellor because he wants to pass the Minimum Wage off as something it is not. Only The Living Wage Foundation can set the Living Wage, by its own independent processes and no one, not even the Chancellor, can think of any other amount and pass it off as the real thing!

Imagine if manufacturers had to say how long they expect their products to last and backed it with a guarantee. For the first time people will be able to make a real choice when they buy something. e.g. "Do I get the £15 kettle that lasts 1 year? or the £30 kettle that lasts 5-6 years?" This makes things simple. We deserve to know what we are buying! "Planned Obsolescence" (where manufacturers purposefully design their products to break or be unfixable) is on the rise. It might bring profits in for shortsighted companies, but it is a growing disaster for the environment and it means that we are stuck buying the same shoddy things again and again. Having your kettle/hoover/dishwasher break is not just annoying, it traps people in a cycle of poverty. But there's something we can do! If people know how long something is expected to last, we can see if the "cheap prices" are really worth it. It's likely that companies will realise that have to do better, and up the durability of their products or risk having to publish some dismal figures. Us consumers have been trapped by these companies strategies for too long and it's time for us to get some power back. The power of choice. Please sign the petition. The planet will thank us all. We can do it! Tara PS. Follow and share the campaign with the hashtag #built2break

The Red Lion Public House dates back to the 17th Century, and is an important historic Grade II Listed building, and an irreplaceable feature of the village of Gedney Hill in rural Lincolnshire. In the past it has been a thriving business at the centre of the community, but in recent years neglect, mismanagement and underinvestment on the part of the owner has led to it's decline and closure. The building has now been sold to an individual who intends to convert the site into a house, and demolish part of the porch structure on the front of the oldest part of the listed building. This is now the only public house remaining in this area, and many local people believe that under the right ownership it could again be a popular venue and a successful and sustainable business. Please help to ensure the future of this vital hub of local village life by signing the petition.

The recent change to planning legislation means that permission is no longer required for businesses to change use, even in conservation areas. Rye Lane is be likely to be targeted by large chains looking to take advantage of this change. The problem is that this will put huge pressure on rents, pressure which many local, cherished independents are not likely to survive. The Direction will give time to planning officers to consider proposals in accordance with the development plan. We want Rye Lane to continue serving all its diverse Londoners, and supporting local creative economies, not letting them be priced out of Peckham.

In 2012 Theresa May announced that from April 2016 non-EU migrant workers will be required to earn £35,000 to stay in the UK, even if they have lived and worked here for more than 5 years. This devastating new immigration rule must be stopped, as immigrants who have lived and worked in the UK for longer than 5 years should have the right to stay regardless of their income. We cannot allow this policy to happen, as it will split up families, jeopardise the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people and severely damage the economy. The Royal college of Nursing recently announced that this policy will cost the NHS MILLIONS because so many of it's nurses are non-EU migrants who earn under £35,000 and who will be deported under this policy. Recruiting new nurses will be time consuming and expensive, and will drain more of the money needed to save the NHS. Also, the average income for a UK born citizen is £26,600, so it is entirely unfair to deport immigrants who may earn more than the average UK born citizen, but less than £35,000. Please sign the petition to hopefully prevent this devastating policy from becoming reality.