While I’m making a lot of noise about 16 to 19 year olds, anybody up to 21 shouldn’t be ruled out. Young people of this age are highly likely to become mentally unwell. Making them homeless is only going to make the situation worse. There is guidance in place to tell councils that they need to consider issues like this that might make young people vulnerable – but this misses the point. Young people will always be vulnerable, they need a different kind of guidance and support than people with more life experience. It also isn’t right for councils to wait for illnesses to develop before taking action. This is the same message that is intended to be sent out by the Homelessness Reduction Bill. The lives of young people and the jobs of the people that support them will be affected by this ban. I’m asking that Lord Best take action while he can, and change the Bill to protect the UK’s children. An open and more detailed letter to Lord Best is available to view here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AwbhN8UGMdmINxXTDMGytM30E-NmrSjsbIRUHoUak9c/edit?usp=sharing

The anxiety caused by worrying that benefits will be cut can make a range of conditions worse by increasing stress and anxiety. making work related activities voluntary for people in the support may help them feel more comfortable and encouraged and give them better success in getting off benefits. the added anxiety will prevent people accessing the support the green paper aims to offer. those with mental illnesses will be affected very badly as the additional stress and anxiety could exasperate the problem however encouragement to voluntarily get involved in work related activities could help some people to gain the confidence to get back into work and come off benefits.

The Potting Shed@Radstock is an important resource for local people who suffer with mental health and isolation issues. Closing the project will result in the loss of a valuable wellbeing project and a possible route into employment for people living in Radstock and the surrounding areas. Many people have benefited from the project. The community also benefits from the project. It makes no financial sense for the Trustees to charge the group rent and water charges to maintain the gardens voluntarily, as without the group they will need to pay a gardening contractor to do the same work. Without a Support Worker managing the project and encouraging people to attend the project is doomed to fail.

As the North East is one of the most unemployed areas in the country, an additional loss of around 400 jobs, on top of the jobs lost last year from steel works closures, would be a massive loss to the area and would also see a number of families left without an income.

I am a disabled UK tax payer that had nothing to do with the state of the UKs finances and myself and every over disabled person in the UK can't be punished anymore.

Over the last few years the MoD has thrown away an increasing number of ORPs (ration packs). Last year they threw away over 12,000 ORPs. That's over 12,000 meals, balanced and high energy, suitable for consumption by someone who has no access to cooking facilities, just dumped. 12,000 people who could have been fed went hungry. And at no cost to the MoD, these meals could have been made available to charities for collection and distribution. This is a terrible example of needless waste.

It is unethical to profit from a very vulnerable, although massive percentage of the population, in the name of progress. Quality of life has to be a major contributory factor when people are kept alive and "well". How can society justify this unethical practice when all we can offer is a longer life (with the help of medicines) for a great deal of these people who often live in misery and isolation with at best, for many, a 15 minute call from a carer, which may be the only human contact they have on a daily basis, at worst no human contact for several days at a time? My elderly parents (both in their 90's) are fortunate, as they have 5 caring children, who assist in the domestic, shopping , transport, outings and upkeep of their home. Others are not so fortunate. We need to campaign to look at solutions to this ever growing challenge of making the elderly a target for government often directing their "blame" for the state of our health and social care services. They don't just need basic care, but recreation and socialisation to ensure a good quality of life. Ian Wright my local MP (Hartlepool) has ignored my email so please help with this campaign to raise awareness of this plight on behalf of our elderly population and get at least a debate in Parliament on this emotive issue. We owe it to them.

Holders of NHS Tax Credit Exemption Certificates are disadvantaged by low incomes and sometimes by medical conditions. This might make keeping track of the certificates expiry date difficult and treatment may be unknowingly accessed when the certificate has recently expired. The current system enforced by the NHS Business Services Authority targets vulnerable people in various ways. Firstly they do not send any reminders when the certificate is due to expire - can you imagine if insurers took the same approach! Secondly if your card has expired and you receive medical treatment, even though you might still meet the criteria to be eligible for free treatment you will still be fined. I found this out first hand. Thirdly this fine is approximately 200% of the cost of the medical treatment. I offered to pay the cost of treatment but that wasn't enough, the NHS are demanding a 200% fine - how is this fair? Lastly when you are told of the fine the letter tells you that if you still met the exemption criteria to call them. I tried this and when you call they reprimand you for the certificate expiring and are not interested that you were still exempt. If the financial industry worked in this way the ombudsman and or government would take action to resolve this. The NHS is actively discriminating against vulnerable people and making their situation worse. How can this be legal? It certainly isn't ethical and I want to start this campaign to protect others who find themselves in this situation. Please sign and demand a fair and just situation for vulnerable people.

At the moment there is no set national legislation for rights and responsibilities for taxi companies towards guide dogs and their owners. This is currently dealt with on a regional level and not a national one. Nationally, there are no penalties in place to deter these companies, or their drivers from refusing guide dogs with their owners. Our aim is to impose penalties on drivers and the companies that they work for if they refuse anybody with a guide dog. Refusing guide dogs and their owners by taxi companies leaves individuals in a precarious and vulnerable position, especially if they are out at night. This needs to be stopped.

The people using these facilities are friends and family! With the amount of housing being put in surrounding the town, this problem can only get worse and our parents and grandparents will be the ones to suffer. They are some of the most vulnerable in our society and they deserve the best care and facilities that we are able to provide. The care provided by Eskgreen and The Hollies is second to none but they provide that care, in spite of the chronic under investment made by our council and government.

New babies and mother's are leaving hospital too early. This is affected the babies ability to learn to feed. This is potentially lethal and inhibits a new mothers confidence to continue to breast feed. Such babies miss out on the gifts that breast feeding provides such as increased immunity and decreased sensitivity to food allergens aswell as the emotional bond and comfort breast feeding provides.

Other counties such as Nottinghamshire, Devonshire, East Sussex do pay for companion bus passes for carers of disabled people. They get grants for the government to do it. It is a discretionary thing not a mandatory. However, Lack of the findings for other counties is jeopardising people's independence as it is unfair and immoral for carers to having to pay to go on a bus with a disabled person.