A group of French MPs has tabled a draft law to make it compulsory for supermarkets to hand over all unsold food still fit for consumption to charity. Many supermarket chains in France already donate unsold produce to charities, but 63 MPs from across the political spectrum would like to see the practice enshrined in law. Late in July, they tabled a draft bill making it compulsory for supermarkets with 1,000 square metres (10,800 sq ft) of floor space to give their “unsold but still consumable food products to at least one food charity”. Belgium became the first European country to introduce a similar a law in May. Given that the UK is facing an ever-more worrying reliance on food banks, shouldn’t we be thinking along these lines too? Under the next 5 years of Conservative government, people will be encouraged to live an ever-more healthy life-style to reduce the pressure on the NHS. What better way to do this than to ensure the most needy have access to fresh fruit and vegetables and other basic essentials they currently can only class as a luxury if on benefits or a very low income? I propose an even more logical solution: Those of us who are lucky enough to be able to afford wonderful groceries delivered to our doorstep could donate an extra £2 per purchase to ensure that fresh fruit and veg and other essential groceries are delivered to someone in need en route to our homes. You might be utterly surprised, David Cameron, just how many of us would be willing to sign up to such a scheme, thus ensuring the sick, disabled and elderly have a much-needed helping hand. Please consider this idea very seriously as it is based upon pure logic and the sharing of resources that are currently simply wasted.

Life for a person who is disabled whether it be a physical or a mental disability is hard enough already. People never chose to be disabled and it can happen to anyone at anytime. There are many many more humane ways to save money and a society who does not care for the less fortunate of it's people is doomed, history teaches us that time and time again. The disabled and sick should have never been demonized in the press, even the disabled peoples doctors are being ignored or seen as in collusion with their patients to"sponge" off of the state, in most cases this is categorically untrue. Most of us know directly or indirectly someone who suffers from a mental or a physical disability can we as a civilized society stand by and watch the most vulnerable in our society being targeted yet again as an easy attempt to claw back money while the bankers and large corporations get away with it again. Do we as civilized people condone this behavior as right or just?

Access to Work has provided a lot of disabled people with the independence to work. Without access to work, disabled people will not be able to do their jobs fully or not at all. Since this petition was started the day after the general election we have over 8,000 signatures. This shows how many of you take this petition to heart. I thank you for all your support and we still need more signatures. Once we have reached over 10,000 this petition will be taken to Lindsay Hoyle MP. Many thanks for your support. We also need to educate the public about Access to Work - what is it? The general public are mostly unaware and if we make them aware we will get more support. I will be updating this petition soon with more info on A2W and what it is to help a better understanding for everyone. Please keep circling this petition without your support we would have not got this far. We need more signatures. Share. We also need to hear from you. How has it effected you? If you have not joined the FB group yet. Please do so and share your story. We need to educate people why we need support in our employment. How do we feel without support? Inferior? More here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/hours-after-the-election-the-dwp-says-it-is-looking-to-cut-a-disabled-access-to-work-scheme-10237191.html

If this country is going to be economically successful then it is vital to ensure that people who need it, have a support system in place to take care of them at their greatest time of need. People do not choose to be ill or disabled, therefore it makes no sense to penalise these people, either morally or economically. During the election campaign the Prime Minister spoke a great deal about his disabled son, who is now, very sadly no longer with us, therefore, I cannot believe that such a person adopts policies which takes vital support money away from this group of people. To any sensible economist this flies in the face of what normal conventional wisdom tells you should be done when an economy is in trouble. Having studied micro macro and global economics, I am aware that conventional wisdom, and common sense dictates that you adopt a spending policy in order to help the country to recover. After all one mans spending money is another man's wages. Another reason this system must be abolished now is that there are more than one million appeal cases pending. The success rate of these appeals indicates that by far the majority of the people who claim these benefits are people who are in genuine need. Finally, I think it is an absolute disgrace that the hardworking doctors, nurses and GP's are having their diagnosis and medical notes questioned in this way, which is very disrespectful and shows a lack of gratitude for the fantastic work they do, without which none of us would be here. This action represents privatisation of the Benefit system and the NHS back the back door as the result of employing a profit making American company, whose employees are paid bonuses for achieving their target figures of refusing or denying the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country access to money which they need just to fulfill their basic needs, and meet their most basic human rights of having enough money to feed themselves and any family they may have, warmth and shelter. Therefore, for the sake of the recovery of the economy, and the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country, I would implore you to abolish this unworkable system immediately.

Malcolm Burge set fire to himself in Cheddar Gorge, after being told he was subject to court action for £800 by Newham Borough Council, after his Housing Benefit was cut in half. Malcolm had written often to Newham Borough Council to tell them that he couldn't pay, he had never had that amount of money, and that he was suicidal. Also, David Clapson, who died after his benefits were stopped. He then had no money for food, had no money for electric to keep the fridge going that had his insulin in. The coroner stated that David had no food in his stomach and £3.44 in the bank. Esther McVey (The previous Employment Minister) stated to MPs that there is no link between the deaths and the sanctioning policy and that 'we ensured that all of our processes correctly'. If there is no link between the stopping of benefits and the deaths of 49 benefit recipients, why won't the DWP release the reviews? The sanctioning policy needs to reviewed when used in relation to vulnerable people, not used as a blanket policy.

This plan is ridiculous, degrading and a breach of our human rights. Not allowing us to have any cash at all is an unwise and unworkable idea, because some things do require cash, e.g. travelling on the bus, buying fresh vegetables and fruit from a farmer's market, using vending machines, using a trolley at the supermarket, buying second-hand clothes from a car boot sale. The poor often buy second-hand goods in charity shops, car boot sales and Ebay. Many buy books and worksheets for their children, plus toys and Christmas presents, and benefit cards would take all of that away from them. Many parents are desperate for work but cannot find any. Some are so severely unwell or disabled that they are unlikely to ever work at all, even though they want to. Some are financially ruined in family courts while getting divorced. Anyone can fall into it. Almost 80% of middle class families are greatly helped by their parents and/or grandparents, but not everyone is so lucky. If, for instance, you were to tell a person who has worked all of their life, but has recently become unemployed through no fault of their own (e.g. redundancy), that they can't even buy a magazine or go for a coffee with a friend, it would be ridiculous, and being told what to do like a naughty child would be degrading. It would also be ridiculous, and degrading, for them to be dictated to by the government and be told "You can't have any cash, you can only spend money in these shops, you can have this but you can't have that, because we say so." Iain Duncan-Smith, whose idea it is, has not said exactly when he intends to push his plans through, and what worries me the most is how far he and the rest of the government intend to dictate to benefit claimants what they can and cannot spend their money on. Just what else, exactly, will the government define as irresponsible spending? Will they tell us that we can't buy a laptop, a t-shirt, an item of stationery or pet food, for instance? The bottom line is, benefit claimants do not deserve to be treated like criminals or naughty children, especially if they are sick or disabled and/or are doing everything the DWP ask of them. The whole idea needs a lot more thinking through before the government even think about rolling it out, so that benefit claimants can continue to live their lives in peace and dignity. All of the stereotypes you hear about in the media are rubbish - they are designed to blinker, divide and sway people. Being unemployed is not a crime, therefore we shouldn't be punished for it - we are no less deserving of human rights than those who are lucky enough to have a job. You can read more about the proposals here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/30/tories-prepaid-benefit-cards-welfare-poverty

Carers are classed as unemployed yet they get payed less than current unemployed levels. Carers work 24/7 without recognition, Carers at a minimum, need to receive the same amount of Benefits as the unemployed and refine their roles as employed with all rights. Care payments are also taxable so they should be given the same rights as anyone that is working and the same support regardless of their ability to have another Job along with being a care giver. For many caring for someone that has a disability is a 24/7 Job with no holiday pay and no other way of gaining an income. Being a Carer receiving £61.35 a wk whilst the unemployed receive £72.50. As a Carer on £61.35 wk we have to pay our own eye tests and prescriptions, the unemployed don't!! It costs over £500 wk to look after someone in Care but home Carers receive £61.35 wk. Carers save the economy more than £120billion yr but Carers only receive £61.35 wk. Why don't you allow a Carer some Airtime? Lets also be very clear on the Carers Allowance, its a deduction of Benefits the person Being Cared for would normally receive, so in real terms I'm robbing Peter to pay Paul( no pun intended) Its a mockery of the system and abuse of situation. Thousands are giving up work to look after a loved one. We also have over 800.000 kids who receive nothing for the caring they provide whilst missing out on growing up as a child should, enjoying a childhood. Again this wont get Airtime unless we take our concerns directly to those responsible. This Government must stop paying lip service to Carers, they are a vital to the Economy. The SNP have now committed to this.

Access to Work isn't a benefit and doesn't incur a cost to government - in fact it brings money into the treasury, yet Deaf and disabled people are having their support allowance capped or cuts made (meaning they can no longer afford to use qualified interpreters or the support they need). This places jobs at risk and has already resulted in job losses and demotions. People currently in work are potentially being forced out of work and onto benefits, which goes against everything the government is telling us they are trying to achieve. Deaf and disabled people bring a vast amount of skill and talent to our workforce that we can't afford to lose. We want to ensure that full support is provided, and people are enabled to gain, maintain and progress in their chosen careers. Personal choice and control needs to be handed back to the experts on Deaf and disabled access needs in the workplace - the individual Deaf and disabled people who use the scheme We want to ensure Deaf and disabled people are not subjected to a glass ceiling due to lack of support.

People who reach age 60 and are unemployed have very little chance of finding employment. Technology alone will account for too many redundancies. Youth unemployment is at an all time high and in many cases earlier retirement will free up jobs for them. Many of the younger generation need to be given a chance to work and raising the retirement age is only making things worse for them. To expect people to work longer and longer before they retire is based on the premise that people are living longer. Yet that does not apply to every segment of society; it is just an average. No government should be basing the age of retirement on average life expectancy. These figures are warped! Instead, they need to look at the areas of UK with lower life expectancy and base the age of retirement on that figure, minus at least five years for men and women. Otherwise the wealthy, who have longer life expectancies overall, are the only ones who will get to enjoy their retirement. The people who have slogged their whole lives MAY live to their age of retirement, but what will their quality of life be? So many are already ill when they retire. This is totally wrong and needs to be addressed by MPs. An optional retirement age of 60 takes account of those differences and would not stop those in good health continuing to work should they wish to. It would be a much fairer system all round if people were given that choice. As a bonus, this would reduce the costs of operating huge bureaucracies such as The Department for Work and Pensions, who at present continue to push older people into employment that is just not there, (and please, lets be honest for once, it really isn't), often including those who are sick and disabled. People having to sign on in their 60s is ridiculous. They deserve more dignity than that. This money would be better spent on helping younger people into work and the older people to retire. Many have worked all their lives since they were 15 and I don't feel you took any of this into account when you changed the retirement age drastically for women born in the 1950s, . Some have not been able to work all the time, due to ill-health or raising families, but this doesn't matter. We are a welfare state and all should be treated equally. Not only will they work longer than the next generation, who's education tends to continue for longer, but they're supposed to continue working for 51 years in all! It's ludicrous! No-one should be forced to work that long. We shouldn't be treated like "stock", we should be treated like people, which is what we are. Lowering the retirement age would enable younger people to pay into the system and their own pensions, which in turn helps the economy. Letting the young stagnate while bullying the old, the sick, the disabled people into work which they have little chance of obtaining, is not to anyone's benefit! It was right that the EU wanted us to equalize ages of retirement for men and women. In this regard, men had been discriminated against for too long. It was wrong, however, to make women born in the 1950s to bear the brunt of those changes. The age for men to retire should have been reduced to 60. This would have been a much more equitable way to resolve the discrimination. Many people die in their 60s and earlier, in spite of statistics, and the way things stand now, some people will be forced to work until they die, without a chance to retire! I personally have lost two good friends to illness when they were only in their early 50s. Another friend had a stroke at 39. My uncle died aged 36 of a heart attack. I could go on. These are real people, not statistics. People who retire at 60 still have much to give to society. Allow them the opportunity to enjoy their retirement on a state pension and free them up to contribute to society in ways that differ from paid work. At the same time, give the youngsters a chance to participate fully in society. Many have never had that chance! Reducing the optional retirement age to 60, while allowing people to work longer should they wish to, is a win win situation for everybody. Not everything is about money, though it seems to have become that way in the UK. Besides, importantly, people have paid for their pensions. They are not a benefit. They are a right!

In times of austerity, the Queen should not be exempt from the cuts that affect people with far less money than she has. We're constantly being told by the government that we are "all in this together", however it seems that in every reform it's always the poorest who are hit the hardest. This year the queen was given a £5 million "pay rise" after a new system of paying the monarchy came into force.Apparently she owns all of OUR country's sea-shore! Meaning that she gets "royalties" for EVERY type of energy -oil,gas,wind,wave, - that crosses HER shoreline.Her annual tax-free government grant has been set at £36.1 million for 2013/14 and will rise accordingly every year. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-handed-pay-rise-5-1806123 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.html The queen is estimated to be worth about £17 Billion - much of it made through wars around the world and the arms trade: in other words, she Profits from Human suffering - as all her ancestors have since 1066 A.D. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm6P5sDXs3k Yet at the same time people across this country are struggling to cope as the bedroom tax makes it harder and harder to make ends meet each month. The queen should pay the bedroom tax on her hundreds and hundreds of ornate and unused bedrooms - as a sign that we really are all in this together. Since I first instigated this Petition, we have had to pay 'William and Kate's decoration Expenses at Kensington Palace and also the increased Security Costs for the ever extending royal family Also, queenie has just been granted £76,000,000 for repairs at 'buck hice' (you and I will have to make do with Ikea and Homebase). I had to pay £120 per hour in order to gain MY pilot's Licence. I wonder how much Wills and Harry and Charlie and Stavros (Philips nickname in aristocratic circles) had to pay to get theirs'

To promote positive change West Bromwich Albion football club

Legacy benefit ESA lost out in the £20 uplift and DWP are going to do it to us again by moving us over to Universal Credit.