Farmers with infected herds are unable to move live animals off their farm, and suffer loss when infected cattle in their herds are culled

Because businesses that make large profits from the UK market, such as Cadbury, can and should be paying their fair share of taxes. Failing to do so means there is less money to spend on schools, the NHS and other vital public services, which companies rely on to educate and look after their workforce and customers. Cadbury was set up by Quakers and had a long tradition of being a responsible employer that looked after its workforce and made a positive contribution to the communities where its chocolate was manufactured. In 1893, George Cadbury developed the Bournville estate in Birmingham, a model village designed to improve the living conditions of its employees. Easter time, when supermarket shelves are stacked with Cadbury's chocolate, is a good time to remind them of their roots and start putting people ahead of profits. For more information, read: http://ind.pn/1Ode1QJ

For some self employment is chosen, for others, in this current climate, it is the only way of having an income, for some adoption is chosen and for others it is their only chance to have a family. An independent report by Julie Deane OBE recommends that self employed people should be given the same rights as those that work for an employer. This has been seen by parliament and so far ignored. I am proud to be self employed, I am also very much looking forward to starting my family however and whenever it happens but I know that without the same support the my employed friends get, we could struggle. This is unfair. The current government is very proud of the rise in self employment. It is one thing that has made the unemployment figures look better over the last few years. The entrepreneurial spirit is something to be proud of. It is time to bring adoption, maternity and paternity pay for self employed people in line with that of employees.

So many social issues the UK faces today are to do with the fact that "trickle down" economics proved to be a myth. Societies down the ages have faced the choice: redistribution or revolution. The U.K. may be far from the latter; but anger and frustration is felt by millions. A sensible wealth tax is always possible. All that stands in the way is political will. An unbalanced society is healthy for nobody. Make the change before anger turns into rebellion.

The principle of reciprocity currently seems violated by those refusing to pay what they are due whilst taking full advantage of their right to have their voice heard in how the nation is governed; seemingly undermining the principles of a democratic nation. Depriving tax dodgers of their right to vote may help tackle this trend, whilst adding to the national treasury, which seemingly fits in with the intent of current austerity programmes.

Almost all public bodies are required to release information about companies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but there is a special exception ('loophole') that means HMRC does not have to do so. The loophole is contained in Sections 18 & 23 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. This exception means that HMRC does not have to (and cannot) release information about corporate tax payers even when it can be shown that the public interest is harmed by non-disclosure. In fact, HMRC would not have to release information it holds even in cases where corporations have acted illegally or knowingly misled the British public about the tax they pay. Whilst we accept that private individuals have a right to privacy, we fail to see why this right extends to the tax affairs of multinationals and other large corporates.

13 million are on the poverty line in the UK. Globally billions. Dealing with corporate tax dodging is imperative to ensure there is money available to look after our poor and help them flourish. Big tax dodgers include: Apple, HSBC, ebay, Topshop/Topman ,Boots, Starbucks, cadbury,Vodafone, Amazon, Tesco's and Google whos tax dogging antics are in the media, once again being looked into by the European commission. Whilst such companies avoid paying millions and in some cases billions in taxes the poor are getting poorer, our public services are being cut, we’re being asked to tighten our belts ,whilst others are laughing to the bank. If low paid labourer Joe Bloggs, did not pay his taxes and missed payments to the council or HM Revenue & Customs there would be threats ,demands and interest on top. If he still did not pay there would be chance of repossession, court and further fees. Its time for these big companies to be dealt with.

As representatives of the local community, local councils should recognise that it is important that we stop allowing the UK to be asset stripped & The Real Economy made poorer by companies which fail to play their part in supporting our infrastructure. To take a part in our society is a privilege in which the United Kingdom community expects every company to pay their share. Using accountants & lawyers to get round tax laws is not conducive to a healthy & productive economy.

The Landfill Communities Fund is at risk. The Landfill Tax A landfill tax was introduced in 1996 and has been very successful in reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill. It has been a big help in driving more recycling. The tax is paid by the waste companies who have contracts with local authorities and businesses. These Landfill Operators pay £84 per tonne of waste they deposit in the ground. And HM Treasury receives around £1.3 billion in tax revenues. The Landfill Communities Fund Most brilliantly of all, Landfill Operators can choose to re-direct part of their tax bill to local communities near landfill sites rather than paying it to the Treasury. In 2016-17 they can divert 90p of every £25 of tax they owe; so long as £1 goes to a community project. The local community normally fundraises for the missing 10p in every pound. To date, most Operators have jumped at the chance to do this and since 1996 local communities near landfill sites have been able to invest over £1.4 billion in 51,000 projects. These projects have had an amazing impact on Churches and Community groups: from building extensions to Churches, to providing resources to start-up play groups, to funding community wildlife projects, etc. there is no doubt that both our Churches and local communities are richer for the help they have received. HOWEVER the scheme is under threat. Urgent action is required to ensure local community projects don’t lose £39 million every year. The Threat The Government is proposing to change the legislation so that Community Groups are no longer allowed to pay the missing 10p. Instead only Landfill Operators would be allowed to pay this. This may seem a small detail but it would in fact close down the scheme as we know it. This is because the scheme is a voluntary one – and the cost to a Landfill Operator of having to find the 10p match funding would be significant. One major operator estimates this would amount to it having to find £500,000 of additional money each year. As a result, nearly all the main landfill operators have said they will not be able to find such money. They would therefore stop using the system of tax credits. Yet Churches and local community groups have found this missing 10p in the pound time and time again. Finding match funding has never been a barrier to spending from the Landfill Communities Fund - in fact it is already oversubscribed at least twofold. So, for no good reason, Churches and Community groups stand to lose millions (£39m in 2016-17 to be precise). And the country stands to lose a great ‘polluter pays’ scheme that is one of the biggest sources of funding for community projects. More Background In light of the economic conditions, the Treasury has been keen to ensure that the Landfill Community Fund is spent as quickly as possible - to pump money in to the economy. The Treasury therefore challenged Landfill Community Fund bodies to reduce the amount of grant funds they were holding in their banks. Most funders met the challenge, with a minority failing to largely because of funds committed for longer term projects not yet being released. But despite their efforts the Treasury’s overall spending target was not met. The Treasury was not happy and so last year HMRC ran a consultation asking for ideas for increasing the speed of spending. Some of respondents to the 2015 consultation highlighted the regulatory bureaucracy around the 10p for every pound they were finding. Others said it would be great not to have to fundraise for this 10p at all. No-one said they would prefer nothing to a 90% grant for their project. Yet these consultation responses are being used by the Treasury to justify the new proposals - proposals which would all but close down the scheme. How you can help Write to your local M.P. expressing your concern about the potential loss of the Landfill Communities Fund, asking your M.P. to raise this matter with the Exchequer Secretary of the Treasury, Damian Hinds M.P. urging him to allow local communities to continue to cover the 10% third party contribution. or Respond to the Treasury consultation on the statutory instrument, as proposed by HMRC and required to implement the changes. See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-legislation-the-landfill-tax-amendment-regulations-2016. The deadline is 3 February 2016. The clauses in the statutory instrument that related to this change that should be removed are – clauses 6,8(a,bii,biii,c,&d), 9 and 10.

Some say there is no alternative but Rochdale Borough Council could use just a portion of its £169.6m in useable reserves to avoid making the £37m worth of cuts over the next two years. Even the Government suggest that ‘local authorities lessen the impact of budget cuts by tapping into their huge reserve pots’ – Telegraph, 31st August. We call on the Labour group on Rochdale Borough Council to take these steps whilst councillors go out into the communities, workplaces and trade union branches to build support for a no-cuts budget and have a genuine consultation with the people of Rochdale. They could then make an appeal to other Labour councils to do the same, making the Tory government’s savage cuts unworkable. Jeremy Corbyn said in his election campaign that councils should stand together against the cuts. This is the direction that the Labour Party must go in to end austerity and safeguard our public services.

With all the mobile networks claiming 99% population coverage for mobile phone signal why is only 63% of the UK land mass covered by signal. Over 4500 miles of UK roads have no mobile phone coverage at all. This is not only dangerous but it is stifling development in rural areas and holding back local businesses. The government have an arrangement with the 4 main UK networks to spend £5bn by the end of 2017 to improve this but they have already come up against issues themselves with planning permission, un-co-operative landlords, site access and power to the sites. If we can make enough noise to make them realise how important this is to our communities then they will make the necessary changes needed to push through these plans. If we don't? We can see the 2017 deadline come and go and very little will change apart from 4g coverage in cities getting faster and faster.

There have been multiple inventions across the world in the last few years that would alleviate congestion and aid the restricted movement public in this country, if the law were modified. Currently these PMD's do not fit into our highways act simply because they aren't disabled carriages, are motorised and so cannot be driven on the pavements and are too slow for the road networks. I propose that room should be made in the highways act and by extension in the Cyclist part of the Highway code for the use of properly registered and maintained "safe" Personal Mobility Devices. These devices are growing in popularity across the world (I believe at the last count the Segway for example was a legal form of transportation in 30 different countries now) and simply sticking our head in the sand and quoting legislation based on an act that was made in 1835 is putting us at risk of missing the boat on properly regulating the safe and controlled use of these devices. If we were to open the doors on this issue, we could provide laws and rules to do things like prohibit the use of these PMDs inside so that people do not injure themselves riding around the office as I have seen in one Youtube video, but also we can regulate the types of PMD allowed on Cycle lanes for example. Most of these PMDs are limited to 10mph the equivalent of a fast run, so could legitimately use cycle lanes and pavements where it is safe to do so, if the law were changed to allow these vehicles to be treated similarly to bicycles. Furthermore, if these PMDs were treated like a stage between a bicycle and motorbike, they could be taxed and regulated like a discount motorbike. Allowing for further regulation and control, perhaps even licensing to promote safe usage of them too (which is more than is required for Disability "buggies"). Currently Disability "buggies" have 2 classes -4mph they are allowed unrestricted access to public areas, +4mph these vehicles have to have a tax registration and have road legal lighting on them. There is a section in the Highway code for the correct use of these devices, most of them are electric and most of them are often used in public areas with little or no danger to the public. All I am asking, is for a similar allowance for Safe Personal Mobility Devices to be given a fair chance to be used by a public who are crying out for an alternative to sitting in traffic jams all day, whether using public transport or not, or having to get all hot and sweaty cycling to work through fume and traffic clogged streets. Providing a section in the Highways act to classify PMDs would allow for this development. To further my argument, most of these PMDs are also electric and so would be far less polluting than even the most eco-friendly hybrid bus that Boris can sponsor. You ride your electric PMD in to the office in the morning, charge it back up using the company solar panels, then ride it home and plug it back into your solar panels at home, much better than riding a hybrid bus that uses a diesel generator to charge its batteries when it's outside of the congestion zones.