We are currently in a GP recruitment crisis, with applications for GP training schemes falling every year. The suggested plans to cut GP registrar pay will exacerbate this trend and put even more junior doctors off a career in general practice. This will worse the current severe shortage of appointments, leading to poor patient satisfaction and putting patients at risk. The government say they want to hire another 5000 GPs by 2020, but this massive pay cut will make this an impossible target. This is another ideological attack on the NHS and its workers.

Iain Yell worked for HMRC in the Triad in Bootle, where he was part of the Benefits & Credits section. He was dismissed at the end of June through the department’s attendance management policy. Iain suffers from depression, and all of his absences were related to this condition. Hardly at record levels, they were in fact tapering off because of his own efforts to better manage his condition. In spite of this a single period of absence, provoked by the side effects of a reduction in medication which he had agreed with his doctor, was used as justification that his absences were ‘unsustainable’ and that he had to go. Iain’s rep had argued that a much greater portion of his absences, if not all of them, should disregarded by the poor attendance hearing since they were disability related. Management refused to even disregard a full quarter of Iain’s absences, despite every one of them being as a result of his disability and his Occupational Health referral stating that he was likely to be covered by the terms of the Equality Act 2010. In PCS’s view, the refusal to disregard all of Iain’s disability related sickness absence for managing attendance purposes amounts to discrimination arising from disability and the dismissal decision must be reversed.

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.

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.

Out of 600 staff working at National Museum Wales across seven sites, the front of house/visitor services constitute 300 or nearly 50% of the total. They deliver the services that allow the museums to remain open to the public, from cleaning and maintaining the sites to delivering guided tours, demonstrating traditional crafts and ensuring the safety of the National Collections. In total the seven sites host 1.6 million visitors a year, ensuring the cultural and historical heritage of Wales and bringing huge economic benefits to the country. Front of house staff are predominantly the lowest paid in the museum. Many work as many as 47 weekends a year for which they are paid an allowance to compensate them for the ant-social effects this has on their family and social life. After five years of cuts and pay freezes the Museum Management are now seeking to remove these payments which can amount to £2,000 - £3,000 for full-time staff. Many members are already classified as low-paid and face the risk of being pushed into poverty by these cuts. Members face the risk of using food-banks to survive and the increased likelihood of child poverty amongst their families. PCS are the largest union within this section of the workforce and represent 80% of Front of House staff. They have been fighting management proposals for nearly 18 months and believe it is wrong that those who can least afford it, should shoulder the burden of cuts while Senior Managers enjoy effective pay rises. We believe that pay cuts to the lowest paid is a social justice issue that everyone should be concerned by. Our campaign highlights the real impact that austerity has, with those least able and most vulnerable to cuts facing the heaviest hardship.

The government is cutting funds all over the UK child poverty is on the rise and will increase further. Services are being decimated, it is completely immoral for MP's to get such a rise when the public sector gets nothing

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.”

Workers' rights must be protected, and not left wide open to exploitation by Government, multinational corporations and unscrupulous employers. Plans for the biggest shake-up of strike rules in 30 years would make holding dodgy employers to account almost impossible. Please sign the petition to stop the government sweeping away our rights at work now.

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!

Many carers continue to look after people with substantial caring needs once they (the carers) reach retirement age, yet are no longer financially rewarded for doing so. Attendance Allowance is only payable to the disabled person once they reach 65! Unlike paid employment, where upon reaching the age of approximately 65, the State Pension is payable and those retired can spend their time doing as they please. The Government considers Carers Allowance to be overlapping with the State Pension (both are considered payments in lieu of paid employment, but Carers Allowance, according to the Government is neither a wage nor a salary). Carers continue in their role 24/7!!

This is important for keeping the human rights and dignity, is important to stop these agencies making money from doing nothing. There is a lot of humiliation working as an agency staff - they make you work hard with no reward.

Many of the road sweepers in Harringey do a great job starting early and having to clear the sort of filth of a streets that im sure you all can imagine, these sweepers are trying to do the right thing by working and paying there way even though the salery is at the bottom end its them who are getting effected by the cuts, I mean at the moment Veolia has 9 chargehands supervising the street sweepers and 9 managers watching the chargehands, This all seems to unfair to both the public and lowend paid street sweepers