I pay all my income tax in Britain, but I am now disenfranchised. I have lived in France for seventeen years, but intend to return to Britain eventually. Why do I no longer have a vote? It should surely be possible for those of us who wish to continue voting to register. The argument is that too few ex-pats wanted to vote, but what if we do? I understand that French ex-pats are represented. I pay my taxes; I want to vote.

In 2011 the management of National Museums Scotland broke an existing ACAS agreement and arbitrarily and unilaterally imposed a two-tier wage structure upon its lowest-paid workers (principally Cleaners, Visitor Services Assistants, Housemen, Security) without consultation or negotiation with the recognised Trade Unions. Staff employed since 1st January 2011 are on reduced terms and conditions without a weekend working allowance which is paid to compensate for having to work anti-social hours. Many of this lowest paid group only get one full weekend off once every seven weeks, which has a detrimental impact on family and social life. The consequence is that low-paid workers on the same shifts, doing the same work, are being paid up to £3,000 less than their colleagues. These workers make the National Museums Scotland the top rate attraction it is, and it is only fair that they get paid properly for their hard work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation states that those earning under £17,100 a year are being paid a Poverty Wage, and many of our members earn well below that. Senior Scottish Politicians, in opposition against Westminster, have recently been calling for recognition of weekend working payments for those who give up valuable family and social time. These payments make up a large part of low-paid workers’ take home pay. PCS totally agree with safeguarding weekend working rights, and believe that if it is good enough for other workers, then National Museums Scotland staff deserve this too. Both Museum management and the Scottish Government need to embrace the principle of recompensing weekend work and accept PCS proposals to settle this long- running dispute. We do not believe that low-paid culture workers deserve to suffer at the hands of austerity, especially when heritage and culture contribute so much to the Scottish economy. The Museum’s own figures show that it contributes £65million to the economy. PCS Members at the National Museums of Scotland have been taking part in discontinuous strike action for over 2 years. Despite repeated requests to come to a negotiated settlement with management, this has not happened.

Currently the probate services industry handles in excess of £1 billion of assets every year. Yet there is no regulatory body to watch over the companies that provide probate services. In fact, anyone who is reading this could quite legitimately become a provider of probate services and handle £100,000's of assets left to others in the wills of deceased people, including cash, savings and property without being answerable to any authority. Because of this incredible lack of regulation, many companies who offer complete probate service packages can quite literally do as they please with the assets of a deceased person whilst working under the guise of the probate process, often taking literally years to complete fairly basic cases. Many companies in this industry use delaying tactics to ensure interest is earned on estate assets, without passing it on to beneficiaries. There are many reported cases of companies over-charging, lying and deceiving customers, often to cover up mis-handling of cases. Many firms have deals with high street banks which give them automatic access to the bank's deceased customers' personal details and account information and work to convince relatives or executors of the deceased that the probate process is a very difficult system to negotiate. These companies often use leaflets placed at Registry Offices which falsely appear to be provided by charities officially endorsed by Local Governments. The probate industry must be regulated by an official body who can effectively ensure that the companies which deal with the financial assets and properties left to beneficiaries pass the assets over to them speedily, accurately and without causing any undue extra stress on bereaved people. What other industry could handle such high value personal financial assets without coming under regulation in the UK? None, so it is imperative that the Probate Services Industry is brought into line to eradicate the deep-seated 'cowboy' companies, some of whom are currently the largest providers of these services in the UK.

Far from peoples perception, after suffering and not being able to get credit and mortgages due to being made bankrupt....even after it has been "taken off your file" after 6 years, you still have to declare it to lenders if they ask you! You will be known as a discharged bankrupt to every lender that asks, for the rest of your life! The effects this has on peoples lives in modern Britain is beyond belief! One little mistake can potentially ruin the rest of your life. I call on George Osbourne to change the law on this to stop people from suffering like I have. People are going to be forced to rent for the rest of their lives and never be able to own their own home to pass on to their children because of silly mistakes they have made in their youth. Please help George Osbourne. Help stop the suffering and heartache of families. Help stop banks from charging higher interest rates to the people who are already worse off. Help get the banks lending again to hard working families. And please.....help show Britain is great by not punishing young entrepreneurs who take a chance and fail.

Passengers are being misled and left out of pocket while the biggest retailers in the country exploit a loophole to pay even less tax. Every time one of us buys a £6 bottle of sunscreen at Boots we’re asked to show our boarding pass. Now we know that we’re not getting the £1 VAT, but neither does the Treasury. In fact airport retailers are reclaiming VAT we paid and POCKETING the money. Many passengers think they’ve been misled by airport shop staff who told them presenting a boarding card was obligatory – and even required for security purposes. It’s time to end the “sunscreen scam.” As the busiest holiday weekend of the year approaches, the “sunscreen scam” could add up to millions of pounds for retailers like Boots, WH Smith and World Duty Free. But this is not the first time some of these retailers have been accused of dodging tax. In 2013 Boots was accused of using a legal loophole to avoid paying £1.1BILLION in tax. The situation is so bad that even the minister in charge is angry with the shops. David Gauke MP told the Independent: “The VAT relief at airports is intended to reduce prices for travellers, not as a windfall gain for shops.” Join the revolt against the the shameless “sunscreen scam” by signing this petition.

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.