CAMRA fully supports the production and availability of real ciders and perries. In many cases the proposed action would make small scale cider production uneconomic. This is wholly disproportionate given that a small producer selling up to 33 pints a day has no capacity to affect EU trade to any meaningful degree. The case for rejecting the request by the EU to tax small cider producers: - Someone producing less than 70hl (12,000 pints) will generally be making less than £10,000 a year in sales. This means the tax exemption only applies to very small businesses, such as hobbyists or farm-gate producers. If a duty were to be levied on these producers it would make their operations uneconomic and lead to wide-spread closure. - 80% of Britain’s 500+ cider makers are currently small producers. A tax will severely impact on consumer choice and will cause irreparable damage to one of the nation’s most historic industries. - An exemption from this duty is essential to supporting the growth of a vibrant but still small cider and perry market. - A tax charge of up to £2,700 would drive many small cider producers out of business costing jobs, harming the countryside and dramatically reducing consumer choice.

Because Lord Green subsequently became a trade minister and is a member of the House of Lords. We need transparency and accountability and unless he gives an account of his activities, his position in untenable.

Vodafone customers are unable to limit cellular data usage. When contracted limits are reached Vodafone sends a helpful text to advise that it will charge you for exceeding the limit. Fair enough - BUT - customers cannot opt out and self-limit until the following months allowance kicks in. Most smartphone apps and operating systems are very data hungry, even when operating in the background and not in actual use, so data allowances can be consumed without realising. Parents who fund a child's phone for safety and security reasons find this particularly stressful and difficult. Commercially it's obvious why Vodafone apply this policy - to make additional profit - but it is morally questionable if one party to the contract agreement has no power to limit charges beyond what was contractually agreed under circumstances often beyond their control. Other mobile operators have recognised this and allow limits to be self enforced, Tesco Mobile is one such responsible operator. So should Vodafone. "Always here for you?" is their service strap line "Always here to fleece you" would be more accurate.

Across the country, self-employed people who are low earners and therefore claim working tax credits have received letters from an organisation called Concentrix [a private, unelected and unaccountable body working on behalf of HMRC].These letters state that the recipients' self-employed status is to be investigated, and demand proof of hours worked. A person working alone from home will normally have no way to prove the hours spent on preparation, planning, strategising, thinking, social media, networking, paperwork, website management or any of the other daily responsibilities of a small business person. In the absence of this "proof", tax credits will be stopped. This will force many hardworking people to cease their business and become unemployed. Small businesses are the foundation stones of a strong economy. This policy will cause untold hardship and damage, not only human but also economic.

The UK Government have assured us that any other transfer of sovereignty away from the Westminster Parliament should be put to a referendum. This treaty is a back door method of getting around this pledge to the detriment of our democracy and sovereignty.

For every year that we work, a younger person is deprived of a job.

People who live and work in London are being priced out of their own city. Something must be done to give London back to londoners.

Prior to and since the referendum on Scottish independence there have been repeated allegations that the SNP Scottish Government deliberately and recklessly overestimated the oil revenues an independent Scottish state would collect whilst simultaneity playing down the importance of these monies to public finances.These allegations have become so persistent, wide-ranging and detailed that they are now undermining the credibility of the SNP Scottish Government. It is in the interest of both sides of this debate that the Scottish Government (Mr John Swinney) commissions a fully independent review of the basis for the oil revenue estimates it used to support its case for Scottish independence and publish considered analysis of how a independent Scottish state could have managed any oil revenue shortfall .

Large profitable companies get away with paying less than ordinary people, in parliament you will hear the politicians arguing about the top rate 50 p for personal tax. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g USA Principles Applie to the UK MPs hardly ever talk about corporation tax mostly because of vested interests in large companies, and old beliefs in capitalist market being able to take care of everything. The figures below tell you the facts vote now: Personal Income Tax Tax rate Taxable income above your Personal Allowance Basic rate 20% £0 to £31,865 Most people start paying basic rate tax on income over £10,000 Higher rate 40% £31,866 to £150,000 Most people start paying higher rate tax on income over £41,865 Additional rate 45% Over £150,000 Vs Corporation Tax 21% April 2014 The government would be able to spend the 50% tax money on public services such as the NHS, Schools, and Legal Aid, Police, Fire Brigade and other public sectors !

The UK public purse loses tax that can be used to fund much needed public services 25% is too low for the new tax rules. Organisations that have little or no investment in the UK and earn large sums for example: Google made £3.3 billion they paid tax of £20.4 million small compared to if they were taxed 50 % through the new scheme: The public purse would have gained £1.65 billion that could have went to the NHS, Schools, Fire Services, Legal Aid. The consultation closes on the 4th February 2015. Evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d5FZU64Bnw&x-yt-ts=1422503916&x-yt-cl=85027636

After Abu Dhabi's leading royal Sheikh Mansour committed to investing in the UK, at the opening of a new £150m football academy by Manchester City Football Club, the Chancellor wanted to do the same. This is important to campaign against because there are currently almost 1,000,000 people in the UK who are having to resort to food banks to survive whilst the Government splashes £50 million on something that isn't a priority.

Parliament is currently considering spending at least two billion pounds on renovating the Houses of Parliament. The building is increasingly unsafe to use, with falling masonry, asbestos, fire hazards and many other dangers. Spending this amount of money to keep an out of date system hobbling on would be indefensible. This is the ideal opportunity to change not only the home of Parliament, but the way it works. The Government say they want to make the North of England an economic powerhouse: now is the opportunity to make a move in that direction. A new purpose built campus would be a start. A modern debating chamber - such as we have in Scotland, with a design to make it less confrontational - would be a start. Apart from the chamber, offices, committee rooms etc,. the campus should also include flatted apartments for MPs who have to travel. These would be furnished to a comfortable, but not luxurious, standard and would be free to use, so there would be less opportunity for the suspicion of fiddled expenses. This could be extended to including an on-campus dining system where a number of restaurants would be available. MPs would be given a daily allowance when staying on campus to attend committee meetings or plenary debates. These could be paid for by a customised debit card system. This would allow them to budget by dining in their apartments at times, or going out at others. The cost of security would be less, with all MPs under one roof whilst they were at "Northminster". The accommodation area of the campus would be secure and private for the safety and convenience of MPs and their staff: the debating chamber would be open to the public, as well as being visible on televsion as now. One big advantage for all of us, including MPs and their constituents, would be that the new system would be designed for video-conferencing and electronic communications generally. This would reduce the inconvenience and cost of MPs having to travel as frequently as they do now. Of course, there would be a need for occasional plenary sessions, but these could perhaps be reduced to one week in four or something similar. There would still be a need for a presence in London, for the meeting and greeting of foreign dignitaries etc., so Number Ten could continue to function as the Prime Minister's residence. There might also be a need for similar official residences for one or two senior figures in the Government, but apart from that MPs would live in their constituencies - at least we'd hope so - and use a mixture of new technology and visits to "Northminster" to carry out their duties. There are, of course, already plans afoot for a high speed rail link: this would enable MPs from the south of England to travel efficiently from their constituencies, as required, and would mean MPs from Midland, North of England or Scottish constituencies had shorter distances to travel. I firmly believe that this would a) help the general population to see they were getting value and relevance from their MPs, b) bring an outdated and much-lampooned mediaeval system of government into the twenty-first century and c) bring economic benefits to an area which apparently feels left behind in modern Britain.