Legal Spark was formed as a result of the crisis in legal aid. People were going without representation because they could not afford a lawyer. This is particularly the case for disabled people. No one else would do this type of work, as it was deemed too expensive, not financially viable and also too complex. Daniel Donaldson, a disabled Solicitor, set up Legal Spark with the Support of the Scottish Institute for Enterprise under their Young Innovators Challenge 2015 programme. Daniel wanted to develop creative solutions to help people access justice and to fix the exclusion that disabled people face from the legal system. Daniel spent one year talking to the Law Society about this issue, highlighting that it was important that everyone could access a lawyer. Legal Spark consulted with the Chief Executive (Lorna Jack), the Head of Professional Practice, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (James Ness) and the Secretary to the Civil Legal Aid Quality Assurance Committee (Hannah Sayers) amongst others. A document was prepared that explained what Legal Spark was planning to do. The Law Society accepted this document and did not object. The Law Society encouraged Legal Spark and found their approach "refreshing" and "innovative". Legal Spark was granted permission to do Legal Aid work in November 2015, and a compliance certificate was issued in December 2015. Legal Spark began helping the many disabled people that needed their help and began to have success. In April 2016, the Law Society decided that they had made an "error" and instructed Legal Spark to stop all Legal Aid work by Thursday 30 June 2016. By this stage, Legal Spark had a number of clients, with active and complex cases, some of which were about to go to Court. "A" is one such client. They had experienced awful disability discrimination from a University. They were not given adequate support to help them during a course, and had to leave. Additionally, Legal Spark uncovered evidence that the University's staff had used "unprofessional language" in their approach to "A". This case has now been lodged in Court. "B" is another client adversely affected by this decision. B is also disabled and is housebound. They had tried to find a lawyer for sometime but because of their rural location in the Highlands there were no Solicitors available to help. Legal Spark took on this case and was successful (in part) in achieving a resolution for B. However, because B had been adversely affected by a decision of Highland Council, and had lost out financially, the case may need to go to Court. B is unable to find anyone else to help them. These are only two examples of where Legal Spark is making a difference, there are others too. Since establishing Legal Spark, Daniel Donaldson has not drawn a salary and has used some of his own money to sustain the Legal Practice while it develops and is able to stand on its own feet. Legal Spark has also grown to enable it to employ staff and provide much need paid employment to some disabled people and unemployed law graduates. The Legal Aid certificate meant that Legal Spark could help people who could not access help elsewhere. Now "A", "B" and other will have to go without representation because of the Law Society of Scotland's failures. The Law Society's Chief Executive (Lorna Jack)says that they have to act in the public interest. The Director of Regulation (Philip Yelland) shares this view. 1. Where is the public interest in denying disabled people representation? 2. Also, where is the public interest is giving permission to do Legal Aid work only to revoke that permission 6 months later? The Law Society say that there are other Solicitors who can help, however this is not true. Legal Spark contacted 134 Civil Legal Aid lawyers with advertised specialism in discrimination law. Even the biggest Legal Aid firm in Scotland could not help. The Law Society has said that this will cause Legal Spark’s disabled client’s “inconvenience”. This is an offensive comment; they have never met any client, they have ignored client’s opinions, and also refused to acknowledge that they will suffer substantial prejudice in their cases because of the Law Society’s decision. This petition is addressed to the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. It is important that you fulfil your roles correctly. Overturn your decision to stop Legal Spark doing legal aid work, remedy the mistake you have made and apologise. This is the only way you can restore public trust and continue to say you act in the public interest. Allow Legal Spark, and their clients the opportunity to continue to work together for the public interest and tackle the horrors faced by disabled people on a daily basis.

As the ringleader of the Brexit campaign he has no right to stay in the European Parliament. He is an embarrassment to the UK and offensive to our European counterparts. He has run away now that the referendum has happened as have the others, the best he could do is give up his seat in a house he doesn't want to be in. Equally he should never be allowed to stand for this role again. As his campaign was based on the lie of diverting a false amount to the NHS he should divert any pension from the EU (that he has pushed us to leave) and give it to a charity associated with the NHS.

The health of the environment is crucial to our ability to survive. Climate change is one of the biggest environmental issues facing us. In order to ensure future generations life on a healthy planet, the UK needs to make itself liable to act on the pledges made at the COP21 summit to cut carbon emissions. We cannot allow Brexit to cloud the importance of addressing the international impacts of climate change.

This will help decrease the democratic deficit in the UK, and will abolish the argument that 16+ year olds are clueless about politics. Our aims also include to educate the basics of taxing, saving and living well with money, eradicating debt in our future generations lives.

This is important to safeguard the future of the Post Office network into the future. Safeguard the futures of the workers and their pensions but also the Post Office being a vital part of both communities and the UK high street

The North East of England includes some of the poorest and most deprived areas of Britain and indeed of the European Union. The people here in the North East were warned that the EU would extend and that they would lose the desperately needed funds they currently receive from the EU. They voted with a promise of not just the status quo, but of improved wealth and opportunity for the working classes. This was said to be due to the British government taking back control and being able to use our government created money supply, free from EU involvement, to ensure a better life for everyone. This now needs to happen as promised not only to prevent hardship & suffering, but to give the next generation the opportunities promised. We ask for anyone who believes the justice and fairness if worth fighting for to support this campaign to get the British government to make the fair and just decision.

Hartlepool is a city of 100,000 people. Our General Hospital, later called the University Hospital of Hartlepool, covered not just that population, but another 100,000 people in towns and villages to the North of Hartlepool. Since the closure of our Accident Emergency and the moving of many of our services from our state of the art modern hospital to another hospital to the South, some fifteen miles away of Hartlepool, there have been higher than expected annual death rates; to the extent that it has become a matter of concern. it takes a full extra 30 minutes to arrive at A&E from Hartlepool, and it takes more than an hour to arrive at that same overcrowded A&E from other local areas. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/07/14/article-0-141053F5000005DC-371_634x729.jpg The ill and infirm, and anyone who wishes to visit them, have a very long journeys when sick, or to visit. This is intolerable hardship when a hospital still stands which could serve all the needs of the local population. This not only increases the financial hardship in terms of travelling costs, but it increases travelling times and the need to travel for all of the staff too. To add to this all of the data regarding privatisation has shown that patients are not the first priority. Fortunately we have been promised that a fully funded national service is now within our remit and a solid possibility, and this will better serve the population and less profit will go to large business based in other countries. We ask for direct funding to again have the NHS and the Hospital which our society deserves.

Democracy and the future of the outdoor pool! Future of the pool! The pool is outdated and needs investment. The lining is cutting children's feet and may fail at any time, resulting in a hefty bill or the closure of the pool. Democracy! We voted for the pool to be refurbished and it is not being refurbished. The decision has been made by a councillor from Wantage, so we can't even vote her out! Three explanations have been given by the Vale. 1) It is too expensive: but the Vale have not got any estimates from pool contractors, or assessed what could be done with the 307,500 which would be half of the available capital budget. 2) Non-voters have to be considered: the Vale have also said that although 81% of people who voted chose Option A, this was only 3206 people in Abingdon (about 10%), and so the vote can be ignored. This is not democratic... and very concerning. Only the views of those that participate in democracy can contribute to democratic process. In fact, this had the highest participation of any consultation ever held in Abingdon, reflecting the importance of this issue. If everyone in Abingdon had voted, perhaps the majority would have been even higher! We just left the EU on a 4% difference with 28% non-participation, but apparently democracy only applies to the 'big' decisions 3) That we 'misunderstood' the consultation and that refurbishment meant 'repair' and not capital investment: I made a formal complaint to the Vale on this matter, the response to the complaint concluded that we did not in fact misunderstand anything and that 'the current planned works are not consistent with the description of scenario A in the consultation... anyone 'voting' for scenario A and contributing to the 81% overwhelming preference for scenario A would be disappointed with the council's planned works'

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DETAILS ON HOW TO CONTACT YOUR MP. EDM243 states: That this House notes that the EU membership referendum was lost by only 1.25 million votes, 1.9 per cent; further notes that 3.7 million people have called for a second referendum in a petition as the winning margin was less than 60 per cent and the turnout less than 75 per cent; notes that the decision is binding on future generations; notes that the pledges to reinvest £350 million in the NHS and to curb immigration on which voters relied have been withdrawn; believes that UK citizens must agree on the terms of leaving the EU and, if not satisfied, be given the opportunity to opt for the UK to remain an EU member; calls on the Government to ensure that there will be a referendum allowing UK citizens to agree on the terms of the UK-EU exit package and associated constitutional changes or on the option to remain; and further believes that this referendum should be called before Article 50 is triggered.

Lack or work life balance destroys family life. The UK is near the top of the list of countries for working the longest hours. As a teacher and union rep I have seen that overwork causes stress and mental and physical illness. Taking away the working time directive due to leaving the EU will only make this worse as it will take away the protection of breaks in the working day and the limit to hours overall. The law gives EU workers the right to a minimum number of holidays each year, rest breaks, and rest of at least 11 hours in any 24 hours; restricts excessive night work; a day off after a week's work; and provides for a right to work no more than 48 hours per week.

It is utter hypocrisy for you to continue to draw your salary after June 2016. You should go out and look for a proper job.

Not only do Cornwall's farmers and fisherman currently receive benefits from the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy but the county has received tens of millions of pounds a year in structural and convergence funds to support local economic growth and communities. In the 2014-2020 budget Cornwall had been allocated 592 million euros. Should Britain leave the EU before 2020 it is essential that this allocation is matched to continue the growth and development which Cornwall needs.