Tory MP compares calls for financial transparency for MPs with a "ban on curtains" and George Osborne changes his mind on anti-money laundering checks. This government isn't serious about anything, never mind tackling tax avoidance: "The Chancellor has caved under pressure from influential Tory Charles Walker, who last week refused to reveal his tax returns George Osborne has agreed to make MPs exempt from anti-money laundering checks under pressure from moaning Tory backbenchers. ...Ministers will now move to exclude MPs from the watch lists in the forthcoming Bank of England bill. Mr Osborne caved under pressure from influential Tory backbencher Charles Walker, who has been pressing for the change for some months. Mr Walker, who chairs the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs, last week threatened to table a bill banning curtains if he was forced to publish his tax returns." This is bullying tactics designed to try and cover up, the general public have to detail everything to the government and law or face the consequences. Not a problem if we have nothing to hide. So why should MP's who are paid by the people to do a job for the people be allowed to get away with it......

Shortfalls in taxation (I.e.the funding for public services) is directly attributable to the global tax policies of companies who think HOW they trade doesn't matter. We should not accept tax dodging as an inevitable consequence of free trade. Director and shareholder behaviour will only change when transglobals realise these aggressive and anticompetitive policies are unsustainable. Moving, with immediate notice, to 'name and shame' will help consumers to make informed choices in future, and will cost offending transglobals both new and loyal customers as well as their reputation with shareholders and markets. If shareholders cannot create ethical and sustainable policies on their own account, they will have to be encouraged by Governments to do so. As Government is aware, the EU The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive sets out a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures, containing five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning. This includes measures to deter profit shifting to a 'low / no' tax country, to prevent double 'non-taxation' of certain income, to prevent companies from avoiding tax when 're-locating' assets, to discourage artificial debt arrangements designed to minimise taxes and the additional safeguard of the anti-abuse rule designed to counteract aggressive tax planning. As an absolute minimum measure today, Government should immediately escalate a 'name and shame' policy to encourage consumers to be aware, so consumers can use alternative brands or local companies who fairly pay taxes in markets they sell to. With Liam Fox looking to resurrect a new version of the dreadful TTIP or dubious CETA with the US, involving potentially highly contentious ISDS, we should demand to know why so many huge US companies play on this kind of uneven tax playing field, as well as make it clear that this is a global problem which individual nation states ARE willing to take on, in order to protect local competition and essential services for UK citizens. UK Government should take a lead in saying we welcome trade and business, but not at any price. Pay to play!! Irrespective of the status of Brexi by 2019, the UK MUST ensure that it applies the EU Anti Tax Avoiance measure from 1 January 2019 ,which provide the minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment collectively for UK and European businesses in competition with transglobals brands. In doing this, Government will need to distance itself from the antidemocratic influence of the far right press, as their vested interests are in continued tax avoidance loopholes, irrespective of whether their owners are British citizens, foreign born or foreign domiciled. The first priority must be to protect British companies and British public services.

The current parish boundaries were drawn up long before Beverley had a building boom, which saw the settlement grow into the continuous built-up area we now know. The separation into three parish authorities is now outdated, and no longer reflects the community. It also means that some residents living in Beverley, specifically to the North and the South of Beverley, do not have a say on Beverley Town Council because they belong to Molescroft Parish and Woodmansey Parish. In other words, the current community governance arrangements hinder effective local government. Residents on Lincoln Way and the surrounding area are unlikely to consider themselves as living in Woodmansey. Moreover, residents have expressed concern that their interests are not properly represented on Woodmansey Parish, as exemplified in said parish council’s decision to commission a Neighbourhood Plan that covers only the village itself. As for Molescroft, it forms part of Beverley, and its residents ought to have a say on the Town Council; however, this cannot happen whilst there is a separate Molescroft Parish Council. To sum up, the current community governance arrangements hinder community cohesion and effective local government by artificially splitting the town of Beverley into three parts. The above recommendations · improve community engagement · bring communities closer together · create better local democracy · result in more efficient delivery of local services We are, therefore, asking East Riding of Yorkshire Council to undertake a community governance review to ensure that community governance arrangements reflect local identities and facilitate effective and convenient local government.

It is important because MP's are supposed to: By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. Members have a duty to uphold the law, including the general law against discrimination. Members have a general duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole; and a special duty to their constituents. Members should act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them. They should always behave with probity and integrity, including in their use of public resources.

Filibustering is an unfair tactic used against the spirit of democracy in Parliament. Just a Minute rules would make debates much more fair, democratic and and entertaining, and encourage many more people to take an active interest in politics.

The release of the Panama Papers has shown that tax avoidance/evasion is still a massive problem allowing the greed of a rich elite to rob HMRC of £10's billions which could be used to fund Education, Welfare or the NHS, instead of us having to have ideological austerity forced on us. No MP, and certainly no Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet member should be found to be making any kind of gain from offshore accounts/tax avoidance schemes so, In the interests of transparency and in the public interest all Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet ministers should make their Tax Returns public to show they are not using any tax avoidance schemes and there is no conflict of interest.

In recent years the NUS has become a laughing stock that many students no longer feels represents them or their best interests. The curtailing of free speech and a proliferation in censorship have made themselves uncomfortably common occurrences on a local and national level, this has to stop. Non-platforming speakers that the NUS does not see eye-to-eye with and creating "safe spaces" sterile of conflicting opinions doesn't solve anything, it is un-academic and makes UK University students seem like petulant children whenever we find an idea we disagree with. Students deserve better than this, we want debate, to challenge and be challenged, that is what University should be about. Not to be molly-coddled, and our fragile points of view "protected" from views that differ to ours. People with unacceptable views must be argued with, not banned. We also wish to see and end to the unbelievable representation rankings in the LGBTQI division. Recently it was decided that gay male students do not deserve the same level of representation in this division anymore because they are 'not oppressed enough', by NUS standards. An assumption that is not necessarily true to life. This is an unacceptable display of discrimination based on orientation and gender that the NUS has previously prided itself on stamping out, yet now is guilty of. Irony. The banning of certain items of clothing and decorations, especially at Universities such as Manchester truly trivialize the issues that the actions are meant to be in aid of and make a mockery of the real advancements in social justice that were achieved by our forebears. For these reasons I am calling for the NUS leadership to take in to account our collective displeasure with the direction the NUS has taken and demand that we be allowed to re-elect our national and local representatives in the near future. It should also be made clear where the candidates stand on the above mentioned issues: "Safe spaces", no-platforming, and LGBTQI representation, so that students may make an informed choice on who they elect.

This is very important because of the fact that Donald Trumps ideals and proposition are flawed and are frankly ludicrous. For example: a Mexican / American boarder wall, a ban of Muslims entering the US, War on ISIS ( this issue need to be handled with care, not weapons) and finally women being criminalised for having abortions.

The above MPs are examples of unpopular unqualified Secretaries of State (SOS) and illustrate the obvious need for a move away from the "lucky dip" approach to assigning secretaries of states. In contrast, teachers and nurses have to study, have to complete Personal and Professional Development (PPD) reflective diaries in order to reflect, learn and improve their critical thinking skills and practice, as well as complete continued professional development (CPD). This would be done with reference to current peer reviewed articles and judged by qualified higher level academics. The same should be expected of those in positions of Power, like Secretaries of State (SOS). Here are alternatives to the "lucky dip" approach: The appointed must... 1. have an appropriate qualification in the field that has had a minimum of 1 year practice placement, or... 2. complete a compulsory six month practice placement, one month pertaining to different levels of practice in the field (that will help the person to obtain a holistic view of their area responsibility). Furthermore, five qualified advisors must be appointed (one for each year of office), who vote on the secretary's decisions. The appointed person in this option will be payed less as they lack the qualifications and the difference will be payed to their advisors, or.... 3. be supported by five (one for each year of office) qualified specialists put forward by the elected party, these are then voted in by professionals who work in the field.

To make the UK a fairer place to live, not one where the rich avoid paying their fair share towards society. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

Kingsley Road runs alongside two primary schools and is used by pedestrians, cyclists, cars and buses. After much campaigning by Kingsley Community Primary School, a zebra crossing has been added to the road, however many cars still speed through it and ignore pedestrians crossing the road. In order to make the road safer for all road users, we the undersigned propose reducing the speed limit to 20mph and enforcing it with a speed camera. Residents who live on Kingsley Road have reported that it is difficult to reverse out of their driveways currently, as other cars drive past so fast. A child from Kingsley School has been involved in an incident on the road. Many parents with children at the schools are in favour of reducing the speed limit, as are local residents. There is no need for this road to have a 30mph speed limit. A driver driving at 20mph is far less likely to be involved in a road collision than one driving at 30mph.

We are continually told by Government that privatisation or the involvement of the private sector is the cure for all economic woes. The NHS is suffering from creeping privatisation, the national rail system was sold off years ago and the government is currently selling off executive agencies such as Ordnance Survey regardless of the business case. However they appear to be strangely reluctant to apply their policies at the heart of government by selling off their own premises. About £3.5 billion will need to be spent in the next few years on repairing the Palace of Westminster in the least expensive option considered. The buildings are apparently subsiding and are in any case very vulnerable to rising sea levels. The government should accept the logic of their own policies and relieve us of this expensive burden by relocating to a less expensive location (possibly an out-of-town retail area with good communications), and to complete the package outsource their day-to-day support services to one of the many out-sourcing companies they consider competent to manage hospitals, prisons and the rail network.